Part-Time Pundit

The Illinois Senate’s Version of the Recall Amendment / Recalled Officials Can Run to be Their Own Successors

After the fiasco two weeks ago, when the Illinois Senate buried Rep. Franks’ recall amendment (HJCRA28), Senator Hendon introduced his own recall amendment in the Senate. This version (SJCRA70) is substantially similar to Rep. Franks’ recall but has a few changes: the ability to recall judges, the Governor and Lt. Governor have to be recalled together, and salaried local officials can be recalled.

Two weeks ago, I testified at the Senate Executive Committee hearing on HJCRA28 and spoke specifically about the ability to recall judges. There is understandably some concern with this (and rightfully so) that unpopular but legally sound decisions could cause a judge to be recalled from office. I had proposed that as a prerequisite to recalling a judge, the judicial discipline process in Article VI, Section 15 of the current state constitution be used. At the time, Senator Hendon expressed that he liked the idea and he has incorporated my suggestion into his current amendment.

The big problem with the bill that no one has caught so far (and admittedly, I missed it when I testified two weeks ago) is that an officeholder subject to a recall can also run to succeed himself should the recall succeed. To illustrate, let’s say Blagojevich/Quinn get a successful recall petition that’s on the ballot. Both can, in turn, can submit the right paperwork to run in the succession election that occurs during the same election. It is important to note because of the condensed time frame, there are no primaries. This means, like what occurred in California in 2003, you would have a crowded field running to replace a recalled official. It is entirely plausible that an official who is successfully recalled will be able to get “re-reelected” with a plurality of the vote in a crowded field. That is why most recall provisions prohibit the recalled official running from running as a successor candidate. There is no prohibition in this amendment.

An interesting idea surfaced two weeks ago during the recall debate then, that because the Governor and Lt. Governor run together as a ticket that they must be recalled together. I find this idea rather unconvincing considering that there is no requirement that they must be impeached together. I think it is a ploy to accomplish two things: put Lt. Governor Quinn in the hot seat for pushing this issue and make it harder to accomplish recalling a governor successfully. Voters who may want to recall a Governor may vote no simply because they don’t want to “take it out” on the Lt. Governor. I am not sure how much of an effect it has, but it’s there.

Lastly, the big change and big win is the inclusion of local officials in the recall amendment itself. The amendment, however, restricts recall to only “salaried” elected officials. This immunizes school boards, for one. In smaller towns or counties, elected officials there may not draw a salary. Officials who are paid per-meeting “stipends” may also not be subject to recall. It’s a limitation that I can live with, but I prefer that anyone elected can be recalled. It’s philosophically sound that way. I’m not sure the reason for shielding unpaid officials.

I certainly do think that SJCRA70 is an improvement on HJCRA28 with the adding in of judges and most local officials. I think the threshold for signatures could be lowered to 10% for all the offices and would like to raise the number of counties needed for statewide recalls, but by and large I think most of it is good. The show-stopper here is that a recalled official can run to be their own successor which all but nullifies the intent of recalling them in the first place.

April 30th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Illinois, Illinois Constitution, Politics | no comments

Can a Constitutional Convention Fix Illinois’ Broken Government?

Illinois voters will be presented with an historical opportunity to fix the structural problems that plague Illinois government and fix deficiencies and loopholes in our current constitution. There are problems that can only be fixed in a constitution but the entrenched interests have come out saying a convention is unnecessary. Here is why they are wrong.

There are two arguments that a constitutional convention is inadvisable: the necessary changes can be made through other means (i.e. electing better politicians) and that there is no way to ensure that reform-minded delegates get elected. Skipping past the individual merits of these arguments for a moment, the arguments perfectly illustrate the problem. On one hand, we need to elect better politicians (I agree); on the other hand, we can’t enough elect good politicians to make a difference (I also agree). The opposition to a convention presents no solutions, just another intractable problem.

Fixing the balanced budget loophole that allows the state to count debt as “income”, ending gerrymandering, allowing binding citizen referenda, creating recall elections, enabling open ballot access and term limits all have to be done in a constitution. There exist only three ways to amend the constitution. The legislature can do it, citizens can have a referendum to amend the legislature article only, or a constitutional convention must be convened.

Currently the General Assembly is required to pass only one bill per year, the state budget. They could not even do that without being months late and still engaging in chicanery. HB 1, one of the many state ethics reforms bills in the General Assembly was passed 116-0 in the House and has 47 Senate Cosponsors. You would think that a bill that is not only supported by 80% of the Illinois Senate, but actually sponsored by 80%, would be law. One Senator, Emil Jones, has killed the bill and that is that.

The General Assembly cannot pass simple reforms right now, much less the constitutional changes that are required to fix our broken government. There are amendments in the General Assembly that contain many of the reforms that Illinois citizens want, they’ve been declared dead on arrival.

Citizens could initiate referendum, but only on the legislative article of the constitution and then only the “structural and procedural” items it contains. Some good reforms could be made this way, but it would not fix the deep-seated structural problems (like counting “debt” as “income”) in the Constitution because those referenda would not be allowed.

That leaves the only option to fix the structural problems with our government and the current constitution is a constitutional convention. This is the precise reason why such a provision was put into the current constitution; to allow the people to take control and reform the government when all other avenues have failed.

The state is in dire shape with over $106 billion in debt, a failing pension, government officials on every level being investigated or indicted on federal corruption charges, and the needs and interests of citizens routinely being ignored. Illinois deserves better.

Electing good politicians would help, but there are structural problems in our constitution and laws that close the political process to “outsiders”. Third party and independent candidates, for instance, have to get 10-15 times the number of signatures as “established” parties, for instance. More importantly, constitutions are written to restrict the harm bad politicians can do. That’s why there are “Bills of Rights” and “checks and balances” with a mind of keeping the level of harm as small as possible.

If a convention happens, it will take work to identify and elect reform-minded delegates and it won’t be easy. However, sitting by and hoping things get better means the state gets driven to bankruptcy, more politicians get indicted and the needs of the citizens continue to be ignored. This November, citizens have the power to take back their government and effect the changes that are needed before it’s too late. The General Assembly has failed; now it falls to us.

April 2nd, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, Politics, con-con | no comments

What if Chavez Isn’t Bluffing About War with Colombia?

Hugo Chavez is making news again, this time threatening war with Colombia (a U.S. ally) over the assassination of terrorist elements that have taken refuge in Ecuador. The facts aren't quite known, but it is alleged the Colombia sent military forces into Ecuador to attack members of the FARC, a terrorist group that has been staging attacks in Colombia and taking hostages (it is currently holding three U.S. citizens, for instance).

In what was considered a bizarre response, Chavez ordered several battalions to the border with Colombia and has threatened all-out war with the country. Ecuador is understandably upset, but many attribute Chavez's latest media-grabbing stunt as more saber-waving from a dictator who craves international attention for "standing up to U.S. imperialism." There are important reasons to take Chavez's threats at face value, but first some background.

United States Military Doctrine

Since the 1990s, the United States Armed Forces have held various iterations of a win-win doctrine. The current version of the doctrine (the 4-2-1 strategy) states that the United States will maintain the capability to "conduct two, overlapping 'swift defeat' campaigns… [and] the force must be able to 'win decisively' in one of the two campaigns". In layman's terms, this means the United States has set up its military to win two medium-sized wars simultaneously.

It is also important to note that the United States military debates its over-reaching strategy out in the open for the world to see. Not a single spy is needed to determine how we structure our military and with what aims in mind. A foreign agent can pick up any number of academic journals, surf the various public military and government websites, or read the many books written on the subject. No security clearance is needed. Other countries know full well what we design our military to do and conversely know what limitations we build into our system.

One can look at the current situation of the U.S. military and see how this strategy has worked (albeit not without bumps). The military is engaged in operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq and achieving successes in both countries. The only area where improvement has not been substantial is in the area of nation-building, particularly, getting the native populations to take responsibility for their own political destiny. The lack of will for U.S. imperialism has come at a price.

The current situation shows that the strategy can work and is working. Al Qaeda in Iraq is essentially no more. However, it has also shown that it engages a large proportion of the resources available to the United States military that can be used for war-fighting. The preventative operations still continue, sure, but it is less than clear that the United States could, without significant difficulty, engage in a third conflict; much less a fourth conflict.

The Foreign Policy Objectives of China and Russia

In the sense of power distribution, international relations is similar to a zero-sum game. When one nation loses power, some other nation or nations gain power. The inverse is also true; when a nation gains power, it comes at the expense of another. When the USSR collapsed, the United States largely gained the power that was left on the table. This has been a point of consternation for some time for the former world power.

On the other hand, China, which has never been a superpower, does overtly crave such a status. In order to achieve such a status, the United States would have to relinquish or lose some of its current power. This leaves China and Russia as partners in a similar quest, to gain international power at the expense of the United States, the only country which that power must come from.

As an additional sideshow, there are a variety of powers across the globe that would cheer at the prospect of an American military embarrassment (no small number are European). Many lay commentators cheer on Russia and China, who criticize America's foreign policy, including commentators in the United States. One ought not to be naïve to think that these nations which murder journalists and dissidents, repress speech, and shun the rule of law inside their own borders are suddenly acting with the purity of wind-driven snow once on the international stage.

Currently, both Russia and China have ties with Venezuela (that include Russia shipping military goods to Venezuela). Russia also has historical ties with Serbia and has been a vocal supporter of Serbia against the independence of Kosovo. Currently, both areas are now volatile with Chavez's threats on one side and antagonistic behavior by Serbia on the other. Kosovo and Colombia, on the other hand, are US foreign policy commitments to continue to support those countries.

As an important counterpoint, there are elements in China and Russia that do not see eye-to-eye with the hostile-to-the-US foreign policy. They are minorities but they are the ones with money. Many of the largest businesses in both countries are beneficiaries of the American economy and thus have a vested interest in the status quo.

Could Chavez Be Serious?

Currently, the United States economy is in trouble; there is broad consensus on that at this point. Bad lending is never a good thing for an economy. Full-on economic collapses are usually combinations of multiple factors, bad lending often being one. So if Chavez isn't serious, he, along with Russia and China, is quite stupid. That is a presumption we ought not to make.

The United States military is structured to win two conflicts simultaneously. If both Kosovo and Colombia-Venezuela go hot, even militarily we would be stretched thin, if not to the breaking point. Odds are we would face the choice of sacrificing one or the other to avoid "losing" a war. With forces already on the ground in Kosovo under the auspices of NATO, we would likely have no choice but to fight in that conflict. Colombia, on the other hand, would be very easy to leave out to dry.

If forced to fight in both additional conflicts, it would provide an enormous additional strain on an already troubled economy. Drastic funding choices would have to be made to support the resources required to fight in all four conflicts simultaneously independent of the number of troops consideration. It is entirely possible that it could push an economy on the brink of recession into a full-on recession. Or for that matter, push an economy in a recession into a far worse economic position.

If China and Russia want to take definitive action to ensure American power is decreased, all they have to do is stoke the flames of conflict in Kosovo and Colombia. American political debate is focused on the superficials; no real political movement would support retaliatory action for subtle actions by Russia and China to provoke other nations to pick fights. In short, there would be little political cost to Russia and China in provoking these fights while there is everything to gain.

The only counterbalancing effect is whether those nations would prefer to ride on America's economic coattails or if they'd rather see American foreign power decline to their advantage. With the economic troubles America is facing, it becomes increasingly tempting to think those economic coattails aren't as long as they once seemed. Time will tell which trains of thought will win out.

March 14th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, International, Military / War, Politics | no comments

The Health Care Crisis and Why it was Inevitable

Since 1970, the health care industry has undergone a revolutionary change. Before that time people were overwhelmingly (about 70%) in traditional indemnity plans where patients pay a certain percentage of health care costs. With the passage of the Health Maintenance Organization Act written by Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), very quickly over 70% of Americans were covered by HMOs.

The structure of HMOs was also largely different than traditional indemnity plans. HMOs require primary care physicians to act as gatekeepers of advanced care and it empowered insurance companies to challenge the medical judgment of doctors. It restricted choice to those doctors and providers “in the network” and any care provided by outside providers, care that didn’t follow the right regulations or didn’t have the right referrals was simply not paid.

It is indisputable that we are currently in a health care crisis with skyrocketing costs and extreme customer dissatisfaction. It is never a good sign when medical providers have to market themselves on customer service. No other industry has to try to convince consumers that “we won’t abuse you” and that “you matter to us”. The current argument is that health care needs to be socialized because the free market hasn’t worked.

First, the central principle of the free market is that the individual parties of a transaction are able to negotiate the terms of that transaction themselves. For instance, if I want to buy a car, I can negotiate with the dealer the terms of the transaction and the dealer can do likewise. If neither of us wishes to proceed, we can move on. Without free choice on both the provider and consumer in deciding terms of the transaction, there is no free market. There is no free market without choice.

The health care system in this country, developed by Democrat Ted Kennedy who now campaigns against his own creation, all but eliminates choice in both doctors and patients.

Limiting the Choice of Patients

Let’s say you, Joe Consumer, want health insurance. Because of the structure of the tax system that enforces what is basically an historical accident, you will probably get this through your employer. Your employer is limited by tax law to only let you make decisions about your health insurance provider at certain times, basically when you are hired and once a year thereafter. You will likely get a few choices, an HMO with higher deductibles and lower premiums, an HMO with lower deductibles and higher premiums (from the same company), and a traditional indemnity plan. If your employer chooses Blue Cross Blue Shield, you’re only going to be able to choose Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Employers decided which insurance company to work with. Their motivation is clear, to save money. As a secondary objective, they want happy employees. However, the insurance company is selling insurance to your employer, not you. So they craft policies that are lucrative to your employer. Maybe 60% of employees are happy with what they get, but the other 40% are pretty much hosed. If they want a different insurance company they need to pay full price and the employer is not allowed to compensate the employee on what their portion might have been. End result: consumers do not choose their insurance company, their employer does. If they want to change their insurance, they can’t until the next benefit choice period dictated by the IRS.

Now you, Joe Consumer, want to go to the doctor. You take your handy dandy provider directory (or go online) and you select from the list of doctors your HMO allows you to go see. You may know you need an orthopedic doctor to deal with your knee problems but that’s too bad, you need to go to a primary care physician first (and pay for that useless appointment that you don’t need). This primary care physician’s job is to limit the amount of advanced care patients receive. In fact, in some cases, primary care physicians get a bonus based on how few referrals they give.

Let’s say you do get a referral. Then you go to where the HMO tells you to go to with even more limited choices in the provider directory. Let’s change the scenario, let’s say instead of knee problems you have cancer. You hear good things about the Mayo Clinic and you want to get care there. Too bad, you need to go where your HMO tells you to go to. You may have a better shot at survival at Mayo, it doesn’t matter.

You may wish to explore alternative treatments, however, your doctor who knows what your insurance company will and will not pay for better than you ever will, simply will limit you to those choices which your insurance company has already decided you will have. He knows that they won’t pay (and he probably won’t get paid) if his plan of care deviates from the dictates of the insurance company’s accountants. These people have never seen you, have no information about you but have near complete control over your health care decisions based on some sparse paperwork sent back and forth. The patient will never get the opportunity to talk to much less negotiate with these people.

Lastly, you want to choose a doctor among the choices that are provided to you in your provider directory. If you want to “price shop”, well, you aren’t provided pricing before hand. This may be difficult in some cases, but patients simply have no pricing information with which to judge before they’ve already committed themselves to care (some exceptions, not many).

The net balance of all of this is that in every single step of the health care system, the consumer is removed from the decision-making loop. The only health care decision the consumer gets to make is whether to have the insurance company pay or to do what they think is right and pay full price out-of-pocket and risk bankruptcy, even if it is the right decision.

Limiting the Choice of Doctors

On the other side of the transaction we have doctors that also have their choices restricted and taken out of the equation. Before a doctor sees his first patient, before he gets an office or buys any equipment, he needs liability insurance. The premium he is charged will be identical to other providers with similar practices no matter what training, experience, qualifications or differences exist between them. A Saturday-night hack artist pays the same as a doctor who has won the Nobel Prize. In Illinois, the premium for an OB-GYN before they see their first patients is about $240,000. In surrounding states it is about one-fourth as much which is why Illinois in particular has a health care crisis. Providers are fleeing the state. Take a look near any state border and you will see a thriving health care practice just on the other side of the Illinois border with that state.

The terms of this insurance policy (in addition to the price) are non-negotiable and designed to do one thing, prevent lawsuits or make them easier to win. For OB-GYN’s the terms are the most notorious. For instance, a woman who has had 2 children already without complications, is having a third low-risk pregnancy needs to go through the same regimen of care as a first pregnancy. If you’ve had children you know how this works. Started second trimester or so, you go for bi-weekly checkups (that become weekly as you get closer to birth). You pee on a stick, you get weighed and they ask you if you have any questions. There’s an ultrasound in there and a couple of blood tests.

With my first child, after a few of these appointments, I began to wonder what was the point. We didn’t have questions. In, out, 15 minutes: that’s $50 (the copay in this case). Why do I bring up this story? Because if you, the patient, decide that these visits are superfluous, your provider is required to drop you as a patient. You may have no complications, you may have no questions and there may be absolutely no reason for these visits, but your provider is required to mandate that you go, regardless of medical need or you can’t be their patient anymore. By the way, you, the patient, pay for this decision made not by your doctor, but by some lawyers at a liability insurance company. The United States has the highest C-section rate in the developed world because liability insurance companies insist that if anything is “abnormal” a C-section must be performed. Not because of medical need, but because of “limiting liability”.

In addition to liability insurance companies dictating the terms of care, doctors then have to deal with health insurance companies (or even worse, Medicaid). About 30% of medical bills sent to private individuals (not insurance companies) are paid. Doctors know that they are being paid by the insurance companies, not the patient. They know that if the insurance company isn’t going to pay them, they probably won’t be paid. The only exception to this is patients who walk into an emergency room or doctor’s office with a Platinum American Express card. Providers know these people are paying cash and they get treated with far more respect than insurance carrying patients do.

Before the question of the “bonus checks” for limiting referrals even comes in to play, doctors know that the insurance company is calling the shots. They know they won’t get patients without joining a “network” of some providers in a given insurance company. The insurance company will then dictate what rates they can charge, what services they can provide, what drugs they can prescribe and in some cases how many patients they can see.

A doctor that practices without taking a major insurance policy will have a hard if not impossible time earning a living. A doctor that practices without a liability insurance policy (even in places where that’s legal to do and that isn’t many) can be considered certifiably insane.

Conclusion

Both doctors and patients have their choices and ability to negotiate their health care severely limited. There is some competition in a very limited sense where employers can choose from a small selection of HMO companies. Doctors can choose too and there is a small subset of liability insurance companies they can choose from as well. One of the major plans for “health care reform” is to simply have the government serve as the HMO instead of private companies. It is unfathomable to believe that taking away the trivial amount of choice in the health care system that is left will result in a better system that is more responsive to patients.

The solution to the health care system is to let those who are part of the transaction, doctors and patients, have the freedom and latitude to decide their own plan of care. Removing the patient from the decision-making loop has only created a health care system that thinks of the patient last. Let’s give the free-market and freedom of choice a chance.

February 20th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | 2 comments

The Problem with the Men’s Rights Movement

As a necessary counterweight to the excesses of the women’s rights movement, a men’s right movement has developed to fight for equity in the courts, in the family and in the workplace. For instance, in divorces there is significant and insurmountable (unless you have lots of money) obstacles to getting a fair custody decision regarding your children. Restraining orders are given away easily and have been used as weapons in divorce cases even when there is no evidence of abuse. There clearly is a need to stop the abuse men suffer from the excesses of the women’s rights movement.

The problem with the movement, which is the same problem with the women’s rights movement, is that adoption of the victim-enemy moniker that the press imposes on every issue. Anyone who does marketing for television will tell you this is the format to present any issue if you want news coverage: one, pick a victim and tell a sob story. This victim must be presented as angelic, an innocent victim of a cruel and obstinate system without regard for truth. Two, find a villain. This villain is the epitome of moral evil and must be destroyed. For many issues, referring to George W. Bush suffices (which is why political discourse in this country is so worthless).

Villains cannot be compromised with, they must be defeated. They are the bad guys and we need to stick up for the good guys at all costs. The problem is that compromise becomes unthinkable and even seeing the legitimate points of view of the other side is out of the question. To see this play out, see any political debate show talking about the election.

While there are significant injustices the men suffer as documented in Steven Baskerville’s fine book Taken Into Custody, there are injustices that women have and still do suffer also.

Retraining orders are far too easy to get without any evidence whatsoever (go ahead and sit in a courtroom and watch a hearing for one if you don’t believe me), but on the other hand there are men (and women) out there who are physically abusive and could care less about that piece of paper a court order is written on. People go to the system for help and they don’t get the help they need. We can all agree that no innocent woman or man should not be protected against an abuser. Surely there is some middle ground to address both sides.

Therein lies the difficulty. Activist groups, if they want even an ounce of press or public pressure, must adopt from the start that the other side is evil and wants to screw the innocent. Compromise is not only difficult, it’s impossible. All these groups then rank legislators on their absolute compliance with their agenda. Any leeway on their part makes them unacceptable.

So things have settled into a nice little détente where the men’s rights and women’s rights movements resort to outright name-calling instead of reasoned debate to improve the status of all people. With some issues, such rhetoric is not a big deal. In this case, we are dealing with families where peace should reign. Instead we have dueling groups that wage their war and leave the family asunder. Families are the building block of society, and as goes the family, so goes society.

It may be tempting for the men’s rights movement to say “let’s not compromise until they do”, but even from a political standpoint, if it is an all-or-nothing fight the women’s groups have more clout and that is that. Adopting a more holistic approach is also a political necessity if they don’t want to be side-lined.

It is long past time for policy makers and policy advocates to drop the all-or-none attitude and start to find a middle ground to find beneficial policies for what is best for the entire family. In an all-or-nothing fight, one side may win, but in the end we all lose.

January 31st, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture, Politics | one comment

The Case for an Illinois Constitutional Convention

Governor Rod Blagojevich has done something remarkable in Illinois. He has managed to unite people across the political spectrum to create consensus that he absolutely stinks as a governor. Illinois deserves better than Rod Blagojevich.

Because of his low approval in both parties and the budget fiasco of last year, legislators (even those in his own party) are talking about amending the constitution to allow recall votes of sitting politicians. The timing for such talk is opportune because on the November ballot this year there will be a question on whether to have a constitutional convention for Illinois to rewrite or amend the state constitution.

The ability to throw a politician out of office after he or she has be shown unwilling or unable to govern according to the public interest is popular among the voters and is growing popular among politicians who want to take revenge against Blagojevich. Yet a convention should include more than just recalls. While throwing public officials out of office that has shown themselves to be a complete failure is a good start, revising the constitution should produce an overall solid framework for good governance.

There are many good reforms that should be considered and factor into a complete rewriting of the Illinois Constitution. The practice of gerrymandering needs to be eliminated. There are disturbingly few uncompetitive races throughout the state. Democrats have their seats, Republicans have theirs and often they do not even try to compete for the other party’s turf. Politicians should not be able to choose their voters; it should be the other way around. Take a look at the map of Illinois Congressional District 4 to see how ridiculous gerrymandered maps can be.

Along with gerrymandering, it is time to consider term limits for every elected and appointed office in the state. Far too many politicians rule “for life” without any real means for the voters to make them responsive to their needs. Every elected office on all levels should be limited to a maximum of 2 terms or 8 years. Likewise, appointed officials who hold a great amount of power who are not directly accountable to the people need to have their terms of office limited as well.

Open ballot access should be implemented. Every person should have equal ballot access regardless of political affiliation or non-affiliation and a true democracy requires nothing less. The freedom to vote does not mean much if there is no real choice. Independents and third-parties often have to get over 10 times the amount of signatures as established parties do. This system has led the federal courts to repeatedly rule against our election system.

Citizens should be allowed to put binding referenda on the ballot. When state lawmakers refuse or are unable to come up with solutions to problems, the citizens should have a means to bring them up directly. Such referenda, to be effective, need to be binding and not subject to overturning except in rare circumstances.

There are those who are against a constitutional convention because they think the current constitution is fine. To show how the current constitution is not “good enough”, take a look at Article VIII Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution which requires that the budget for the state be balanced.

Yet, according to the Commercial Club of Chicago, a prominent business group, the State of Illinois is in about $106 billion worth of debt. Being thoroughly disabused of the notion that a balanced budget requirement in the Illinois Constitution has produced a balanced budget, we can go forward with discussing rewriting the document.

This November, the citizens of Illinois have a great opportunity to take bake their government from the corrupt and entrenched politicians who rule with their “pay-to-play” politics. A convention, however, should not touch on solitary reforms but to reform the entire constitution to create a foundation and framework for good governance in Illinois. Illinois deserves better than this.

January 27th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, Law / Legal Issues, Politics, con-con | one comment

MercatorNet article up: Unsuitable for Children

MercatorNet has another article up by me, Unsuitable for Children on violent video games, not for the perspective of risk to children, but harm to society at large even among adults.

Lawmakers are fond of saying that these games “will never be suitable for children”. I agree. But these weasel words evade the real issue: what makes these games suitable for adults? After all, the tastes of adults are linked to the tastes of teenagers. If parents or older brothers regard violent games with blood splashing all around as “no big deal”, why would they keep it out of the reach of children? And why is it that a little foreplay upsets people but not the butchery that the entire game is based on?

Read more.

January 27th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture | no comments