Saturday, January 21, 2006

Similar -- Yet Different

A comparative analysis of John Shimkus (IL-19) and Judy Biggert (IL-13) gives the appearance that they are the same person just in different congressional districts. An anonymous visitor to the cyber world proves otherwise and corrects a past comment:

Actually, in 2004, Ms. Biggert 65% of the vote against a candidate who only spent $42,000. Can you imagine what would happen if a well-funded campaign challenged her?

I too shudder at the "conspiracy theorists", but I still want to be represented by someone other than Ms Biggert.

Let me count the reasons . . .
  1. She consistently votes and believes in "Faith Based Funding" without the usual amendment forbidding the recipient from delivering services or hiring using religion as a criterion. This means Federal funds can go to support specific religions. Hmmmm -- Some first amendment difficulties.
  2. She believes people should have more of a say where to invest their Social Security taxes (AKA she believes in privatizing Social Security).
  3. She co- wrote the impossible-to-be-compliant No Child Left Behind Act. Even her beloved Hinsdale schools failed -- school systems who believe in educating all students will ultimately fail.
  4. Leading to vouchers and charter schools which Ms. Biggert does believe in.
  5. She was one of the authors of the bill that would have taken away overtime for emergency workers like policeman, fireman, nurses, etc. I do not expect unions love her.
  6. She was very proud of obtaining a $2 million Port Security Grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for the CITGO Lemont Refinery received in June 2004. I recall 400 plus companies from around the country received the 2 million. That money should have gone to the New York Port authority. I am more concerned about what is coming into our major cities via shipping containers.
  7. Check the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) site for her record on environmental issues.
  8. She truly believes in the importance of us being in Iraq.
  9. She also believes tax breaks to those in the upper 1% will spur on the economy and the estate tax is too high.
  10. Do we mention September being made Life Insurance Awareness month? Do we mention her hubby’s investments in the industry and that Ms. Biggert sits on the Finance committee? (see Mother Jones September 2005)
  11. She votes the way she honestly believes . . .
I believe the exact opposite -- there is no conspiracy here, just common sense about what is the correct tack for the bulk of the people. Ms. Biggert is not representing ME. Please support Bill Reedy.
At the very beginning, the anonymous person provides Gloria Andersen’s financial information and vote totals from her 2004 campaign against Rep. Biggert and an excellent question regarding a well-funded campaign (e.g., DCCC support similar to the Tammy Duckworth (IL-06) campaign). Therefore, gerrymandering does not hurt in keeping the congresswoman in office. It is the price of doing political business.

There are close similarities between the two members of congress, yet they are two different people. The final statement proves that difference. The congresswoman’s true belief in her Calvinist legislation is so destructive to the quality of life for her constituents and all U.S. residents.

John Shimkus has a different motive: John Shimkus.

6 Comments:

At 23 January, 2006 21:25, Blogger WillCoView said...

Gloria Anderson is the one that wrote this garbage. This is the same non-sense she tried to sell when she lost last time around. HEY GLORIA... NO ONE IS BUYING IT! Last time I checked the 13th Congressional District was one of the best places in the country to live. Seems like something is going right.

 
At 24 January, 2006 21:09, Blogger Philosophe Forum said...

The anonymous person's true identity isn't a concern. There have been other e-mail messages on other subjects that I've received. They, too, came from anonymous people. I don't ask for an identity. They can trust me to publish their statements with only one request: the accuracy of the information they provide.

I've checked the contents of the message. The "non-sense" is accurate. Whoever sent this, did their homework. I suggest you do yours. Some of the links are in the post. Other research requires access to Lexis-Nexis, etc.

From the congresswoman's own press releases (available on her website), she is truly proud of her work. She destroys the quality of life of the public trust to benefit the wealthy few.

It is also obvious from your comment that IL-13 benefits from Biggert's ethics violations with the insurance industry. While it is true that both Dems & Reps violate ethics to a degree, the difference is that the Reps are worse, sneakier, & more corrupt about it.

Feel free to do your homework. Find accurate information to rebutt the reality. Send it, & I'll be happy to publish it. Do that instead of responding with trollish personal attacks that discourage constructive discourse.

 
At 24 January, 2006 22:12, Blogger WillCoView said...

Let’s just start with the simple ones:

2. Gloria wrote: “She believes people should have more of a say where to invest their Social Security taxes (AKA she believes in privatizing Social Security).”

Actually, I have read (unlike this poster… AKA Gloria Anderson) the Congresswoman’s stance on this issue. The Congresswoman has never stated that she supports “privatization”. I challenge the poster or you to prove otherwise. This is just complete non-sense.

3. Gloria wrote: “She co- wrote the impossible-to-be-compliant No Child Left Behind Act. Even her beloved Hinsdale schools failed -- school systems who believe in educating all students will ultimately fail.”

Yes, the Congresswoman was on the committee at the time the legisaltion was written. However, I believe the portion that the Congresswoman takes credit for is the section that guarantees that homeless children will receive an education (based on a similar Illinois Law) regardless of where their families circumstances bring them. Hmmmm, sounds like the Congresswoman is a little more concerned about her’s and other’s less fortunate constiutents than Gloria would give her credit for. BTW: the term “failing” never appears in the NCLB law. This is a label that people like Gloria put on our schools as a political tool. Let’s stop playing politics with our children’s education by using this tactic.

4. Gloria wrote: “Leading to vouchers and charter schools which Ms. Biggert does believe in.”

Of these statements this is most ridicoulus, Congresswoman Biggert has voted against the use of vouchers each time the issue has come up before the Congress. She continues to fight against the use of vouchers. This is why she has and continues to receive the endorsement of the NEA and IEA. Clearly those that are in the leadership of the education associations know what their talking about.

Some Democrats care about the truth. I suggest you do your homework again. I’ll clear up the remainder later. Just because someone else share’s your incorrect opinion doesn’t mean it becomes the right one. And misleading people and twisting a officials stance on an issue doesn't make you right either.

You are correct that corruption exists on both sides, but “conspiracy theories” do not mean that corrupiton is happening in this case. Stop grasping for what isn't there.

 
At 26 January, 2006 21:54, Blogger Philosophe Forum said...

Judy, Judy, Judy . . . Some people consider you such a nice grandmotherly type. Tantrums are beneath you! Consider reading the dictionary instead. Although, it was quite nice of you to prove the statement on your position on Social Security.

2. Social Security is a trust (e.g., retirement funds & giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary. ). To invest, people have to open an account -- a PRIVATE account (e.g., A formal banking, brokerage, or business relationship established to provide for regular services, dealings, and other financial transactions.).

2 different things with an all-too obvious goal: The Bush Admin. is using "account" to convince Americans that Social Security should be dismantled. The GOP will fall in line with their "leader", & the financial institutions will profit. Investors hoping to see a nice nest egg when they retire will sweat out the stock markets.

3. NCLB is an unfunded mandate (demand everything & provide no tools/support). It's OK for any child that can memorize & regergetate for standardized testing. It doesn't matter if students finish HS or college after learning something as long as their teachers prepare them well enough for a high test score. Effects:

(1) Children are more stressed out than ever before creating a foundation for severe future psychological problems (if they don't commit suicide first).
(2) Dyslexics & other slow learners are left out (& highly intelligent dyslexic girls are almost impossible to diagnose until very late).
(3) A FL boy has already repeated one grade THREE times. After a while, they'll say "why bother" & drop out as soon as they can after being truent as often as possible.

Bottom line --> It's setting a school up to fail & justifies vouchers.

4. Voting against vouchers now when they're not really justified makes you look good to the teachers' lobby. You'll vote for them when the time's right just like the rest of your GOP colleagues. That way you can pretend to look like heroes to a "failing" public school system.

The byproduct --> Superficially, school vouchers might seem a relatively benign way to increase the options poor parents have for educating their children. Here's the reality: Vouchers pose a serious threat to values that are vital to the health of American democracy. These programs subvert the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and threaten to undermine our system of public education.

 
At 29 January, 2006 12:23, Blogger WillCoView said...

Someone disagrees with you and suddenly you think its the person your attacking. You are such a joke. I'm done with this Blog. I came here looking for other Democrats that wanted to have conversations about what is happening. All I found were a bunch of narrow minded individuals that have conspiracy theories. No wonder why we don't get further.

There are plenty of things that the Republicans do that I don't like. I just don't respect those that distort the truth. I want to win without doing that. Some of us want to take the higher ground.

 
At 30 January, 2006 20:43, Blogger Philosophe Forum said...

So much for the "higher ground" & comprehending written English sentences.

1. The PF isn't a community blog. It's mine. I post text from anonymous e-mail messages I receive because I choose to. The senders don't provide permission to use their personal information (if they provide it). As a policy, I don't publish personal information without permission.

2. I agreed with the anonymous text that no conspiracy existed. I never said there was to begin with. Again, gerrymandering is the cost of doing political business.

3. The only attacks have been from the (trollish) WCV comments -- another anonymous individual -- that I chose to publish & didn't have to. This is a FORUM, an arena to express individual perspectives. Putting a name on the original anonymous text was WCV's game. I played along.

4. Reading the dictionary & thesaurus doesn't distort the truth. It clarifies it. That's how everyone can tell the difference between a "trust" & an "account" (e.g., privatization).

Comments like the above is the reason for the DISCLAIMER at the top of the blog:

The views expressed belong to the Philosophe Forum without responsibility for false speculation, erroneous comments, the inability to comprehend written English, complete confusion, or the views & opinions of any website linked to & from this page (contact them, leave me out of it).

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


The views expressed on this site belong to the Philosophe Forum without responsibility for false speculation, erroneous comments, the inability to comprehend written English, complete confusion, or the views & opinions of any website linked to & from this page (contact them, leave me out of it). Please send your messages to this address. All email addresses are confidential, published with permission. The Fair Use Statement is at the bottom of the sidebar.