OP ED: Burris burrows in ... as well he should.

Many in the pundits in the press conjecture that Illinois Senator Roland Burris (pictured with Senate President Harry Reid) will have to resign as a result of the onslaught of negative publicity fomented by the press, itself. This media feeding frenzy has been given more heft than it deserves by a gaggle or self-serving politicians who either have an interest in replacing Burris with themselves of an ally, or merely see piling on as a hook to get their name and face in the press for another day. The psychology that is driving this hyper hype is the same that leads mobs of otherwise descent people to “take matters into their own hands” as an outcome of irrational hysteria.

So many of those calling for Burris’ resignation claim to respect him and consider him a friend. They cite his distinguished career. He is often described simply, but meaningfully, as “a good man.” Are we to conclude from this that the U.S. Senate is no place for “a good man?”

More specifically, all the jawboning and editorializing in the world cannot force the resignation. Only the U.S. Senate can expel a member, and it is more than likely that the collegial Upper Chamber lacks the authority or resolve to take such action in this case.

There are two major reasons that Burris should not resign. First, he has done nothing that warrants his stepping down. Yes, there have been inconsistencies in his testimonies and affidavits – nothing, according to prosecutors, that rises to the level of perjury. Despite media smears that have label Burris an egregious liar, his inconsistencies are not too far outside the range of anyone being asked questions in different ways on different occasions -- and certainly nothing near the level of prevarication by those who now smugly demand his ouster. Unfortunately, such hypocrisy is pandemic in politics.

The second reason is that Burris needs to complete his current term to have any chance to reclaim his hitherto pristine reputation as public official. For some 30 years, Burris was praised by the political, civic and business communities as an outstanding public servant and honorable man – never even a hint of scandal (quite and accomplishment in Illinois). But even that history has been twisted, distorted and re-written by press and politicians to further demonize him. Once known for his friendly manner, accessibility and humility, Burrs is now labeled an arrogant hack.

If he were to resign today, he would slip into the shadow of public attention as the press created caricature. He would leave the public stage with the unfounded accusations of his detractors as his legacy.

Some say that the controversy leaves him powerless to perform his duties. How so? He still has all the powers of his office, his intellect and his skills. He can and will wheel and deal with the best of them. His colleagues are not likely to shun him for the benefit of the home town lynch mob – especially since they need his vote to stay close to that veto proof number and he still has the distinction and advantage of being the Senate’s token African American.

Once it is obvious that he will not resign, I suspect the media will cool down and shift lens and pens to some new political reality show – new indictments, new scandals, new investigations, the trial of Rod Blagojevich (or maybe just the antics of Rod Blagojevich). This will give Burris an opportunity to settle in as a hard working Senator for another 18 months – and longer if the public suddenly finds their incited anger turning to a sense of guilt.

People in the public eye are often advised to step down at the peak of the career to lock in their future reputation. Conversely, it is not advisable to step down at the nadir.

REACT: Making your car a tax taxi.

It just goes to show that you cannot rely on Republicans to have any respect for American freedom. They can be as avaricious of tax money and as contemptuous of public privacy and freedom as any so-called progressive Democrat. Big Brother has more than a few siblings in the GOP camp. How bad can it be if President Barack Obama has to oppose a federal government tax increase and power grab proposed by one of his own Cabinet members -- an infamous RINOs (Republican In Name Only), to be sure?

Once again the American public was about to be hoodwinked, or should I say LaHood-winked. Seems that newly minted Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, an Illinois insider Republican (need I say more?) has proposed that drivers be taxed on the miles driven by having a GPS unit mandated for all cars (increasing the sticker price, of course). Essentially, you car becomes a tax taxi.

LaHood proposed to nationalize a concept that is being explored in a few states, including Massachusetts (need I say more?). The mileage charge would vary according to the driving locations. City drivers, where there is more congestion, would pay a higher rate. Rural drivers, where cow flatulence is the most serious pollutant according to our environmental geniuses in Washington, would be taxed at lower rates. The GPS feature, will allow that rate to change automatically as you travel from zone to zone. Of course, government issued cars would not be taxed.

One of the outcomes of this creative taxing is a form of punishment for drivers using low-fuel consumption vehicles. The feds are afraid that lower usage will reduce tax revenues. Duh!

Now … they could just increase the gas tax to achieve the same result. So, why not? Because … this new form of taxation will provide government with two things it loves almost as much as our money. It will give them a reason to establish another cancerous bureaucracy (probably in LaHood’s DOT) and provide a windfall of personal tracking information on every citizen in America.

I suspect the next group in support of this will be law enforcement officials, who will claim that they can track suspects through this system. No one can argue that constant, around-the-clock surveillance of all citizens can reduce the crime rate. But … a police state is not what the founders had in mind.

Fortunately, President Obama has slapped down his Trans Secretary in rather firm tones. This will not be the policy of his administration. Whether he comes to this out of conviction or political savvy – realizing the public backlash that would ensure – is of no consequence. Give him credit where credit is due.

Footnote: Anyone who thought LaHood would bring conservative Republican values to his new post does not know him or the political environment from whence he comes. Putting him at DOT is akin of inviting the fox in the hen house – case in point.

NOTABLE QUOTABLE: The voice of Ronald Reagan

Sometimes a person writes something that cannot be improved by analysis or editing. I recently read this article by Michael Reagan, son of the late President. Rather then regurgitate his points with less eloquence, I thought you should just read what he wrote. So here it is.

Requiem For A Republic
By Michael Reagan
February 14, 2009

It is not true that grown men don't cry. I'm grown and I'm on the verge of tears. A Republic I have loved all my life is being is being murdered and the crime is an inside job.

If you hear a whirring sound in the background it is my dad Ronald Reagan, who loved and served this nation, spinning in his grave as his latest successor plunges a carving knife into America's vital organs.

In his wildest dreams Ronald Reagan never thought that a president of a United States, now in the throes of a serious economic crisis, would adopt a solution to the problems of our economy that would not only worsen the situation, but set in motion the beginning of a transition of the government of the United States from a Constitutional Republic into a coercive quasi-Marxist regime where Washington is the master of our people instead of their servant.

Let it be said loud and clear: Barack Obama's so-called stimulus bill, feverishly embraced by his sticky-fingered Democratic minions in the House and Senate (and three craven Republican senators), will not do a single thing to revive our ailing economy. Nothing.

Instead it will put Washington's grasping hands into every nook and cranny of America's economic and social life, and bankrupt an already penurious nation for generations to come.

Think about it -- nearly a trillion dollars to be squandered on a host of pork-laden projects, payoffs to pet leftist groups and causes grasping for their share of the booty, and a few bucks to create jobs, mostly in the public sector.

A trillion dollars we don't have and will need to borrow from our grandchildren and their offspring. A trillion dollars created out of thin air that will drastically reduce the value of the dollars in our pockets in an orgy of runaway inflation.

It wasn't all that long ago that spending a billion dollars on government projects and programs was viewed with alarm. As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen once said, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

A trillion dollars is $1000 billion, a sum that the imagination cannot comprehend.

If you could have spent a million dollars every day since Christ was born you would not even come close to having spent a trillion dollars, yet Mr. Obama and his wastrel Democratic stooges on Capitol Hill have no qualms about spending that amount -- and more -- on programs that will do nothing to alleviate the current economic crisis, and in many ways worsen it.

Have we forgotten what Thomas Jefferson warned us when in 1791? He said, "To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we (will then) be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they (will) be happy."

Jefferson would have refused to believe that a free people would allow their government to saddle them and their children and grandchildren with a debt so enormous they could not even begin to comprehend.

Nor would he have even dreamt of the government wasting money on projects noted by former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, such as a billion dollars to subsidize money-losing Amtrak, $20 billion to expand the already-bloated food stamp program, about $2 billion diverted from the wallets of hard-working Americans to subsidize childcare, and $2.8 billion to fund advocacy programs studying the global-warming hoax.

There's another $600 million for newer cars for government bureaucrats $44 million to refurbish the Department of Agriculture, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, and $150 million to spruce up the Smithsonian buildings and more than $400 million to promote anti-smoking programs and programs to fight sexually transmitted diseases.

That's what future generations of Americans will be paying for. I'm sure they'll thank us.

OP ED: Holiday angst

I get a little testy about the February holiday season.

First there is SAINT Valentine's Day. I am by far not a holy roller, but I resent the so-called mainstream transforming this day to simply "Valentine's Day" out of some politically correct secularization. I not only fault the liberal goo goos, but the media and the card, candy and carnation advertisers for censoring the traditional name of the holiday. St. Valentine was a real person, and this celebration of loving kindness has historic roots in the St. Valentine legend.

Then there is Presidents' Day. We once celebrated the individual birthdays of our first President, George Washington, and our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, with separate days in February. Now we have some nebulous day recognizing all our chief executives. Some how, lumping Washington and Lincoln in with Millard Fillmore, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton is an abomination. I think the Martin Luther King holiday is fine, but it seems ironic that he can have his own day and the likes of Washington and Lincoln are shuffled in a deck with a few too many jokers. In fact, King is the only person in American history now to have his own personal national holiday. No matter how much you admire King, that is just not right.

I TOLD YA SO: Blago hits the celebrity trail

After the booting out of office of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a lot of the smarty pants reporters and pundits were lamenting their belief that the colorful and headline making public official would sink into some sort of oblivion. I predicted that he would continue to maintain high visibility as a celebrity in his own right. Well, one look at his post-ouster national media schedule and you can see that Blago is going to give Paris Hilton a run as the spotlight hog of the year. He even appeared on the David Letterman Show. That's star status.

Frankly, I'm at a loss to see why so many reporters and columnists think the media tour is so stupid. What do they expect -- that he will sulk at home until the feds carry him off to court for a quick trial before he is marched up to the gallows?

The media schtick makes perfect sense. He is getting a lot of criticism for what some think is an attempt to influence future jurors -- you know, makes him sort of human, funny and maybe some of his protestations of innocence will be persuasive? And why not? What's he got to lose.

Granted ... he could not deflect the impeachment by the Illinois House and conviction by the Illinois Senate. And despite all the swagger in public, it is mostly likely that he is going to get convicted and sent to the pen. In the meantime, he will be one of the more interesting personalities this side of Drew Pearson.

REACT: Recalling the uterus

Warning: This blog is a bit "salty" as they used to say. If you are clueless, it means that there is adult content and language herein. X-rated, as they say today. Maybe only R -- if you are more liberal in these matters.

As they used to say on Monty Python ... and now for something completely different.

Despite the title over this blog, it is not about some reminiscence of the womb. No. It seems a newly introduced toy "plush uterus" (yeah, you read it right) had to be recalled because the ovaries constitute a "choking hazard." (I will not proceed until you stop laughing -- and hopefully you are not now spewing out a mouth full of coffee.) This news report invites an almost endless number of comedic and/or vulgar retorts. However, you will have to think of them on your own since I will not indulge you with mine.

What I will express is my utter bewilderment as to why this toy was ever conceived. (<-- Did I use a poor choice of words in that sentence?) What parent, in their right mind would bring home this furry piece of anatomy for their daughter? And surely not for their son. My suspicion is that this is a product directed at wacko feminist mommies. You know ... the ones that go to the theatre to see a production the title of which refers to a vocal version of the same organ. Someone should tell them that when their darling daughter asked for a furry pussy, she probably meant a cat.

And what can you do with this toy besides sucking off the ovaries? Cuddle with it? Use it as a pillow? Banish THAT image from my mind. I am not sure what this toy is called. I'm thinking maybe Miss Cutie C*nt would work.

Is this to be an educational toy? If so, will these enlightened little girls reach puberty thinking that they will grow fuzz insides like the telltale hair in all those other body places? And what about that smiley face? Frankly, if I had just looked at this "thing" without prior knowledge, my first guess would not have been a uterus. Way no. I would be thinking a colorized Casper the Ghost carrying a couple plums. Or maybe Barney as a baby. How educational is that?

No boys' version? No Mr. Cuddle C*ck? Maybe the manufactures recognized the obvious chocking hazard without having our government have to tell them. Also, how do you market a symbol of manhood to those wacky fems? Still, I think if we want boys and girls to play well with each other, there needs to be some equity here.

I am also disturbed by the concept of "sharing." I am certainly not the type of parent to advise my daughter to share her uterus with her friends. And I do not want to console my little sweetheart because the boy next store took her uterus and won't give it back. Even worse ... I may have to go next door and tell the parents that their son has my daughter's uterus and will not give it back.

Enough already. Next time you take the kids to the local toy store, make sure you check out the X-rated section.

OBSERVATION: Random thoughts on Blago's political demise.

I have a few closing thoughts on the ousting of Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Thought One: Almost unnoticed in the impeachment and removal from office of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was a provision that he be barred from ever again running for office in Illinois. I think this is overkill … piling on. Frankly, I think the Legislature is way out of bounds in preventing him from running for any office in the future – including Governor.

I mean, I wouldn’t vote for him. His chance of being elected to any major office is pretty minimal. However, I think he should have the right to run, and the voting public should have the right to decide to hire him or not – and not be pre-empted by a mob of over heated politicians.

While the odds suggest Blago will get indicted and convicted, that is not a certainty. What if he beats the rap? He is then an innocent man. What then?

Thought Two: I wonder … if this all happened one year earlier, would Barack Obama have made it to the White House. For sure, the world outside of Illinois had no idea just how corrupt is the political environment that spawned President Obama. So much of life is timing. (I put this item in as a shameless means to get a photo of Obama in the Blog and attract search engines. Forgive me ... but it seems the thing to do these day.)

Thought Three: I heard some pundits chagrining the fact that they will not have Rod Blagojevich around to generate news. They opined that he will now fade into the shadows of public attention. I think not. In fact, I expect Blago to continue to be a very highly visible public figure -- continuing to champion his cause in the main spotlight. More interestingly, he is very likely to seek revenge on his enemies – now as a citizen accuser – by dragging them before the same court of public opinion in which he was convicted.

While the self righteous political leaders sell themselves as the noble civic tribunes, I sort of think of them a bit more like Mafia don’s disposing of one of their own – you know – the guy that became a “problem” to the bosses. There is one of these characters in every mob movie.

Also, I am sure Blago knows where a lot of political bodies are buried and the impeachers forgot to take away his shovel. In view of the large volume of taped conversations, I suspect that a lot of others will find their hitherto secret schemes exposing them to a lot of embarrassment, minimally, and maybe criminal complicity. I dare say, old Blago could actually wind up being an unintentional agent of reform.

So cheer up sports fans. We are about to go into extra innings.

Thought Four: Most objective observers seem to agree that the press lost all sense of fairness and impartiality in the coverage of Barack Obama. It would appear that is also true in the case of Rod Blagojevich -- althought it was wrath, not adulation, that powered the disturbing bias. I mean, I don't like Blago at all, but I expect the media to adhere to traditional standards of professional objectivity. Rather than report on the issues, they scolded him, mocked him, belittled him. He was ravaged from every perspective ... news, editorials, columns and talk shows. At times, I could not tell if Blago's antics or the reporting of them was more outrageous. I guess both politicians and the press lose their perspective when offered an opportunity to be pompous.

Thought Five: Is the Blago saga reminding you -- as it is me -- of the Huey Long (right) epic? If you recall, he was the highly corrupt populist governor of Lousiana. He also was removed from office, but by only one disgruntled government employee with a gun. Blago had 59 disgruntled government employees with an impeachment. Ballots. Bullets? Same result ... well ... almost. If you have no idea what I am talking about, go to Blockbuster and rent the movie. All the King's Men. The author of the story claimed it was not about Huey Long. Yeah! Right! Just like Citizen Kane is not about William Randolph Hearst.

REACT: Governor ousted ... but was it proper?

First the obligatory disclaimer: I am no fan of Governor Rod Blagojevich. I did not like his policies. I think he is most likely guilty of criminal conduct, and will be convicted and sent to prison. I think he deserves no less.

BUT …

I am equally distressed by the way he was removed from office. What transpired is the closest thing to a coup that I have seen under our American system of “innocent until proven guilty” and the quoted more than implemented “rule of law.”

First, there was the highly questionable press conference by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (who I admire greatly). According to many legal experts, he was out of bounds in bringing the case against the Governor to the court of public opinion before he was ready to announce an indictment. In fact, to this day Blago has not been indicted of any crime. Without that press conference to stir the public against the Governor, and coalesce his political adversaries, there would not have been any serious discussion of an impeachment – bad as Blago may be.

Second, there is the question of the impeachment process. Repeatedly noting that it is a “political process,” and not a judicial process, the leaders of the Illinois House and Senate still failed to explain why “fairness” should not be a consideration. In a unique irony, the Governor was barred by the U.S. Attorney’s office from obtaining testimony from those who might be on the witness list for his eventual criminal trial. He could not cross examine witnesses. The Senate-as-court could only listen to a few minutes out of thousands of hours of wire taped conversations because most of the real “evidence” was being withheld for the trial.

Third: It was not a secret vote. While one may say this provided transparency for the public, it really put the “jury” under the pressure of the mob. The secret ballot protects the individual from the intimidation and retribution of the public. I am quite confident that a secret ballot would have produced a number of “no” votes.

Fourth, since it was quite obvious that the Legislature could not prove a “high crimes and misdemeanors” case, they switched to the less specific “abuse of power” accusation. This dubious charge is in the eye of the beholder. By most standards, the Governor’s battles with the Legislature would not rise to impeachment and removal from office – in fact, the notion of impeachment was not even hinted at the time he took the actions now condemned. This means that the central charges against the Governor were not the accusations of the U.S. Attorney, but things he did several years ago that angered members of the Legislature. In other words, those sitting in judgment took advantage of the public anger over the unproven criminal charges to oust the Governor on the vague “abuse” charges.

Fifth, the leaders of the impeachment effort have demonstrated both chutzpah and hypocrisy. Not only did they not accuse the Governor of abuse of power at the time of the alleged abuse, but they praised him, endorsed him, and served on his campaign committee for re-election in the interim. His abuses of power were not recently discovered, only recently defined by those who engaged in the very same processes as one time comrades-in arms.

Yes, it is good that Blago is gone. And yes, Patrick Quinn (left, being sworn in) will most probably make a better governor. However, the impeachment should only be the first step in a broader effort to clean up Illinois government. The political assassins need to be brought to justice next -- if nothing more than to be booted from office in the next election. Though they will now blame the former Governor for every ill in Illinois, they are still part of the business-as-usual process that has brought national shame to the Land of Lincoln.

TIDBIT: Gore gets frozen out?

Is there a correlation, or is it just a coincidence? As the prolonged cold across America reaches record lows in one place after another, I seem to notice a reduction in media interviews with Al Gore, the Pied Piper of global warming.

REACT: Congratulations to SENATOR Roland Burris -- a good man for the job

Today, Roland Burris was sworn in as the junior senator from Illinois, just as he predicted he would be. For the most part, his critics are fools, liars and hypocrites – or people with flagrant self interests.

First and foremost, we should recognize that in Burris the people of Illinois have an outstanding public servant as their new senator -- not withstanding the unfair and scurrilous criticisms flung at him by pandering political leaders and a public press on a feeding frenzy,

Burris has been one of the most descent public officials in recent history. In an Illinois environment of pay-to-play, insider deals, bribery, vote fraud, cronyism, nepotism, abuse of office, etc., Burris has kept his integrity. He has been faithful to the calling of public service.

He was the first African-American to win statewide office. In sixteen years in office, eight as Comptroller and eight as Attorney General, he was not once the subject of scandal. Somehow his unsuccessful bids for later offices are held against him despite the fact that those campaigns were run with dignity, intelligence and integrity. Losing an election is no sin – and consider for one moment the caliber of those who beat him.

Burris’ critics come in two varieties. The first group is composed of the revisionists, who once praised and endorsed him for public office in the past. On the basis of nothing more than their almost crazed desire to “get” Governor Rod Blagojevich (who certainly deserves to be “got,” and will be), they have turned on Burris like rabid dogs.

For the revisionists, the mere acceptance of a seat in the U.S. Senate wiped out a long, distinguished and honorable career in politics. In maligning Burris, they are re-writing history. Burris is retroactively declared to be a hack politician, an ego maniac, a scumbag of sorts.

What Burris did is not illegal. It is not immoral. It is not even the slightest disservice to the public. As a career politician, his interest and willingness to accept a historic senate seat is understandable. I suspect there are a lot of “good people” who would have done the same. I would have.

Then there are those who still say Burris is a “good man” … “qualified” … “competent” … but he should not have been seated due to the sins of the appointer. They say the appointment is “tainted.” There opposition has nothing to do with Burris as a person. It is that damn Blagojevich.

This is nothing less than guilt by association – and a hypocritical double standard, to boot. Many of the very same people who wrap Blago around Burris had, themselves, close working relationships with the Governor. Lt. Governor Pat Quinn was his running mate for re-election even as the feds were closing in. Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan was Blago’s campaign co-chairman. Much of the media that now demonizes Burris by the proxy of Blagojevich endorsed the Governor’s re-election on their editorial pages.

Taking it personal … I have known Roland for almost 30 years as a friend and as a member of the board of the City Club of Chicago, in the days I served as its executive director. Though I generally leaned Republican, he always had my support because of his competency and decency.

Though much has been made of his monumental grave marker, Roland has always been a humble and unpretentious man. I have never known him to use race to his advantage or as an excuse.

No matter how he got there, or who appointed him, or the twisted logic that places the wrongs of the Governor on his shoulders, I know one thing for sure. Illinois has sent a good man to Washington, and I am confident that he will serve the people of Illinois with effectiveness, dedication and integrity.

REACT: Jose Serrano: The man who would have a king

I knew it! I knew it! I knew it!

I recently told my son that I would not be surprised if there was an effort to rescind the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the one that limits a President to two terms – now that the Democrats have a lock on Congress and a potentially popular President.

The tradition of two terms was established by George Washington, who appreciated the risk of a President amassing too much power by a life time in office. That is the manner of despots, not (small d) democrats.

It was a good tradition and one that was honored out of principle until a (big D) Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt (right, in cape), recognized and seized the opportunity to become America’s dictator – well almost. His authoritarian lust was stopped by what was left of the democratic spirit and by the Creator, who called FDR home before he could complete his quest for power.

Realizing just how close we came to an omnipotent President, the Congress passed the 22nd Amendment. The Amendment legislation was supported and signed by the man best able to see close up the corrupting influence of prolonged power, FDR's own Vice President, Harry Truman (right). Many of those who supported FDR’s policies endorsed the Amendment. It was a close call for America, and they knew it.

Since Democrats tend to be the party of power over principle, one could anticipate that the temptation to institutionalize their advantage and status would manifest itself in a number of ways – and perpetual power for a President is one of them.

Rising to the occasion is Congressman Jose Serrano (left), a New York City Democrat (which says a lot). He has introduced legislation that would abolish the term limit for the President – not just a President, but for HIS President, Barack Obama. It is a flagrant attempt to seize power for his party, nothing more … nothing less.

Serrano’s desire to prolong the tenure of the head of state maybe explains, or is explained by, his unwavering support and affection for Cuba’s long time dictator, Fidel Castro. Serrano obviously has no respect for the “liberty” portion of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is such a bad idea that I would hope his constituents would throw him out of office at the very next opportunity. Unfortunately, his overwhelmingly Hispanic district returns him to Congress by margins that have exceeded 90 percent.

I think any member of Congress who signs on as a co-sponsor of this awful and dangerous legislation should be bounced … and any member who votes for it. These are people who have a dangerous lack of appreciation for the safeguards that have preserved our basic liberties for more than 200 years.

Washington was wise and noble to propose the limit on himself and his successors. When voluntary compliance failed, the Congress was wise to include the protection in the Constitution.

This is an issue upon which President Obama must be very clear and convincing in his opposition. Any equivocation should bring down an avalanche of negative public opinion. At least I sure hope so.

REACT: Blago impeached AGAIN!!! But not in the eyes of his sister-in-law.

It was only a technicality. The newly seated Illlinois House had to reaffirm the vote of the outgoing assembly. This time the vote to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich was 117 to 1.

The "all in the family" political culture of Illinois did produce one interesting vote -- it was that lonely "no" vote. It was cast by newly elected State Representative Deborah Mell.

The name sound familiar?

Yep! She is the daughter of powerhouse Alderman Dick Mell ... AND sister of Mrs. Blagojevich. She is the impeached governor's sister-in-law.

Frankly, I am shocked and disappointed that she voted "no." I wouldn't expect her to ruin future Christmases with her sister by voting "yes," but I think she had a clear obligation to abstain in view of the obvious conflict of interest.

In one of her first acts as a representative of the people, with a sworn duty to uphold the law, not-so-Representative Mell opted to cast a personal vote for the exclusive benefit of her family. With 117 votes against her, it is preposterous to suggest that she voted on the merits of the issue or the public interest.

It appears that the heirs to the various political peerages in Illinois are no more imbued wtih a sense of propriety, principle and reform than are their elders.