Future Leaders--and a Bag Full of Tricks and Treats

October 31, 2009

Introduction

Taking into consideration advice from friends and readers of the blog's first post, I will do my utmost to make this post shorter. Still, we all remember the saying about the best-laid plans. I will do my best, though. If for some reason you have no idea who I am or why you might be receiving this, read the blog's first post, as it should answer some of your questions.

Though I always endeavor to post each week, there are times life does get in the way. I hope that things will settle into a routine, but as with life itself, there are no guarantees. With that said, here are some of my musings from the previous week. Happy Halloween!

And a Child Shall Lead Them…

Well, at least, that's the hope. Wednesday, October 28, was Illinois Youth with Disabilities Legislative Action and Rally Day. The event was organized through collaboration between Illinois youth and youth workers working under the name Real Educated Active Disabled Youth (READY) with the strong support and cooperation of Access Living's Youth and Education Team. Access Living is the largest Center for Independent Living in Illinois and one of the largest in the country. Amber Smock and Adam Ballard headed its team.

The goal for the day was to bring young people from all across the state to Springfield and let them engage in grassroots advocacy on the political level. The idea was to let them meet their own state representatives and senators and tell these sometimes seemingly larger-than-life people what was on their minds. It is a great concept and something that seems to be happening across the country within the disability community.

Amber and Adam were great as leaders for all the kids or young adults, I should say. I suppose I'm letting my age show there. There was a contingent from Champaign that came and really seemed fired up. Yet, to quote the Bard, therein lies the rub.

Other groups from Alton, Carbondale, and other parts of the state said they were also going to come. Yet, for whatever reason, they could not make it. Many said they couldn't find enough young people who wanted to participate, while others might not have seen the need to take part. That is a true shame, as this was definitely an educational opportunity for both younger and older adults.

Many young adults who came to the event, as well as many more that did not, really are the future of the disability rights movement in Illinois. That might not happen in the next month, year, or decade, but it will happen. Those of us currently holding leadership positions, and I don't include myself in that list, need to realize that every time we do not take advantage of a situation like this, we are losing one more opportunity to ensure the fight for equality, civil rights, and independence continues.

Now, keep your powder dry. Many of these young adults are in no way ready to become leaders and need much more education, guidance, and training in advocacy before they are ready to take up the fight. None of us needs to sit on the backbench right now. If anything is true, we need to be front and center, visible to everyone, and full throated in our calls for equality in the face of discrimination. We need to be examples for our youth and not just caretakers. We need to show them how to advocate and not just tell them.

I do not want anyone coming away from what I write, though, with the idea that the Legislative Action Day was, in any way, a disappointment or failure. In fact, it was just the opposite. I think the young adults and those of us who aren't so young left the Capitol with a clearer picture of the legislative process. I can't say it was a pretty picture, as politics can sometimes be almost painful to watch. Nonetheless, everyone left a bit more educated and realistic about what we need to do. That is something beneficial to all of us, especially when we think we know all there is to know.

Still, I will leave you with this caveat. If we are going to say we advocate, if we are going to call ourselves disability rights activists, if we are going to speak about change and make noise about how people need to listen to us, then those same people need to see us. We cannot hide in our various corners of the state, hoping that someone else does the work for us. We do not have the privilege of saying that we will definitely get involved the next time something like this comes along. If those of us in the disability community do not see fit to get involved when there are those almost begging us to commit our time and energy, please tell me what, then, we are actually doing.

I am sure my bluntness might offend some people who read this. Unfortunately, the time for gentle coaxing and ego stroking has passed. Leaders must lead, and sometimes that means by example. We should never put a quota on advocacy. If one young person in some part of the state wanted to come and be part of this event, that should have been enough impetus to get him or her to Springfield. We do not have the luxury of getting to choose our fights on a case-by-case basis. Nor do we have the time to sit on the sidelines, while others do our work for us.

There are times I fear things are happening right before our eyes, and we do not even notice them because other things, smaller things, take precedence. I know we all have our jobs to do. Yet, no matter our title, at the crux of it all, we are advocates first. If not, why do we go to rallies? Why do we spend hours in committee hearings, just waiting for our bill to be called? Why do we write letters or send emails to convince someone our point of view is legitimate? Why do we call a legislator's office so many times that the legislative aide knows us on a first name basis?

We need to accomplish those smaller things to keep offices and organizations running. There is no shame or any less importance in that, and it was not my intention to imply anything of the sort. However, if that is how we spend all our time, we really do need a wake-up call. Let the young adults, hungry for knowledge and eager to follow our example, serve as the reminder we need. Complacency is not an option. Distance and hardships are not excuses. If civil rights activists in 1965 never crossed the Pettus Bridge in Alabama, where would we be today? In the face of great adversity or apathy, we must fight our own human nature to rest on our laurels. Perseverance is a learned reaction to the worst situation, and it is up to us to keep learning—and teaching.

One Is the Loneliest Number

Apparently, Sarah Palin is not the only public figure going rogue these days. Sen. Joe Lieberman, (I) Connecticut, has vowed to join the Republicans and filibuster any health-care reform bill with a public option that comes before the Senate. It seems odd that Lieberman would do this, considering he has always opposed a filibuster even for bills with which he disagreed, like the Iraq war vote or making sure George W. Bush's judicial appointments got through the Senate. Yet, now, Lieberman decides a filibuster is the only way to stop this dreaded public option from adding too much competition to the health care insurance industry. Obviously, he must be a man of strong moral fiber with a commitment to do what is right for the American people.

Still, something does not quite seem right about all this. I want to try to put the pieces together. A majority of people in his home state, a number somewhere near 68%, supports the public option. Why would Lieberman then be against it? It couldn't be that Connecticut is home to 72 health insurance companies, could it? It has three times the US national average of health insurance jobs as a total state employment percentage. Over the last few years, those insurance companies have given Lieberman millions of dollars in campaign contributions. You don't think those contributions could play a role in his sudden epiphany that a filibuster is the only way to control these scary Democrats from taking valuable customers away from nearly indigent health insurance companies, do you? This is all so confusing.

However, one thing does seem very clear. When Lieberman won reelection in 2008 with the Democrats firmly in control of the Senate, he was given, by their good graces, the gift of Homeland Security Committee chairmanship. That is quite a reward for someone who campaigned against a Democratic candidate for president, even though that same candidate campaigned for Lieberman during his primary struggle in Connecticut. The problem for Little Joey, as I affectionately call him, among other things, is that the committee chairmanship is not a lifetime appointment, meaning the Democratic leadership in the Senate could strip him of that title as they see fit. Therefore, the real question becomes how much Lieberman wants to keep that committee chairmanship as opposed to taking part in a Republican filibuster.

The answer seemed to come from Joe himself. When asked recently by a reporter if he would be willing to lose that committee chairmanship as a ramification of filibustering with Republicans, his response was, "Oh, God no." That appeared to be a strange response, at least, to me. Did Joe not realize that he could lose that nice, comfortable position for behaving badly? Perhaps, he thought his actions would carry no consequences. One way or another, I think Joe didn't know.

Of course, only time will tell what actually happens with or to Lieberman. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Evan Bayh from Indiana, who vaguely threatened a filibuster with the Republicans have since walked back their statements. That leaves Joe all alone. Either he's relishing the moment, or he's beginning to wonder how much weight that branch will hold.

Political Round-up

This portion of the blog will touch on different areas in politics—on a national, state, and even local level—that interest and/or infuriate me. However, I will not usually spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on them. Below are a few things that come to mind this time around the horn.

• After a decade long battle, advocates for various minority groups celebrated Wednesday, October 28, when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which expanded federal hate crimes protection to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. That may sound like a strange juxtaposition—combining hate crimes protection and a $680 billion defense authorization bill. That is the game called politics. During George W. Bush’s two terms, he swore to veto any hate crimes expansion that came across his desk. Yet, because this version of hate crimes protection deliberately was attached to a “must-pass” defense-spending bill, it was almost impossible for it to fail. It was a clever move by the Democratic congress and the Obama administration

More important than political wrangling, however, is the fact that the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) community now has a civil right against being the target of hate crimes. They have waited too long, and it should not take brutal beatings that lead to death to bring about such a change. To me, what has not been covered nearly enough by national media within this same law is the new federal protection offered to people with disabilities who face hate crimes. This law is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation for groups not typically considered in the discussion about protecting minority rights. President Obama summed up this sentiment well, when he said at the signing ceremony, "No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are, or because they live with a disability."

• Illinois finally has a campaign-finance reform bill headed to the governor for signature. At least, it resembles reform. The Senate approved the bill 36-22 Friday, while the House passed the bill Thursday night with no Republican support. Individual contributions are capped at $5,000, while corporations, labor union, or associations can give no more than $10,000. However, other candidate's political committees can contribute as much as $50,000. Political parties' committees, which include legislative leaders' committees, have their contribution capped at a sliding scale from $50,000 to $200,000, depending on which state or local office a candidate is seeking.

These seem like good reforms, especially when one considers none was in place before this bill. Yet, the contribution limits only appear to be in effect for primary elections, apparently leaving in place no cap on campaign contributions during the general election. Moreover, none of these caps curbs what the legislative leaders themselves can contribute to candidates, and they are known for giving in large amounts to the candidates of their choice. Though campaign-finance reformers celebrated this victory—and with some good reason, they realized, at this moment, this bill was the best they were going to get. I am sure they will try again, but, to the unfortunate embarrassment of Democrats, I do not see the leadership willingly capping their own ability to contribute. After all, this is still Illinois.

• Finally, an interesting congressional race is shaping up in New York. In the northern part of the state, there is a three-way barn burner taking place in a special election in the 23rd District. This is a strongly Republican district, and yet, on this occasion, a conservative might beat both a Democrat and a Republican. Dede Scozzafava won the Republican primary to replace Republican John McHugh. Bill Owens is the Democrat running for the seat, and Doug Hoffman is running as the Conservative Party nominee.

Those are the facts, but the twists are where it gets interesting. Scozzafava is seen as a moderate Republican, who is pro-abortion rights and pro-gay marriage. Yet, even though she is a Republican, she does not seem to be conservative enough for the most far right-wing conservatives, some of whom not even identifying themselves as Republicans. U.S. House minority leader John Boehner and House Republican whip Eric Cantor, seen as powerful players in Washington, endorsed Scozzafava, but that seemed like it wasn’t enough. Then, again, perhaps, it was the “Godfather kiss,” as her poll numbers are now plummeting.

Hoffman garnered many endorsements from a variety of very conservative politicians, though most of them are no longer actually holding any office or never did. Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck were among those singing Hoffman's praises. Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, also endorsed Hoffman, and he was once seen as a moderate Republican himself. This scenario makes a good argument for the "strange bedfellows" axiom.

Nonetheless, these curious endorsements have lifted Hoffman in the polls to the point where it is now a statistical dead heat between him and Owens, the Democrat. This is interesting on many levels, for if the Democrat wins, many would view it as a crushing defeat for hard-core conservatives. However, if Hoffman wins, conservatives would claim an ideological victory and send a very inexperienced ingénue to the U.S. Congress. In fact, Hoffman has been criticized from both sides as having little knowledge of New York's 23rd District and the problems or concerns of its constituents. Would he be a viable congressman for that district? Well, before I add my two cents to all the different pundits' predictions, perhaps, we should see who wins first.

Tuesday will be an interesting day. If you are a political junkie like me, you have several races to watch, including the New York 23rd as well as governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with politics, the normal amount of corruption and mudslinging abound. Still, for some of us, these races seem as if we are getting early Christmas presents. The anticipation is almost too much to take, he said with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.

Ramblings from the Ranch

From the gridiron:

For those of you who don't know, the Cowboys beat Atlanta last week by a score of 37-21. As you can imagine, I was quite pleased, though there were some areas, as always, that needed improvement. Still, a win is a win, and you don't get style points in the NFL.

Miles Austin, a new player for the team to everyone but Cowboys fans, put up 171 yards and two touchdowns receiving. He's good and only getting better, which might scare some people on teams we play in the future. Of course, I will be the first to admit that he has yet to face a true shutdown corner. That will be the real test but probably not this week against Seattle. Even though they get cornerback Marcus Trufant back, their defensive line and linebackers still seem very vulnerable, which, of course, means the need for safety and possibly even corner help for the run. I predict a win, but I hasten the Cowboys not to look past Seattle to Philadelphia, even though that will be a grudge match I cannot even put into words.

Washington is falling apart at the seams, if that weren't already obvious from the way in which the owner, Daniel Snyder, managed the team during the off-season. That said, if the offense had any semblance of talent, they could have beaten Philadelphia with ease last Monday. Take away two big offensive plays and turnovers that led to points for Philly and Washington wins that game. Obviously, though, you cannot take away those plays and turnovers, but Philadelphia did not impress me in the game.

New York and Eli Manning once again showed their true colors. Arizona is never supposed to win on the East Coast, but they sure did it last Sunday night. For all the Manning worshipers out there, I hate to tell you that your idol fell back to earth, but I will. Against a good but not great Arizona defense, he threw three interceptions, the last one essentially sealing the game for Arizona. I'm not one to rub salt in wounds, but against two good teams, New York has looked flat, sluggish, and, at best, mediocre. What's worse than that? Their schedule just gets harder from this point forward.

There's a lot more to discuss about football in general, but this time, I just reserved my remarks for the NFC East. The second half of the season is quickly approaching us, and it should be fun to watch. I realize for many of you, this is your least favorite part of the blog, but what can I say? I love to write about football and especially the Cowboys. Therefore, please indulge me, as it will continue, at least, through February.

(I guess I didn't make this blog post any shorter than the last one. Believe me when I say I did try. I had much more to say, but I edited myself, though I am sure it's hard to comprehend that. Again, I do promise to try to do better next time. Thanks for reading this.)

The First Post: It's Long But Worth the Read (Hopefully)

October 20, 2009

Introduction

Hello to all of you. If you don’t know me already, my name is Tyler McHaley, and this is the first of what I hope will be many posts on my new blog, “I’m not saying, I’m just saying.” Do not let the name fool you. It may sound tongue-in-cheek, and, to some degree, it is. Yet, I hope to cover quite a few serious topics on this blog. Though I initially created it about three months ago, it took a tragedy to inspire and motivate me to start writing. I’ll go into more detail on that later in this post.

Many of you are receiving news of this post because I have your email address and thought you might be interested. Others received it because someone else forwarded it to you. Regardless of the reason, I hope you enjoy it and, even if you don’t, offer any feedback you think may be constructive.

By now, I’m sure some of you are wondering who I am or, at least, wanting to know why I’m doing this. First, I’m a 40-year-old man with a disability, cerebral palsy to be precise, and I use a power wheelchair. In December, I will receive my master’s degree in political studies from the University of Illinois at Springfield. I have another master’s in community health, which I earned in 1994 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Please don’t read about my educational background and think I’m trying to wave pieces of lambskin at you because I’ve actually accomplished so much. I wish that were true. However, those of you who know me well can attest to my being a perpetual student. It definitely may seem that way, but I want to dispel those nasty rumors now.

It’s very true I’ve been going to school for far too long. That ends in December. I worked on both master’s degrees because I couldn’t find meaningful, long-term employment, which is another subject I guarantee I’ll address very soon. However, my family always reinforced in me the need for a good education, and they were right. Still, the time comes when learning must become doing.

For years, I have told people around me, or, at least, those who would listen, what was on my mind. Those five or six persons got quite the earfuls of my opinion. Then, I realized if I think my opinions have merit—and why else would anyone start a blog?—I should have the guts to see what the blogosphere thinks. That’s why I’m putting myself out here. I want to challenge others and myself as well. It was time to get out of my head and into the world.

I am a self-affirmed political junkie, which gives insight on why I’m studying political science, though that term does read like an oxymoron, such as military intelligence or Fox News. Oh, that’s right; I’m also a self-avowed liberal and quite proud of it. I tried conservatism years ago, but it felt like a shoe that was just too tight in many, many ways. Thus, as I write about politics, it will come from a decidedly left-leaning slant. Nonetheless, I always like to hear other opinions and have lively but courteous debate. Though I am a liberal Democrat, I never try to disparage another person’s beliefs. I only try to point out the other side of the issue. Passion is essential for debates like that, but name-calling and flaming are not and won’t be tolerated on this blog.

At heart and really at the core of my being, I am an advocate for people with disabilities as well as a myriad of other social, economic, environmental, and foreign policy causes. Some call me a “bleeding heart.” Yet, I ask if our hearts don’t bleed, can we really call ourselves human? That’s a question for another time.

Finally, I am a diehard Dallas Cowboys fan. If my heart does indeed bleed, the blood runs silver and blue. You might read an occasional reference here to my Boys, either in praise or in critique. I have no doubt thoughts like those will creep into this blog at times. It’s a hazard of being a fan or, as some of you already label me, a fanatic. I answer to both.

Well, that’s quite enough about me. If you’ve reached this point, I say, “Bravo.” You may as well read the rest, since you endured this painstakingly long and overblown preface. I promise most all introductions to follow will be far shorter. Now, I’ll explain, as I previously mentioned, the impetus behind what finally led me to start writing on this blog.

Remembering a Legend: Lester Pritchard

If you didn’t know Lester Pritchard, you were missing a large part of life. If anyone indeed knew about life, how to live it to the fullest, and still be effective at everything he did, it was Lester. He had a passion for life few could match. His laugh was infectious, and his mind radiated brilliance.

His wife, Barb, meant the world to him, and many people who knew them felt like members of their very extended family. That family spanned Illinois and reached across the country as well. That’s how the Pritchard’s have always been. Once you know them, you know them for life, and you feel as if you’ve known them forever.

Yet, if Lester would want us to know and remember him for anything, it would be for his staunch and fearless advocacy for people with disabilities. Society might have labeled Lester as a person with a significant disability, as he had cerebral palsy that some would call severe. He used a power wheelchair, and his speech was affected to the degree that, at times, someone else would translate his thoughts. Yet, do not make the mistake that his inability to do one thing ever took away from his ability to do so much more.

Passion and perseverance are two words that don't come close enough to describing what Lester was to the disability rights community. He had an insight about him that allowed him to see all sides of an issue and see them more clearly than anyone else could. More than that, though, he had wisdom that you could feel when you were around him. That wisdom gave him an edge over those who supported him and opposed his ideas, which I saw him use repeatedly to his advantage.

However, Lester was more than just a brilliant mind, one that seemed to have a never-ending source of new and fresh ideas. He was an inspiration, a true catalyst for change. When I use the word inspiration, please don't fall into the trap that many do, thinking that someone with a significant disability, simply by getting out of bed in the morning, is some sort of inspiration to all of us. People with disabilities don't inspire others just because we breathe. Contrary to popular belief, most, if not all of us, actually need to do something and prove ourselves before we receive any admiration from anyone, particularly our peers. Yes, Lester did that; he offered ideas, motivation, and opportunities for real change, which are sometimes sorely lacking from too many of us.

Lester always had a glint in his eye you could not mistake for anything but hope. That hope made all of us believe that we could conquer any monster before us and overcome any obstacle set in our way. Again, it is important to understand what I'm trying to say here. At rallies, protests, or committee hearings, it was not seeing Lester that made us believe we could change other people's minds or move closer to complete independence. Instead, his ideas and persistence spurred us forward. We believed because many of us saw in Lester the leadership and charisma any movement needs to succeed.

When Lester passed, he left a deep void within the disability rights community, one, frankly, I do not think we will ever fill completely. We will miss his intelligence, insight, passion, laughter, and so much more. I have written this sentiment before, but it still holds true. No one can carry Lester's torch. It cannot be passed to anyone. All we can hope is that we can use his torch to light hundreds or thousands of other torches and create a new generation of disability rights leaders. Lester is gone, but his spirit and cry for independence and equality can never be silenced. I, for one, will not allow it.

A Call to Action

Lester Pritchard was a legend among disability rights advocates throughout the nation. I have no doubt in the weeks, months, and years to come that his legend will continue to grow. More people will suddenly remember stories about what they did with Lester, how they worked with him on this issue, or how they made a difference because of what they did with Lester. Many of these stories will be true. Some will not. What concerns me is not their truthfulness but that they are stories.

Lester was not a man of stories. He was a man of action and advocacy. He was principled but never satisfied. He was stern but never hurtful. He knew when to speak and when to listen, and most importantly, he knew what was right.

We need more Lesters and fewer storytellers in the disability rights community. I have told my share of stories over the years, and I have rested on my laurels. I know, however, that I cannot keep doing that and continue looking at myself in the mirror each day. I must become proactive. I cannot find myself in the position of reacting constantly to something that happened to me, if I had the slightest chance to change the outcome. I have to use this blog as an opportunity to put these words into actions. If I don't do that and continue to bloviate over things I wish were different, what makes me any different from the people I continue to admonish? The answer is nothing.

If there is one true gift Lester left us, it is this small window of opportunity. The disability community in Illinois now has a relatively short time to come together as one cohesive, all-encompassing unit, sharing the same message and vision to bring about change in the form of independence and equality for all people with disabilities in Illinois. We no longer have the time to let our differences divide us and keep us from speaking with one voice. We all want the same thing, an integrated society, freedom from discrimination, equality in the workplace, and changes in society's attitudes about disabilities in general. If we all want the same things, it would only seem logical that we all work together to achieve the same ends.

In the past, this has not been easy for us to do. The problem I see before us is that we don't have enough time now to squabble over territory or who should lead and who should support. We had a tragedy befall our community. Now is the time for us to look back for just a moment at what Lester achieved and celebrate those achievements. Yet, after one brief glance over our shoulders, we must do what Lester would have done and move forward, firm in our convictions to free people with disabilities from institutions and steadfast in our desire to make this state and this country places where all people are treated equally.

I know it is much easier for me to write these words than to put them into action. This will not be easy, and no one ever said it would be. Yet, we stand on the shoulders of giants like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Justin Dart, and now Lester Pritchard, all of them lifting us above the fog to see what lies ahead. However, if we ever need reminding of what we're doing and what drives us in the first place, I would say that we just steal a popular phrase and adjust it to speak directly to the disability community in Illinois. If we ever forget, we should ask ourselves simply, "What would Lester do?"

Political Round-up

This portion of the blog will touch on different areas in politics—on both a state and national level—that interest and/or infuriate me. However, I will not usually spend an inordinate time dwelling on them. Below are a few things that come to mind this time around the horn.

• Moderate Democrats in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate need to grow a spine. Attempting bipartisanship at every turn is not working, and it will continue not working. Conservative or so-called "blue dog" Democrats in the House are far more concerned with reelection than passing substantive legislation. The same is true for those in the U.S. Senate, but they are also driven by a political ideology different from both progressive and moderate Democrats. In short, you cannot always play along to get along. In the end, the bigger kids take the toys and leave you sitting in the sandbox.
• Healthcare reform actually needs to reform the health care system. Otherwise, it will be a 1000 page bill that says a lot, gives members of Congress much pork, and means absolutely nothing. Reform without a public option and without regulation of the insurance companies by breaking up their cartel is simply a paper tiger.
• A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows a clear majority, 57%, supports a public option and mandated health insurance for those who don't have it. The number is especially high among seniors and independents and grows with even higher when states control the process theand the program is limited to those without access to affordable insurance. The link is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html?referrer=email.
• President Obama needs to choose a side. Campaigning as a liberal and governing as a moderate or even conservative will not work with the party base. Further, as opposed to the past when Democrats ignored the liberal base and left it as a given, the politics on the left are shifting. Liberals or progressives, if you wish, will not stand idly as campaign promises go unfulfilled. Though there will not be a mass exodus, even a small loss of support could be critical in these divided times.
• I am going to point out Republican hypocrisy whenever I see, and I see it quite a bit. Tea parties, town halls with bussed-in protesters, and chants of communism mixed with pictures of Hitler and fascism (communism and fascism being on opposite ends of the political spectrum) are so utterly ridiculous that they should be embarrassing. There was a time when conservatives and Republicans had a valued place within the political discourse of this country, but unfortunately for all of us, that time has passed. Olympia Snowe is not president. She comes from a state that, in my opinion, has more in common with Nova Scotia and Washington DC. Why the Democrats courted her one vote in the Senate Finance Committee when the health care bill, albeit a bad one, already had enough votes to pass is beyond my comprehension. According to the same Washington Post-ABC poll, only 20% of Americans willingly identifies themselves as Republicans. Right now, they are not part of the political discourse. In fact, they're not even part of the water cooler gossip. It's time for them to admit the defeat they suffered last fall, take a long retreat to find themselves, and do their best to muzzle Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck before they all get sent to secret FEMA internment camps.
• Why is the congressional representative, Aaron Schock, from the Illinois 18th district inviting noted neoconservative and Fox newscaster, Fred Barnes, to a fund-raising dinner? I won't go into neoconservatives at this point, but after a year and a half of research, I can say definitively that it only took them eight years to drive this country into the ground. Barnes is the executive editor of the neoconservative bible The Weekly Standard, a scary publication indeed, and most recently, a George W. Bush biographer. If Schock is using his time in Washington to cavort with the likes of these people, I fear how his policy decisions are being shaped or, to use a better term, molded to fit the neoconservative agenda. I'm not accusing Schock of being a neoconservative, but if the company he keeps is any indication of his political philosophy, there is definitely cause for concern.
• Illinois needs to raise its income tax. That is not a popular sentiment, but it is the correct one. Too many services for people with disabilities, among many other "vulnerable" populations, have been cut or put on the chopping block to receive cuts. However, that is not the reason the state needs income tax increase or, at least, not the sole reason. We do not generate enough revenue to balance our budget each year, and the Illinois Constitution calls for a balanced budget each year. This is not rocket science. The General Assembly can choose to use fuzzy math or push the problems to the governor, but voters in this state cannot allow them to push paper for six months out of the year and not do their jobs. I fear that fairly soon, the only major difference between California and Illinois will be the coastline.
• The Illinois Department of Human Services must reinstate funding for the Home Services Program within the Division of Rehabilitation Services. People with disabilities need personal assistants, and centers for independent living around the state need to have the funding required to train and refer the assistants. As it stands now, these cuts are already in place or soon will be. More pressure needs to be placed on the governor and the General Assembly during the veto session to put the funding cuts back in place and stop trying to balance the budget, which they have failed to do, on the backs of the disability community.
• Finally, Springfield needs high-speed rail. I admit I haven't studied this issue as much as I need to do, but it seems that it would be common sense and good business to have a quick and accessible route from Chicago to Springfield. Where to put it and who loses what are not questions I can answer now. Still, the more we bicker about this, the less likely it is that we will receive federal funding. Perhaps, some of our priorities are out of place.

Ramblings from the Ranch

From the gridiron:

New York, Philadelphia, and Washington all lost over the weekend. The Cowboys gained ground and didn't even have to play. I wish it were as easy as that every week. However, sloppy football, lazy football—including on the part of the Cowboys—is becoming the norm in the NFL. Too many teams rely on the big play instead of heeding Hank Stram's appeals to matriculate the ball down the field. Yet, when those big plays don't happen, a large number of teams forgets how to play football, starts pressing, or just has the wheels fall off completely.

Look at Chicago Sunday night when the team could have easily put away Atlanta several times. Instead, there was sloppy football, turnovers, penalties, and complete mental lapses. On Monday night, though, Denver wasn't lazy and played with discipline. They were crisp and focused. They also won.

As I see it, people can prognosticate all they want before and at the beginning of the season. Still, it comes down to playing the games and executing. A good example is Tennessee, which does neither.

The Cowboys play Atlanta next Sunday in Dallas, and I expect it to be a close game. However, if the Cowboys execute, stop shooting themselves in the feet, and play relatively mistake free football in terms of penalties, they should win. I truly hope so, but it's hard to predict anything in this league these days. If you disagree, just remember three weeks ago that Mark Sanchez was the next coming of Joe Namath. How's that working out for the J-E-T-S?