My name is Maddie Murray, and I am a junior at New Trier High School. For my semester project, my partner Casi Radulovic and I wanted to advocate for special needs families regarding Rauner’s FY16 budget plan. As you may or may not know, this budget plan could harm thousands of special needs families throughout Illinois, particularly those that receive services through organizations like Glenkirk. In response, we created a video in which we interviewed four special needs families that use respite services from Glenkirk to highlight some of the impacts these cuts will have on families.
I had been referred to you through Josh Evans from IARF, who helped us a lot with our project. He suggested that we ask you to post our video on your blog to help inform the public and the representatives about these cuts.
When families give everything for their kids like these families are doing, you would think it would make some “leaders” feel ashamed for using them as pawns in a political war between two totally unconcerned parties.
That was a well done video and I am glad Rich you posted it. I suspect the problem some of Rauner’s people might have with it is that the families depicted lived what can be called middle class life styles including residence in relatively affluent suburban communities. So it comes down to this in my opinion, should the State support families who are fiscally stretched because of their disabled children, yet may own their own homes and have some assets.
I think as a State we should, but I am not sure there is consensus to that effect any more here in Illinois. None the less the video was moving.
The more we think like consumers shopping in a global market, looking for our individual best values, the more we are losing our humanity and our citizenship.
There are more important values than costs. As we continue to elevate the importance of costs in priorities within our governments, citizens who saw assistance through our traditional institutions have become disposable.
Limited government advocates have to do more than tell us that we can’t afford something. They have to provide to us a moral reasoning for discarding our neighbors in need. They can’t, so we keep hearing how the costs of doing the right thing is preventing us from doing the right thing.
As a conservative, I have found myself reminding my fellow conservatives that market values are an even worse standard for government priorities, than legal standards. If saying something is right because it isn’t illegal is a poor guide to moral reasoning - than saying something is right because it is cheaper is even poorer.
Yet, this is the kind of reasoning used by Small Government Advocates we see in the Rauner Administration and across the US today. What they are doing is forcing Americans into accepting their role as an individual global consumers looking for tax savings, over doing the right thing because it is our moral responsibility to help one another beyond the marketplace.
Special need citizens cost more. They are still important to us even though they do. When we so callously, and quickly, cut them off like we saw this new administration do back on Good Friday, we have to reject this kind of decision as an unethical, immoral and inhuman act.
The new governor is ranking us based upon our ability to provide a market value. Like heads of lettuce, running shoes or paper cups. His argument is that we can’t afford to do the right thing. The State of Illinois cannot afford it? How limited a vision!
We can either demand that our government recognize us as citizens or as consumers. The last time I checked, our special need citizens are much of a consumer - maybe if they were, they would rank a higher priority, right?
Great marketing at New Trier, but perhaps a little short on the finance side. How much would the people of Wilmette, Kenilworth, and Winnetka have to kick in to make up the difference for the cuts? I’m sure many concerned citizens there have bottom lines far better than the state of Illinois. Why is there no appeal for these contributions?
There has to be areas where low value state spending can be cut to continue these services. Maybe shifting pension costs for ridiculously highly paid staff at New Trier so that special ed money can be granted to Glenkirk? Gee, I guess the students didn’t think of that.
Basically, the producers are just making an emotional appeal that doesn’t propose anything to solve the problems, it just ignores the ROOT CAUSES of the problems for a special interest, no matter how worthy.
There is useless government spending and useful government spending. It’s a zero sum game.
This video is well produced and evokes an emotional response. If only they proposed a practical solution, I’d give it an A+. As it is, “incomplete”.
Why are you so comfortable with the idea that anyone needing state assistance be forced into a Roman Coliseum and battling to their death, while you get to watch?
This is government - not “Dancing With The Stars”, where you can phone in your vote for a winner. If you want good ethical government, then stop demanding decisions like this to be based on whether you and others can afford another glass of wine at dinner tonight.
People are more important.
Some issues should not be decided based upon cost. If concerns over cost lead you to an immoral decision, then you put too much of an emphasis upon it. This would be one of those times.
Agnostic secular decisions can be made based upon things like cost - traditional ethics require a higher standard. The longer conservatives continue to use financial costs and benefit analysis over traditional ethics as debating points, the sooner we will see rampant immorality within our society.
Stand up and tell us why these people should be cared for as a conservative with convictions. Winning an argument because of cost - isn’t winning at all. It is a false god. It just leads to everything going for a price with no moral guidance at all.
I wasn’t planning on posting anything, but I feel the need to put in my two cents here, seeing other comments.
Yes, I am Maddie, one of the two students that worked on this project. I was the one who put the whole video together and sent it in to Mr. Miller. And I really liked the discussion going on here, so I wanted to add to it.
With our project, we became involved when Casi received a notice from Glenkirk that funding and services for her brother, Kyle, would be discontinued if cuts were made to special needs services, as proposed in Rauner’s budget plan. We decided to focus on that, and raising awareness about it, as we knew many people in our area are very involved in the special needs community and would want to know about those cuts.
Yes, we could have focused on a solution. Yes, we could have brought in all the potential areas for cuts to make up for special needs funding. But quite frankly, that would be involving ourselves in an area that we don’t know a whole lot about. Personally, I joined this project because I know little to nothing about the way our government is run, and I wanted to understand why these cuts were even on the table in the first place.
And that became our centerpiece. Why were these cuts an option? Forget the places we could cut to make up for the losses to special needs… why are we taking money away from people who need it so desperately? Not just to live comfortably, these people need this money to keep their families together. They need this money to keep their children at home, to give them the medications and therapy they need to stay healthy. Those aren’t luxuries, those are necessities, at least to me. That’s why we don’t propose a monetary solution. We just don’t want these cuts to be made at all.
Yes, I know this was mostly emotion-based. But that’s a big part of ethics; what you think is right and what you think is wrong. And to me, taking away from families that are in need is wrong. That’s what we are trying to say with our video. I hope this clears some things up.
$20 million to “support ” legislators, or $20 million to invest in the people of Illinois. Billionaire super PACs for presidential hopefuls, or billion dollar programs that would “pay it forward”.
Which path, in the long generational outlook, is truly the best “investment”?
Great response, Maddie, but as you get older you’ll learn that you’ll be faced with many situations where you won’t be able to do something just because it will help someone who deserves to be helped. You have to make a choice about doing one thing or another of two or more worthy causes.
As we grow and become more financially able to help, we face tough choices for doing good with very noble causes and organizations. Do we give everything we can to Juvenile Diabetes or St Jude’s Childrens Hospital? Do we donate to find a cure for Pulmonary Fibrosis which kills 40,000 people per year(more than breast cancer), which is ALWAYS fatal within 3-5 years of diagnosis and for which the resources have never been given to even find out WHY people get it, or do we donate to combat cancer or heart disease?
Making political funding choices are much easier, if you do your homework. Should Glenkirk be a funding priority over grants given to “community organizers” who disperse the money to political cronies without doing much good for the community? I think so, but if you don’t work to end the “bad” spending there will never be enough for the “good” spending.
When you leave school, I’m sure being the bright person you are you’ll learn this important lesson.
It was once written that, “If you’re not a liberal at age 18, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at age 30, you have no brain.”
When you put together the heart and the brain, you’ll have taken a truly huge step to be one of those folks who get things done for those in need.
Vman i agree, and inwould add a much smaller point. In a cold logical way helping others is also market protection. The underlying social structure is a big intricate part of the market as well. Time and again we have seen if you dont help others you end up with high crime and blight; you also reduce the money flowing in the economy which helps to make the market flourish.
I can answer your questions without being condescending.
What you did was more than sufficient. It pointed out the human rights issue that arises when a government decides that it cannot “afford” certain financial assistance to some citizens. You shouldn’t have to do battle with other citizen groups to prove that you have a greater need than they, or have any solution to the problem created when financial assistance was cut.
We have a state government lead by one party which has failed to keep up with how it collects tax revenue in the 21st Century, and a governor who believes that the state government can live on the obsolete tax revenue system by denying citizen services to Illinoisans who had received them.
Under the guises of “waste and fraud”, and “we are broke”, the current administration is justifying the cuts effecting special need citizens. Yet, these cuts are unjustifiable and wrong. They make a statement regarding how Illinois value Illinoisans.
The work you have done with this video is enough. You shouldn’t need to know the political nonsense or political bull. This government is to work for you. You shouldn’t need to know anything than what you have already presented.
In a cold logical way helping others is also market protection.
True. Good Point. What concerns me is how quickly the people who use market value has turned from this logic, however. I don’t see anyone in the GOP presenting a solution based on that logic regarding Baltimore. It seems that all we’re hearing is how the citizens in Baltimore deserve what they got.
=And the Golden Horseshoe for most patronizing comment of the year goes to Arizona Bob. Congrats Bob, you earned it!=
Thank you, thank you all! There are many other people I need to thank for this prestigious honor..there’s “demoralized” who makes put downs without humor a centerpiece of his posts. I’ve learned a lot from him. There’s Oswego Willy who’s pontificating and complaints while virtually never suggesting solutions to the problems in Illinois set the standard for unproductive castigation. And finally, 47th, I’d like to thank YOU for reminding me that old bromide from Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” that ridicule is one of the most potent political weapons; it can’t be disputed because it’s opinion, and it can’t be argued because it needs no basis in fact.
I regard this award not for what I’ve done, but what I can accomplish in the future.
I just have one question…WHERE’S MY GOLDEN HORSECHOE?
Patronize is defined as: treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
I don’t have my copy of Rules for Radicals handy Bob, is that ridicule for pointing out you were patronizing Maddie, or do you not have a dictionary on your computer?
I can’t help you can’t read my thoughts correctly, but claiming to be a victim of the people your are “thanking” really makes - 47th Ward -’s observation more valid then when it was made.
To the Post,
It’s important that Rich put this post up, and the accompanying video. - Maddie -’s comments clarified some thoughts she had, and left, at least me, to think.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 3:00 pm:
I wasn’t patronizing Maddie. She’s a young girl with a bright future who would benefit from learning to have more than one perspective on an issue.
It’s a learning process.
When I was a HS teacher, I once attended an “environmental activist” club meeting on electric cars.
An enthusiastic group of well meaning students told everyone that in 2000 in Chicago that “air pollution was the worst its ever been” and that electric cars were a non polluting way of transportation.
I asked the leader why he thought what had been the cleanest air in about a century in Chicago was the worst. I described how when I was a kid in the 1950s and 1960s, people were still burning coal for heat, and that “black snow” was common in some neighborhoods. I told him about lead based gasoline and the yellow haze around Chicago from the sulfur dioxide before power plant scrubbing technology and before catalytic converters were on cars.
I asked him where the electricity for the car came from, and he said “the socket” and where did the electricity from the socket come from? Power plants. I explained that nuclear waste was created and coal was burned for that car recharge.
I also asked how we should dispose of all the toxic acidic waste created by the batteries.
I made the point that figuring out what “doing the right thing” was could be pretty tough, but if you’re serious about doing some good, it’s a job you have to do.
In order to make things better, we need to find out the root causes of the problems and address those root causes if we really want to fix things.
I’m sorry if you find teaching that lesson “condescending” but I think it’s a necessary lesson for any serious citizen to learn.
===I wasn’t patronizing Maddie. She’s a young girl with a bright future who would benefit from learning to have more than one perspective on an issue.===
You just did it again Bob. She didn’t ask for your lecture, so spare us please. You can think whatever you want to think, but when you say it here, expect others to point out how remarkably patronizing you sound.
Not every post requires you to leave a comment either. When you do, and you write something false or obnoxious, expect someone to call you on it. There is no need for you to use this thread as your opportunity to show Maddie and the rest of us how smart you are.
But bravo Bob, you’re smarter than a 12th grader. Mad props to you sir.
- late to the party - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 6:04 pm:
Thank you for sharing this video, Rich, and thank you Maddie and partners for creating it. These are not line items, they are people. And they are people that many of us believe government has a moral obligation to protect at all costs.
These programs should be the last to be cut, not the first.
And thank you Vanilla Man. You demonstrate that conservative doesn’t mean soul-less.
Great video for a high school project. Maddie, good for you bringing into focus some individuals that will be effected by this. Ignore pompous remarks trying to turn this into a personal political agenda and continue examining the issue and presenting your point of view. I am glad you put in you “two cents” . Brava!
- Just an Old Guy - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 9:46 am:
When families give everything for their kids like these families are doing, you would think it would make some “leaders” feel ashamed for using them as pawns in a political war between two totally unconcerned parties.
- slow down - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 9:54 am:
Thank you to the two students at New Trier for putting this together. It’s sad and embarrassing that this is even an issue.
- Rod - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 10:01 am:
That was a well done video and I am glad Rich you posted it. I suspect the problem some of Rauner’s people might have with it is that the families depicted lived what can be called middle class life styles including residence in relatively affluent suburban communities. So it comes down to this in my opinion, should the State support families who are fiscally stretched because of their disabled children, yet may own their own homes and have some assets.
I think as a State we should, but I am not sure there is consensus to that effect any more here in Illinois. None the less the video was moving.
- Carhartt Representative - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 10:03 am:
Wow, if this is what they’re doing at New Trier, I have to wonder how much better the videos are at Payton. Terrific work!
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 10:14 am:
The more we think like consumers shopping in a global market, looking for our individual best values, the more we are losing our humanity and our citizenship.
There are more important values than costs. As we continue to elevate the importance of costs in priorities within our governments, citizens who saw assistance through our traditional institutions have become disposable.
Limited government advocates have to do more than tell us that we can’t afford something. They have to provide to us a moral reasoning for discarding our neighbors in need. They can’t, so we keep hearing how the costs of doing the right thing is preventing us from doing the right thing.
As a conservative, I have found myself reminding my fellow conservatives that market values are an even worse standard for government priorities, than legal standards. If saying something is right because it isn’t illegal is a poor guide to moral reasoning - than saying something is right because it is cheaper is even poorer.
Yet, this is the kind of reasoning used by Small Government Advocates we see in the Rauner Administration and across the US today. What they are doing is forcing Americans into accepting their role as an individual global consumers looking for tax savings, over doing the right thing because it is our moral responsibility to help one another beyond the marketplace.
Special need citizens cost more. They are still important to us even though they do. When we so callously, and quickly, cut them off like we saw this new administration do back on Good Friday, we have to reject this kind of decision as an unethical, immoral and inhuman act.
The new governor is ranking us based upon our ability to provide a market value. Like heads of lettuce, running shoes or paper cups. His argument is that we can’t afford to do the right thing. The State of Illinois cannot afford it? How limited a vision!
We can either demand that our government recognize us as citizens or as consumers. The last time I checked, our special need citizens are much of a consumer - maybe if they were, they would rank a higher priority, right?
- Mama - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 10:24 am:
I hope this video helps the legislators find a way to do the right thing for the people of IL.
- Arizona Bob - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 10:34 am:
Great marketing at New Trier, but perhaps a little short on the finance side. How much would the people of Wilmette, Kenilworth, and Winnetka have to kick in to make up the difference for the cuts? I’m sure many concerned citizens there have bottom lines far better than the state of Illinois. Why is there no appeal for these contributions?
There has to be areas where low value state spending can be cut to continue these services. Maybe shifting pension costs for ridiculously highly paid staff at New Trier so that special ed money can be granted to Glenkirk? Gee, I guess the students didn’t think of that.
Basically, the producers are just making an emotional appeal that doesn’t propose anything to solve the problems, it just ignores the ROOT CAUSES of the problems for a special interest, no matter how worthy.
There is useless government spending and useful government spending. It’s a zero sum game.
This video is well produced and evokes an emotional response. If only they proposed a practical solution, I’d give it an A+. As it is, “incomplete”.
- better tomorrow - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 10:38 am:
Vanillaman,
Please do us a favor: 1)copy your entire posting above, 2)login to your email account 3)email it to all Newspaper Opinion pages in the State.
Everyone in the State needs to read those words
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 11:03 am:
AZ Bob - thanks for proving my point.
Why are you so comfortable with the idea that anyone needing state assistance be forced into a Roman Coliseum and battling to their death, while you get to watch?
This is government - not “Dancing With The Stars”, where you can phone in your vote for a winner. If you want good ethical government, then stop demanding decisions like this to be based on whether you and others can afford another glass of wine at dinner tonight.
People are more important.
Some issues should not be decided based upon cost. If concerns over cost lead you to an immoral decision, then you put too much of an emphasis upon it. This would be one of those times.
Agnostic secular decisions can be made based upon things like cost - traditional ethics require a higher standard. The longer conservatives continue to use financial costs and benefit analysis over traditional ethics as debating points, the sooner we will see rampant immorality within our society.
Stand up and tell us why these people should be cared for as a conservative with convictions. Winning an argument because of cost - isn’t winning at all. It is a false god. It just leads to everything going for a price with no moral guidance at all.
- Maddie - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 11:47 am:
I wasn’t planning on posting anything, but I feel the need to put in my two cents here, seeing other comments.
Yes, I am Maddie, one of the two students that worked on this project. I was the one who put the whole video together and sent it in to Mr. Miller. And I really liked the discussion going on here, so I wanted to add to it.
With our project, we became involved when Casi received a notice from Glenkirk that funding and services for her brother, Kyle, would be discontinued if cuts were made to special needs services, as proposed in Rauner’s budget plan. We decided to focus on that, and raising awareness about it, as we knew many people in our area are very involved in the special needs community and would want to know about those cuts.
Yes, we could have focused on a solution. Yes, we could have brought in all the potential areas for cuts to make up for special needs funding. But quite frankly, that would be involving ourselves in an area that we don’t know a whole lot about. Personally, I joined this project because I know little to nothing about the way our government is run, and I wanted to understand why these cuts were even on the table in the first place.
And that became our centerpiece. Why were these cuts an option? Forget the places we could cut to make up for the losses to special needs… why are we taking money away from people who need it so desperately? Not just to live comfortably, these people need this money to keep their families together. They need this money to keep their children at home, to give them the medications and therapy they need to stay healthy. Those aren’t luxuries, those are necessities, at least to me. That’s why we don’t propose a monetary solution. We just don’t want these cuts to be made at all.
Yes, I know this was mostly emotion-based. But that’s a big part of ethics; what you think is right and what you think is wrong. And to me, taking away from families that are in need is wrong. That’s what we are trying to say with our video. I hope this clears some things up.
- Anon221 - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 12:00 pm:
$20 million to “support ” legislators, or $20 million to invest in the people of Illinois. Billionaire super PACs for presidential hopefuls, or billion dollar programs that would “pay it forward”.
Which path, in the long generational outlook, is truly the best “investment”?
- Arizona Bob - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 12:29 pm:
Great response, Maddie, but as you get older you’ll learn that you’ll be faced with many situations where you won’t be able to do something just because it will help someone who deserves to be helped. You have to make a choice about doing one thing or another of two or more worthy causes.
As we grow and become more financially able to help, we face tough choices for doing good with very noble causes and organizations. Do we give everything we can to Juvenile Diabetes or St Jude’s Childrens Hospital? Do we donate to find a cure for Pulmonary Fibrosis which kills 40,000 people per year(more than breast cancer), which is ALWAYS fatal within 3-5 years of diagnosis and for which the resources have never been given to even find out WHY people get it, or do we donate to combat cancer or heart disease?
Making political funding choices are much easier, if you do your homework. Should Glenkirk be a funding priority over grants given to “community organizers” who disperse the money to political cronies without doing much good for the community? I think so, but if you don’t work to end the “bad” spending there will never be enough for the “good” spending.
When you leave school, I’m sure being the bright person you are you’ll learn this important lesson.
It was once written that, “If you’re not a liberal at age 18, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at age 30, you have no brain.”
When you put together the heart and the brain, you’ll have taken a truly huge step to be one of those folks who get things done for those in need.
I’m certain you’ll get there….
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 1:00 pm:
And the Golden Horseshoe for most patronizing comment of the year goes to Arizona Bob. Congrats Bob, you earned it!
- Lahkonysm - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 1:14 pm:
Vman i agree, and inwould add a much smaller point. In a cold logical way helping others is also market protection. The underlying social structure is a big intricate part of the market as well. Time and again we have seen if you dont help others you end up with high crime and blight; you also reduce the money flowing in the economy which helps to make the market flourish.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 1:25 pm:
I can answer your questions without being condescending.
What you did was more than sufficient. It pointed out the human rights issue that arises when a government decides that it cannot “afford” certain financial assistance to some citizens. You shouldn’t have to do battle with other citizen groups to prove that you have a greater need than they, or have any solution to the problem created when financial assistance was cut.
We have a state government lead by one party which has failed to keep up with how it collects tax revenue in the 21st Century, and a governor who believes that the state government can live on the obsolete tax revenue system by denying citizen services to Illinoisans who had received them.
Under the guises of “waste and fraud”, and “we are broke”, the current administration is justifying the cuts effecting special need citizens. Yet, these cuts are unjustifiable and wrong. They make a statement regarding how Illinois value Illinoisans.
The work you have done with this video is enough. You shouldn’t need to know the political nonsense or political bull. This government is to work for you. You shouldn’t need to know anything than what you have already presented.
Thank you!
VM
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 1:30 pm:
In a cold logical way helping others is also market protection.
True. Good Point. What concerns me is how quickly the people who use market value has turned from this logic, however. I don’t see anyone in the GOP presenting a solution based on that logic regarding Baltimore. It seems that all we’re hearing is how the citizens in Baltimore deserve what they got.
- Arizona Bob - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 1:50 pm:
@47th
=And the Golden Horseshoe for most patronizing comment of the year goes to Arizona Bob. Congrats Bob, you earned it!=
Thank you, thank you all! There are many other people I need to thank for this prestigious honor..there’s “demoralized” who makes put downs without humor a centerpiece of his posts. I’ve learned a lot from him. There’s Oswego Willy who’s pontificating and complaints while virtually never suggesting solutions to the problems in Illinois set the standard for unproductive castigation. And finally, 47th, I’d like to thank YOU for reminding me that old bromide from Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” that ridicule is one of the most potent political weapons; it can’t be disputed because it’s opinion, and it can’t be argued because it needs no basis in fact.
I regard this award not for what I’ve done, but what I can accomplish in the future.
I just have one question…WHERE’S MY GOLDEN HORSECHOE?
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 1:59 pm:
If the horseshoe fits Bob…
Patronize is defined as: treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
I don’t have my copy of Rules for Radicals handy Bob, is that ridicule for pointing out you were patronizing Maddie, or do you not have a dictionary on your computer?
- Anon221 - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 2:01 pm:
AZ-
What do you want more, the gold or the shoe?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 3:00 pm:
- Arizona Bob -,
I can’t help you can’t read my thoughts correctly, but claiming to be a victim of the people your are “thanking” really makes - 47th Ward -’s observation more valid then when it was made.
To the Post,
It’s important that Rich put this post up, and the accompanying video. - Maddie -’s comments clarified some thoughts she had, and left, at least me, to think.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 3:00 pm:
Well done and a story well-told.
- Arizona Bob - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 3:49 pm:
@47th
I wasn’t patronizing Maddie. She’s a young girl with a bright future who would benefit from learning to have more than one perspective on an issue.
It’s a learning process.
When I was a HS teacher, I once attended an “environmental activist” club meeting on electric cars.
An enthusiastic group of well meaning students told everyone that in 2000 in Chicago that “air pollution was the worst its ever been” and that electric cars were a non polluting way of transportation.
I asked the leader why he thought what had been the cleanest air in about a century in Chicago was the worst. I described how when I was a kid in the 1950s and 1960s, people were still burning coal for heat, and that “black snow” was common in some neighborhoods. I told him about lead based gasoline and the yellow haze around Chicago from the sulfur dioxide before power plant scrubbing technology and before catalytic converters were on cars.
I asked him where the electricity for the car came from, and he said “the socket” and where did the electricity from the socket come from? Power plants. I explained that nuclear waste was created and coal was burned for that car recharge.
I also asked how we should dispose of all the toxic acidic waste created by the batteries.
I made the point that figuring out what “doing the right thing” was could be pretty tough, but if you’re serious about doing some good, it’s a job you have to do.
In order to make things better, we need to find out the root causes of the problems and address those root causes if we really want to fix things.
I’m sorry if you find teaching that lesson “condescending” but I think it’s a necessary lesson for any serious citizen to learn.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 4:03 pm:
===I wasn’t patronizing Maddie. She’s a young girl with a bright future who would benefit from learning to have more than one perspective on an issue.===
You just did it again Bob. She didn’t ask for your lecture, so spare us please. You can think whatever you want to think, but when you say it here, expect others to point out how remarkably patronizing you sound.
Not every post requires you to leave a comment either. When you do, and you write something false or obnoxious, expect someone to call you on it. There is no need for you to use this thread as your opportunity to show Maddie and the rest of us how smart you are.
But bravo Bob, you’re smarter than a 12th grader. Mad props to you sir.
- Ugly Rumours - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 5:57 pm:
Great video, post it on Rauner’s homepage.
- late to the party - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 6:04 pm:
Thank you for sharing this video, Rich, and thank you Maddie and partners for creating it. These are not line items, they are people. And they are people that many of us believe government has a moral obligation to protect at all costs.
These programs should be the last to be cut, not the first.
And thank you Vanilla Man. You demonstrate that conservative doesn’t mean soul-less.
- Ugly Rumours - Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 6:15 pm:
AZ Bob, I’ll bet you’re a fan of Sheriff Joe, too. Why are you in AZ if you’re so concerned with Illinois politics?
- Ata - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 10:00 pm:
Great video for a high school project. Maddie, good for you bringing into focus some individuals that will be effected by this. Ignore pompous remarks trying to turn this into a personal political agenda and continue examining the issue and presenting your point of view. I am glad you put in you “two cents” . Brava!