OK, so an hour before Pennsylvania polls close might not be the best time to post this, but it is important to me and every person helps.
I am a post-doc. I received my degree in Genetics in 2006 and am now working at Harvard University. I have published roughly 30 peer-reviewed scholarly articles. My work has been in the journals Science and Nature and has been written up in the New York Times, Washington Post, and probably in your local paper via the Associated Press. I've received several awards and been asked to present at multiple national meetings. By all accounts I am an extremely successful young scientist. My career just about could not be going any better. And yet, like this diarist, I am likely going to be looking for a new job soon. One out of academia and the basic research that I love... Selling out to a big pharma company.
The reason why is simple. My employers, the American people, are not paying me very well and I can't afford to continue my work. I love my job and I know everyone's hurting. This is what we get when cut taxes for the rich and spend all of our money on militarism.
Cross-posted from PrairieStateBlue. Please join us for your Illinois politics blogging.
Illinois has now officially moved it's primary to February 5th. What is perhaps more important is that this change will also affect primaries for state and congressional offices. That's less time for recruitment of candidates, voter identification and education, and increase visibility. Challenges to incumbents of any stripe need to get going soon in order to be effective.
"Illinois is the fifth largest state in the country. The people who live here deserve to play a bigger role in deciding who the presidential candidates will be," Blagojevich said in a statement.
The move was orchestrated by the state's Democratic leadership in an effort to aid home-state U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Eric Zorn follows up his column on the letter of a fallen soldier's father to President Bush with e-mails home from the soldier himself. Kevin Landeck, of Wheaton, IL, was a son, a husband, a brother, and a soldier. He volunteered to defend the United States and was frustrated when the United States government failed to defend him.
I wish they would let us do our jobs. I am looking forward to coming home in April for my two-week leave. I will only have four months left in this hellhole and then I can be home with [wife] Bethany, my dog and pizza.
Via So-Called Austin Mayor. Sorry this is late. Please attend if you can. We're hoping for first-hand stories or photos. Stop in to PrairieStateBlue with more.
Just in case any readers want to participate, there will be a LEGAL march, on Michigan Avenue at 7:30 this evening to protest the ongoing occupation of Iraq and to Bring the Troops Home Now.
Protesters are assembling at the Ogden Elementary School parking lot (24 W. Walton Street) at 6 PM, with a march down Michigan beginning at 7:30 PM, with an 8:30 PM rally at Daley Plaza.
This is a published version of basically what Rich Miller wrote a couple of days ago. I don't know the website it is coming from, but the story is pretty much just facts. Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times wrote pretty much the same thing.
While it is important that we acknowledge the rumor for what it is, a rumor, it is also important to note that Weller is no saint, even if his conduct with pages has been wholly appropriate. More below the fold.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Tuesday he'll dismiss anyone on his staff found to have covered up concerns about ex-Rep. Mark Foley's approaches to former pages.
Hastert said he huddled with his staff last week and in that, in hindsight, the situation could have been better handled.
But he added, "If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs."
It's good to see Dennis on the same page as the rest of the nation.
Yesterday Barack Obama and Dick Durbin were among other Senators to speak out against Bush and the Republican Congress' Pro-Torture Bill.
The full texts of the speeches are long, but those who are interested can find the transcripts of Obama's speech here and Durbin's speech here. Also here is YouTube videos of Obama's complete remarks.
Of all the blogs out there that are not strictly devoted to third parties, ours (SoapBlox/Chicago) writes a lot about them. As much as we might like and as natural as it may seem though, third parties simply are not viable in our current political system. Why is this? Why aren't third parties and differing points of view encouraged?
It is freedom that defines American culture. It is fairness that forms the foundation of our country. We should be free to vote for whomever we choose without the fear that doing so will only enable those with whom we disagree. We should know that the system is fair to those who play by the rules. Without viable third parties we don't have freedom to vote our beliefs. We are forced to vote for Republicans or Democrats. Doing otherwise is "throwing your vote away". Without voting reform we don't have fairness in our electoral system. Third parties are forever marginalized, "spoiling" the true results and desires of the American people.
We must return freedom to our voting choices and we must return fairness to our electoral system. We have a method of doing this. It is instant runoff voting.
Despite his support of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary, Barack Obama will support Ned Lamont in the general. His PAC is reportedly cutting a check this morning. It remains to be seen if his support of Lamont will be as public as his support of Lieberman (stumping with him endorsing him at a CT event during the primary) or even if it will be public at all (currently we're operating on unnamed sources being reported at a site behind a firewall), but hopefully it will be strong; as it should be.
So the stem cell story went pretty much the way everyone expected. The House passed the bill in May. The Senate passed their version earlier this week. Bush vetoes the bill. Finally, the House fails to override the veto. Sad, wrong, short-sighted, and purely political, but unexpected. But there was something going on that might be interesting. Three Republicans changed their votes from May 24th to today (July 19th). (Sure there were a handful of people from both parties that abstained one time and voted the other, but we're talking about Yes to No or vice versa.)
David Reichert (WA-8) and Curt Weldon (PA-7) voted No the first time and Yes the second time. Bill Young (FL-10) voted Yes the first time and No the second. What's going on there? Any suggestions or ideas? (And no, pointing out that Curt Weldon is crazy doesn't count.)
House conservatives just passed their lobbying reform bill by a narrow 217-214 vote. The Washington Post called the legislation a "sham," "diluted snake oil" and "an insult to voters." Instead of the comprehensive reform promised by lawmakers in early 2006, this bill fails to reform parts of the system most in need.
The vote was 217 for, 213 against. Four votes. (But two Republicans abstained so that's really more like six.) Of course, the worst part of this is that eight Dems voted for it. Had the Democratic caucus stood united here they would have won.
I thought I'd offer this diary as an update to the Illinois House's attempt to instigate impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush from the state-level.
Kargo X first floated the idea and it was picked up by many Kossacks including several Vermont bloggers. Four other state-level Democratic organizations (Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and North Carolina) have also called for impeachment. (California has now also had a resolution introduced to the legislature as well which includes impeachment calls against Dick Cheney.) Carl Nyberg took up the torch in Illinois and contacted his State Representitive, Karen Yarbrough. Rep. Yarbrough introduced the resolution last Friday (the 21st). As of this writing the bill has 17 co-sponsors. (Illinois has 118 State Representitives and 65 Democratic State Reps.) That means over a quarter of Illinois' Democratic State Reps have signed on as co-sponsors in the four working days since it was introduced.
As many of you know, Bill Scheurer is running as a third party candidate against Melissa Bean and the eventual Republican primary winner in IL-8. Also as many of you know, Bill is generally very progressive in his stance on issues and will be challenging Bean from the left. What you may not know is that in 2004 Scheurer also challenged Bean in the Democratic primary and was defeated 78% to 22%.
I wrote Bill a letter last week to ask about why he has decided to run as an independent rather than again challenge Bean in the primary. I also asked about his response to those who would categorize his run as a perceived spoiler in the mold of Nader or Perot. Finally I asked about his thoughts on making third parties viable in the United States and his stances on elevtion reform. Below the fold I'll present the full text of my letters and Bill's responses. Cal Skinner has also published the first part of my correspondence with Bill at his blog, "McHenry County Blog". I also e-mailed Rep. Bean's office to get her take on Bill's candidacy, but did not receive a reply.
Bill Scheurer
