Mark Kirk's Story Keeps Changing

Mark Kirk's explanation of his now proven false claim that he won "Intelligence Officer of the Year" for his 1999 "combat" service in Kosovo keeps changing.

Back in January, Springfield reporter Bernard Schoenburg asked Kirk staffer Eric Elk about the award. Elk said the award was "the Navy’s Reserve Intelligence Officer of the Year." After a diligent search, we have been able to find no reference to that award.

On May 27, Kirk stated:

I was the “recipient of the Rufus Taylor Intelligence Unit of the Year award for outstanding support provided during Operation Allied Force.” It was one of the honors of my life to lead the Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy...

We couldn't find a "Rufus Taylor Intelligence Unit of the Year" Award. We found a Rufus L. Taylor Award for Excellence in Instruction. This award is made by a 501(c)(3) called Naval Intelligence Professionals chaired by Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2002 to 2005.

On May 29, Kirk's explanation changed. He said he "took charge of four deployed squadrons' intelligence assets and personnel."

He complained that the Washington Post characterized his Rufus Taylor award as non-Navy. He went on to state:

In fact, the United States Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award is nominated and selected by the U.S. Navy. It is then awarded by the National Military Intelligence Association.

Kirk goes on to use a quote from his former Commander Clay Fearnow who we now know is a Senior Program Manager at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics attesting to Kirk's service.

The new explanation pointed us to this Rufus Taylor Award made to the Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy. The only official U.S. Navy aspect of this award that I can see is that Rufus L. Taylor himself was in fact in the U.S. Navy. Fearnow claims to have nominated Kirk for the award while in the Navy and I see no reason to doubt that, but that being assumed, the bottom line is that it's not a Navy award, but an award given by a professional association at a banquet they privately hold in Virginia every year. That alone raises some questions. First, I wonder about the specific relationship between the U.S. Navy and a 501(c)(6)  organization with corporate members and a mission of bringing those corporate members in contact with military officials. Next, as Carl recently suggested, there are problems with allowing a private organization that represents defense contractors to present military personnel with awards. It does seem that there could be conflicts of interest in allowing defense contractors to award active military personnel for their official duties, particularly if the awardee is a Congressman on the Appropriations Committee. Carl's going to write more about his concerns in the next few days.

On May 30, the story changed again. Kirk sent out an email. The email states in pertinent part:

My corrected biography accurately shows I received the United States Navy Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award – as the leader of an ad-hoc intelligence effort supporting four EA-6B Prowler electronic attack squadrons as part of Operation Allied Force – instead of Intelligence Officer of the Year. I accepted the Taylor Intelligence Award (named after the head of Navy intelligence in World War II) as the leader of an intelligence section that I assembled and led. There is no hierarchy between these awards as the Taylor Intelligence Award is equally distinguished.

Kirk said he "received" and "accepted" the award. Does that mean that Kirk was the N2 officer for the Attack Wing or that N2 officer who earned the award let him take it  (see my explanation of who earned the award in the post immediately below)? Does it mean he actually attended the banquet, accepted the award and made a little thank you speech to the corporate members of NMIA?

Note that in the email, Kirk claimed that he was the leader of all the squadrons. On May 29, Kirk said he led 4 of the 7 squadrons.

Today, May 31, the story changed again. Now, Kirk is in full Giannoulias attack mode. Kirk accused Giannoulias of falsely comparing Rufus Taylor Awards, claiming that the Rufus Taylor Award won by the N2 officer of the Attack Wing from NMIA was lesser than the Rufus Taylor Junior Officer of the Year Award by NIP. I don't think the issue was ever which private, not-for-profit 501(c)(something) award is better. The issue is that neither of the awards Kirk's talking about are Navy awards and neither are what he originally claimed a Navy-wide award called "Intelligence Officer of the Year".

Kirk goes on:

In 1999, Mark Kirk was the Intelligence Team Leader for Electronic Attack Wing Aviano during Operation Allied Force. In December of that year, he was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal for his service.

In 2000, Kirk and his team were recipients of the Rufus Taylor Intelligence Award – a distinguished national award for which the Navy selects one winner every year – which “commemorates the exceptional achievements of an outstanding Naval Intelligence career professional.”

As leader of the team that received an annual Navy intelligence professional award, Kirk incorrectly referred to himself as the “Intelligence Officer of the Year,” a term which can be associated with the Navy Reserve Intelligence “Junior Officer of the Year Award.” Since both awards carry equal distinction, this is a case of misidentification and not exaggeration. You can learn more about the awards here.

Mark Kirk and his team rightly earned the Rufus Taylor Award and their service should not be diminished. Kirk’s former Commanding Officer says he was “proud to nominate Mark Kirk” for the award – and called Kirk “the best intelligence officer” he ever served with. See statement.

Now, Kirk fully claims to have been the leader for the entire Attack Wing when before he said he was just the leader of 4 of the 7 squadrons. So, what happened to the regular duty officer and the N2 officer for the Attack Wing? How did Kirk get ahead of them? Why doesn't his Comm Award give him credit for leading the entire Attack Wing?

Kirk sort of admits that the award is a professional, and not a military award, but very indirectly and with some pretty muddy language. Then, he goes on to some strange side argument about equal degree of importance of the Navy awards for Intelligence Officer of the Year and Junior Officer of the Year, neither of which Kirk earned, the former not even appearing to exist at all. Kirk links a document that is supposed to explain the "Intelligence Officer of the Year Award", but it only describes the Junior Officer of the Year Award leaving me with the same conclusion I had last week, there is no award called "Intelligence Officer of the Year" as Kirk's been claiming as his own for years.

Kirk finally figured out the Rufus Taylor Award was given in 2000 and not 1999, but I'd guess he figured it out from reading this blog.

What's Wrong With The Tribune's Coverage Of Mark Kirk's Military Award Lie

by Ellen Beth Gill and Carl Nyberg

Soft-peddling Mark Kirk's misrepresentation of his military award, not to mention his continued misrepresentation of his work in the military, The Chicago Tribune has framed the Kirk Claimed Award Debacle as a sparring match between Alexi Giannoulias and Mark Kirk.

The first problem with The Tribune's coverage is that the underlying events have nothing to do with Alexi Giannoulias. Alexi was not involved in Kirk's military delusions of grandeur. Kirk's been lying about the award since at least 2002 (see posts below). Kirk's been insinuating he's a Navy pilot for years and his current Senate website sports a flight suit picture that insinuates he's a Navy pilot when he is not. Alexi did not participate in Kirk's lies and exaggerations. Kirk did that all by himself.

The second problem with The Tribune's coverage is that it contains a very important misstatement. Today, The Tribune's Clout Street blog states (emphasis added):

Kirk, a five-term Republican congressman and Navy reservist, found himself in the rare position of playing defense, acknowledging that he was wrong in touting himself as having been named intelligence officer of the year more than a decade ago. Instead, Kirk led a unit in Aviano, Italy, which won an award.

The bolded line is not exactly true. Kirk was an Aviation Intelligence Officer for Electronic Attack Squadron Two Zero Nine (VAQ-209) per his Comm Award. The Squadron was one of 7 Squadrons  in the Attack Wing. At best, Kirk was the leader of the Intel piece of the Squadron and that assumes that the regular person in charge (because, remember Kirk is a reservist and only serving sporadically) got bumped (leaving open questions about how and what would cause Kirk to bump the regular duty officer if that in fact happened).

The command that won the award was not Kirk's specific squadron VAQ-209, but the Intelligence Division, Electronic Attack Wing. That's the larger command comprised of the 7 squadrons. Even if Kirk's squadron bumped it's regular duty officer to use Kirk as it's leader, and even if Kirk's squadron VAQ-209 was made the lead squadron, there is still someone who would have been above Kirk. The N2 officer of the Attack Wing is the lead intelligence officer.

So who "led a unit in Aviano, Italy which won an award?"

Unless he was made the N2 officer of the entire Electronic Attack Wing that encompassed the 7 squadrons, it wasn't Mark Kirk.

On May 27, Kirk stated:

At Aviano, I took charge of four deployed squadron’s intelligence assets and personnel and forged them into a combat intelligence action team – the largest EA-6B intelligence shop in the history of naval aviation. Our team supported combat flight operations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and provided more than 150 combat flight intelligence briefings for more than 80 aircrew. 

As we saw when we examined the award, it was won by the Intelligence Division of the Attack Wing that comprised 7 squadrons and did 717 sorties.

If for some reason, and contrary to his own explanation, Mark Kirk was made the N2 officer of the Electronic Attack Wing and accepted the award at the banquet on May 7, 2000, he should state as much and explain how that came about. However, his Comm Award claims him only as "Aviation Intelligence Officer for Electronic Attack Squadron Two Zero Nine". If he was more than that, the Comm Award appears to be incorrect.

Mischaracterizing?

The mainstream media seems to be going along with Mark Kirk's spin on his military award lie. They're mischaracterizing it as a mischaracterization. I don't buy it.

Kirk touts himself as a "Navy guy".
How does a "Navy guy" mistake an individual award from the Navy called "Intelligence Officer of the Year" for some award from a private 501(c)(6) organization that went to an entire Attack Wing, of which Kirk's Squadron was only a small part. That, and we're having a heck of a hard time finding a Navy-wide award called "Intelligence Officer of the Year." It plain old doesn't exist. That sort of award is usually issued by a Command, a smaller unit within the Navy.

The bottom line is that Kirk's been claiming an individual, Navy-wide award that does not exist. He's been claiming it for almost a decade, verbally and in writing including in his speaker bio. So, when he meets with a group, that's how they introduce him. He's taken accolades for it at private events, public events and announced it in House committee. Yet, the award doesn't exist.

Now that he got caught, he's sought cover. His only cover was the Rufus Taylor Award given to an Attack Wing of which his Squadron was a small part. It's an award given by a private organization dedicated to facilitating the connection between the military and private contractors.

There is simply no way this was just a mistake.

Details On Kirk's Award Show Kirk's Character

This is what we know now:

1. Despite some mistakes in the dates on the National Military Intelligence Association website, it appear that NMIA awarded the Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award to Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy.

2. The award was given in 2000 and not 1999 or 1998 as Kirk said in the C-Span video (where he claims he was Intelligence Officer of the Year in 1998 at 13:21 minutes into the video):



3. Kirk's story changed from yesterday afternoon to today. Yesterday, his website claimed he won something called the Rufus Taylor Intelligence Unit of the Year Award. He didn't identify the sponsor of the award. Many felt the award was from Naval Intelligence Professionals (NIP) which gives out a Rufus Taylor Award for Naval Intelligence Junior Officers of the Year Award and the Rufus Taylor Award for Naval Intelligence Instruction. However, today, Kirk's senate website explanation page has changed. He now claims the award is not from the Navy or NIP, but from The National Military Intelligence Association. Kirk's current specific claim is described on his page. The notice begins with what  a reading from the citation Kirk posted yesterday.

"while serving as aviation intelligence officer for Electronic Attack Squadron Two Zero Nine from 10 April to 6 June 1999…He took charge of four deployed squadron’s intelligence assets and personnel and forged them into an outstanding intelligence shop." It was this work that won the nomination and selection of the United States Navy Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award.

Furthermore, the Post story inaccurately portrays the Rufus Taylor award as a non-Navy award. In fact, the United States Navy Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award is nominated and selected by the U.S. Navy. It is then awarded by the National Military Intelligence Association.

4. That National Military Intelligence Association is a 503(c)(6) not-for-profit professional development organization. It provides corporate memberships and seems to be a group that facilitates corporate and academic involvement in the intelligence community.

5. The 1999 awards were given at a banquet held on May 21, 1999 at the Hilton Hotel at Mark Center in Alexandria, VA. "The United States Navy Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award" for 1999 went to USS Enterprise Battle Group Intelligence Team. Accepting the award for the USS Enterprise Battle Group Intelligence Team was CDR James R. Everett, III, Enterprise Battle Group N2.

6. Kirk also posted a Department of the Navy comm award he received. Carl explained it to me and I posted the award wrote up Carl's explanation here. Both the award and Kirk's comments agree that he was with Electronic Attack Squadron Two Zero Nine at Aviano AFB in Italy during the operative times. Further, I found this description of what the Electronic Attack Squadron TWO ZERO NINE was doing in 1999:

In 1999 the squadron received a 96 hour to prepare to deploy order for Operation ALLIED FORCE (OAF). VAQ-209 deployed in accordance with JCS directive on 16 April 1999 with two aircraft, arriving in Aviano AB, Italy on 17 April via Lajes, Azores. VAQ-209 provided sole maintenance support for VAQ-209, 138, and 140 EA-6B translant aircraft, accompanying the aircraft to Lajes and remaining there until 20 April to support follow-on movement of NAS Whidbey Island Prowlers. VAQ-209 entered combat operations on 17 April 99 and continued until hostilities ended on 21 June 99. The Star Warriors redeployed on 25 June 1999 through RAF Mildenhall, NAS Keflevic (RON), Sonder Stromfjord (Greenland), Goose Bay CFB, and NAS Brunswick (RON), arriving in NAF Washington on 27 June 1999. The squadron completed 150 combat sorties and over 550 combat flight hours with a 98% sortie completion rate and no injuries.

7. The 2000 Rufus Taylor Award did in fact go to the Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy:

The United States Navy Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award presented to Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy:

The Intelligence Division, Electronic Attack Wing, Aviano, Italy, is presented the Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award for outstanding meritorious service during Operation ALLIED FORCE from March to June 2000. The Intelligence Division defined the new standard for future Prowler deployments to hot spots around the world. Supporting over 90 aircrew from twelve different USN EA-6B Prowler commands, this ad hoc team of individuals from nine separate commands directly contributed to the success of 717 combat sorties over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Supporting the largest detachment of EA-6B personnel and aircraft in history, the Electronic Attack Wing Intelligence Division selflessly executed their service to country by providing vital tactical intelligence support to Navy EA-6B aircrew for 78 consecutive days of sustained combat operations. Working under the most sparse conditions, the team transformed a condemned Italian Officers' Club and Post Office without electricity or running water into a comprehensive intelligence cell complete with GALE-Light support equipment, Tactical EA-6B Mission Support System (TEAMS) hardware, SIPRNET and Linked Operational Center &endash; Europe (LOCE) connectivity. Unparalleled attention to detail, diligent database cross-checks, superb knowledge of resources, relentless training and dogged professionalism resulted in Prowler Mission Planners always having the information they needed, when they needed it. The team's tireless devotion to duty ensured no Allied aircraft were harmed while operating under Navy EA-6B Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) protection. Intelligence Division Aviano's exceptional professionalism, infectious esprit de corps and exemplary devotion to duty reflected great credit upon themselves and upheld the highest traditions of the Office of Naval Intelligence and the United States Navy.

Since the award was given at the banquet in Virginia on May 7, 2000, it is unlikely it was for service from March to June 2000. So, let's just give them all some benefit of a doubt and assume this award list should read that it was for service from March to June 1999.

8. If the above ultimately proves true, it means, in 2000, there was a Rufus Taylor Award (not Intelligence Officer of the Year as Kirk claimed for years) given by NMIA, a 501(c)(6) organization dedicated to bringing private contractors together with the intelligence community. That award was given to the Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy where Kirk served from March to June of 1999.

Here's where things get interesting. The award was given to the entire Attack Wing. Kirk was in Squadron Two Zero Nine, a small part of the Attack Wing. There were many squadrons in the Attack Wing. The Rufus Taylor award claims it was for 717 combat sorties. Kirk's citation and the above description of the 1999 activities of Electronic Attack Squadron TWO ZERO NINE talk about 150 combat flights. So, Kirk was a small part of the operation that won the Rufus Taylor Award. He claimed it was his award. I'd bet there are several other men and women in Electronic Attack Squadron TWO ZERO NINE and the Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing who would dispute that.

That's what we know. Then, there's what we think. Kirk's a reservist, not regular Navy. There was probably a regular duty officer doing the same job as Kirk in that squadron. While Kirk may have outranked the regular duty officer, one may wonder why a reservist would be considered a major player over the regular duty officer who does the job every day. Further, in 1999, Kirk was already Counsel to the House International Relations Committee. Unlike a typical reservist or regular duty officer, he likely got his pick of assignments. It's possible that Kirk was able to plunk himself down where the action was to further his political career.

As support for his current story, Kirk quotes former commanding officer Captain Clay Fearnow. Fearnow is now in a position to want to keep a Congressman running for Senate happy as the Senior Program Manager at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.

Now, Kirk sports a flight suit in campaign pictures to give voters the impression he's a Navy pilot when he's really a passenger in the plane. That, coupled with what we actually know about the award, that he intentionally, and consistently for many years, misrepresented a military award, that he took sole credit for the effort of a large group, that he's now blaming people on his staff rather than taking the blame himself, and that he sent his IL-10 constituents and Illinois voters on a wild goose chase to figure out what the award was and by whom it was awarded without just coming completely clean in the first place, means that Kirk isn't really the sort of person one would want to work with or the sort of person one would want representing him or her in Congress or the Senate.

Mark Kirk about to be outed as gay?

Michael Rogers, a gay activist who specializes in outing gay politicians, claims he is about to identify Mark Kirk as being gay. See blogActive (Michael Rogers).

How do I know the recently divorced Mark Kirk is gay? He told me he was! More details after the holiday.

h/t Republican News Watch (Doug Ibendahl)

Kirk lies about military service story: why did it break in Wash Post instead of Trib or Sun-Times?

Washington Post (R. Jeffrey Smith) seems to be the traditional media outlet that was first on the story about Kirk misrepresenting his military service.

Lynn Sweet (Sun-Times) added this nugget.

The Washington Post broke the story Saturday about Kirk's inaccurate award claim. The Post said it started making inquiries about Kirk's military record after "complaints" from the camp of Kirk's rival, Democratic Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias, the Illinois state treasurer.

Do you think the Giannoulias campaign pitched the story to the Washington Post without pitching it to the Trib or the Sun-Times?

The Trib and the Sun-Times had the story. They chose not to investigate the tip aggressively.

Why not?

And why is it that Kirk has been able to lie about being "intelligence officer of the year" for election after election and the Trib and Sun-Times never caught the lie?

This isn't some recent staff oopsie. Kirk's been claiming his award for years.

As pointed out today on Kos, Kirk is explaining his mischaracterization of the award he received for his 1999 service. We posted the award itself in the prior post.

There are several problems with Kirk's explanation. As Kos points out, no one can find evidence of the Rufus Taylor Intelligence Unit of the Year award. Let's just assume it exists. If so, Kirk's explanation confirms Carl's initial conclusion that the award was a unit and not Navy-wide award. {UPDATE: We've found the Rufus Taylor Intelligence award and it appears to be given by some sort of foundation and not the U.S Navy.}

The other problem is that the claim is not just a recent claim, a mistake on his Senate campaign website. It's been on his official congressional site for years and has been picked up by several other blogs and news sources over the years. Here are some examples of sites that have picked up the claim and ran with it over the years:

The Jewish Blog
American Chronicle
Michelle Malkin's comments
Asbarez--from the Armenian National Committee of America. Here too.
Picked up from Kirk's website by USNI
The Illinois GOP--I've take a screen shot in the event they scrub the page
Sourcewatch
NED
OpenCongress.
Flopping Aces
Center for American Progress
Real Clear Politics
His Wiki-- a piece written June 20, 2006
A 2006 post on Exiled from the GOP written by PSB and Kos blogger bored now
Backyard Conservative--took a screenshot
Who Runs Government
Students for Mark Kirk Facebook page--took a screenshot
Andrew Breitbart's Big Government
Cornell News
Institute for Corean-American Studies
Chicago Counsel on Global Affairs in describing a program in which Kirk was the speaker
The 21 Club announcing Kirk as a speaker at a March 2008 breakfast
China Conference Speaker biography from April 2005
(the list goes on and on, but I have dinner plans tonight)

Does Mark Kirk expect us to believe that all these people just made it up; that several unrelated sources made the same mistake over several years; that people printing speaker biographies for events made it up too? Of course not. Kirk and his people have been spreading the claim that Kirk won a Navy-wide award called "Intelligence Officer of the Year" for years. They had it on Kirk's official house site and they handed it out to supporters, reporters and groups in front of which he spoke for years.

Let's Take A Look At Kirk's Award With A Former Navy Officer

Kirk finally uploaded his "award". It's not exactly "Naval Intelligence Officer of the Year."

Carl Nyberg, a former Navy Officer and grad of the Naval Academy, helped me parse it.

Carl began, "The text of a military award is designed to sound impressive."

The award states Kirk was part of: the largest EA-6B intelligence shop in the history of naval aviation." Why was it the largest in history? Was it inflated with large numbers of reservists who weren't really necessary?

Basically, the award says he briefed flight crews before they flew missions. If he actually flew missions himself as a functioning member of the crew, it would be reflected in the award.

The award also says that he supervised 4 officers and 12 intelligence specialists.

The award is an individual award that leans heavily on the accomplishments of the unit. The EA-6B unit may have been a big part of the reason that NATO forces didn't lose any aircraft during the bombing of Yugoslavia, but the award largely reflects that he was a member of a successful unit in a combat mission, not that he was in combat himself as he frequently led people to believe before the award was questioned by this blog and others.

Kirk downgrades claims of his military recognition

I expressed skepticism that Mark Kirk was the Navy's "Intelligence officer of the year" in 1999.

1. There doesn't seem to be such an award.
2. Why would a reserve intelligence officer beat out a whole bunch of active duty officers?

In addition to writing about my skepticism here, I did some calling around.

On May 18, I contacted a prominent journalist who has both a local and national beat. This journalist expressed interest in the story and said s/he'd make some phone calls.

How did Kirk's website read on May 18?

The U.S. Navy named Kirk “Intelligence Officer of the Year” in 1999 for his combat service in Kosovo.

How's Kirk's website read today?

Kirk was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal for his Kosovo service in 1999.

Kirk formerly represented that he won the Navy's top award for intelligence officers. He was the best.

Now, Kirk claims to have gotten a medal. For all we know everyone in the command who was at least a lieutenant got a Navy Com.

Formerly Kirk chose words that made it sound like he did something exceptional in combat.

After a journalist asked him (his campaign) about the award Kirk's sole claim is that he was in theater.

Kirk has made many claims about his military service in the past. I suspected pretty much every claim was at least misleading.

Based on my experience, reserve intel officers are about the most expendable part of the whole Navy. If every reserve intelligence officer simply evaporated, I doubt it would disrupt operations of the Navy an iota.

Pick any other officer designator, e.g. pilots, surface warfare officers, nurses, health care administrators, etc., and it would be a problem for the Navy if they all disappeared. Reserve intelligence officers? Yeah, whatever.

Kirk dialing back from "intelligence officer of the year" to a Navy Commendation Medal is more than semantics. Kirk was lying about his record.

I look forward to the day when Mark Kirk gives an extended interview about his military service to a journalists who knows about the military and is prepared to ask him about details.

This interview will show that Mark Kirk has consistently misrepresented his accomplishments in the military.

A Flight Suit Doesn't Make A Navy Pilot

On his campaign website, Mark Kirk sports his super-duper-cool flight suit picture (left). Kirk's got his helmet and he appears to be seated in a plane. There's another little plane in the background of the picture. Sure looks like he's a Navy pilot, doesn't it?

Only, the details puzzle. Why doesn't Kirk ever talk about his flight hours? Navy pilots, heck even civilian pilots, love to talk about their flight hours. Yet, Kirk never discusses it. 

Kirk never tells any particular fight stories either. How many pilots do you know who don't have a story or two? I know a pilot and he's all about his fight hours and stories about particular flights that were interesting or became dangerous. What makes it even stranger is that Kirk loves to tell stories, so why not one about a flight?

Whenever I see Kirk claiming military glory, insinuating for the unsuspecting that he's an heroic, award winning Navy pilot, trying to evoke images of  Chuck Yeager in The Right Stuff or Captain Harmon Rabb in JAG, all I can think of is another public figure who imagined himself an heroic WWI flyboy:

So, is Kirk award winning? He's claimed to be Naval Intelligence Officer of the Year for 1999. Carl has the scoop. Check back in a few.

Mark Kirk Betrays LGBT Community (Again)

As Madame Defarge pointed out in the comments to the previous post, Mark Kirk voted against the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This vote is the second betrayal of the LGBT community and the fourth major betrayal of endorsers and the persona Kirk created to win and hold the IL-10 congressional seat. Not to mention that Kirk was never the moderate he portrayed himself to be each election cycle.

When Kirk betrayed the endorsements of the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters by flipping on cap and trade, he blamed us, the constituents of the IL-10. After his claim that his vote was to promote national security did not go over well with the tea partiers, he settled on the excuse that he didn't want to do it, but he had to vote his constituency. When Kirk betrayed pro-choice endorses, Planned Parenthood, by voting for the Stupak Amendment, he chose to sit under the radar. When Kirk betrayed Tel Aviv University American Council and the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, Kirk blamed the institutions for not requiring all executives and board members to endorse him. Now that Kirk has again betrayed the LGBT community and past endorser, the Log Cabin Republicans, I wonder if he's going to blame Lindsey Graham.

Lindsey Graham?

Yes, Lindsey Graham. You'll remember that video of William Gheen of the Americans for Legal Immigration where he accuses Graham of being a closeted gay whose "secret" is being used as leverage to force him to support an immigration reform plan that Gheen's group disfavors. If not, the applicable portion of that video is here:



What Graham has in common with Kirk is that they are both reservists who have been the subject of homosexuality rumors. Perhaps Kirk is worried that his support of the DADT repeal would have reignited the homosexuality rumors about him. Perhaps he's just worried about offending the tea partiers despite the decline of the movement. Perhaps he's just channeling John McCain. In any event, Kirk is happy to lose the support of the LGBT community to gain the support of those who cannot seem to stay out of our bedrooms no matter how much they enjoy talking about freedom. They forget to mention that's freedom for large multi-national corporations, and 24/7 control over you.

Skepticism on Mark Kirk's Military Record Reignites as Kirk Admissions Sit Under the Radar

Carl brought it up last week and now the skepticism on Mark Kirk's claims of military glory is traveling through the Internet. Salon picked up the story last Friday.

The Nitpicker also picked up the story. In this latest post on the topic, Nit reminds us that Kirk's overplaying his military experience is not new. In 2005, Kirk claimed on this official website that he was a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nit broke the story that Kirk's claim was not true and that Kirk never really came clean after being busted, quietly scrubbing his website, but making no affirmative correction or apology. Then, Kirk claimed to have been "deployed" to Afghanistan. Nitpicker points out that the alleged "deployment" isn't exactly the same sort of deployment faced by our troops. Kirk just arranges through the power of his office to spend a week or so close to the operation so he can make his political claims of military glory.

We're also closing in on the facts of Kirk's claim that he was named "Intelligence Officer of the Year” in 1999 for his combat service in Kosovo. It appears that there is no such official Navy-wide award. Sometimes a squadron makes such an award to a junior officer and the reserves can make a similar award....and bingo. The answer is only a quick Google search away. It appears that when pressed, and when they think the story will not get out too far, Kirk's folks will come clean. Eric Elk admitted to Springfield reporter Bernard Schoenberg that it was a reservist award. Schoenberg also got a backhanded admission from Kirk himself that the "combat" in Kosovo was more like a quick flyover.

Kirk should come clean on the source and meaning of this award award and his "combat service in Kosovo". Thenk, he should probably apologize to the men and women who really do the work for which he takes credit. So far, the only proof he was able to muster has been a flight suit photo reminding us all that George W. Bush has one too.

Despte all the claims of deployment and combat, the reality is that Kirk uses his position in congress to get on planes making a short flyovers near combat zones as a glorified passenger so he can make grandiose claims of military glory to use in political campaigns. I'd guess that Snoopy saw more combat with the Red Baron than Kirk ever saw in Iraq, Afghanistan or Kosovo.

Kirk uses his doctored-up military record as some sort of proof of his toughness and bravery, but when it comes to his congressional votes, he's been flip-floppy and scared. Now, he's faced with a vote on the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Kirk's got his finger in the wind so see which way it blows. He used to support gay rights, but now he's got the tea partiers to contend with and he's running scared. His opponent, Alexi Giannoulias, has upped the stakes by taking a firm stand against DADT. Isn't making the tough decisions, and sticking to them, the real proof of toughness and bravery?

checks on gov't power are in the Constitution for a reason

New York Times (Mark Mazzetti):

The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

(h/t Atrios)

I don't like the practice of the President of the United States sending troops to a country to battle insurgents at the request of the government. But I can see a reasonable argument that this does not run afoul the Constitution, sometimes known by its nickname "the supreme law of the land".

However, sending military personnel into Iran to prepare to bomb that country?

I don't think there is any credible claim that U.S. military personnel are there at the invitation of the government of Iran.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Has Congress voted to send U.S. military personnel into Iran?

If not, what is the legal authority for Gen. David Petraeus to give such an order? Seriously.

Waukegan HS students recognized

From Dan Seals' Facebook page.

For the first time in the school’s history, Waukegan High School is sending five students to National History Day. Nancy Gutierrez and Monica White are among five students from Waukegan High School who have qualified for the national competition. The National History Day Competition is a country-wide contest for elementary and high school students. Presentations are given on a historical topic – Nancy and Monica chose local Waukegan history. Students who create exceptional work are selected to display their presentations for the national competition at the University of Maryland from June 13 through June 17. For their hard work, Nancy and Monica were awarded the opportunity to attend the national contest.

Congratulations to Nancy and Monica on your accomplishments. Good luck at the national competition.

Thom Hartmann At Tenth Dems University

Teaching the Teachable Moment


"We live in an extraordinary teachable moment."

With those words, businessman, radio host, author, and former psychotherapist, Thom Hartmann called on the Illinois Tenth Congressional District Democrats to go out and talk to their neighbors, support candidates and even run for office. Hartmann, speaking at a Tenth Dems University event in Lincolnshire, IL Friday night, told the audience to go out and educate their neighbors about the "tragedy of the commons." That tragedy includes the destruction of the natural commons, our environment and natural resources, through corporate deregulation and consequent destructive behavior, and the deterioration of the artificial commons we create as a society, such as local police and fire departments, and state and federal regulatory bodies, through lack of support. He wants us to question policies that allow BP executives to walk away unaccountable from the Gulf offshore rig explosion that killed 11 workers before it leaked the oil that is now killing both wildlife and business, and require the human beings behind all corporate made disasters to come out from the shadows.

Hartmann described the background of the Rand Paul outlook, that the government should not regulate private business. It's a view held by the republican party since the 1870s (with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt) when it became the party of the railroads and used the laws designed to protect the newly freed slaves to protect corporations. It also follows a school of thought that started in the 1930s and 1940s with Milton Friedman who became a professor of economics at the University of Chicago. Friedman was considered a "crackpot" in his heyday at U of C for his misinterpretation and misquoting of Adam Smith, but his views were later adopted by conservative author Russell Kirk in his 1953 book The Conservative Mind, and that school of thought was adopted by republicans seeking to bring the party out of the black hole created by the Nixon Administration in the 1980s.

Hartmann went on to describe a three part documentary titled The Trap wherein military game theory and other models of suspicious and self-seeking human behavior were analyzed. The problem for purveyors of this theory, Hartmann described, is that only sociopaths and economists fit the theory that people act only in their own self interest. A "no-rules" self -serving economy is not going to work according to Hartmann. The libertarian paradise is Somalia where there is no functioning government.

When people call into Hartmann's radio show in despair, he advises them to show up, get involved. When enough of us show up, we'll reach a critical mass when our voices will become more important than the siren song of the corporate money and we'll bring about political change.

Hartmann ended with his classic "tag you're it!"

Q and A
After Hartmann was presented with the Tenth Dems University Teaching Award, there was time for questions. He was asked about Tuesday's primaries and noted that progressives did better on the left and the republican party was repudiated on the right. He sees the republican party going down in flames

Two Santa Claus Theory
When asked to describe the "two Santa Claus theory", Hartmann responded that the Democrats are still falling for it.It's the strategy developed by Jude Wanniski, conservative editor of the WSJ in 1976 to revive the post-Watergate republican party. The idea is that when republicans are in power they should spend like drunken sailors and it doesn't really matter what that spending is on so long as they stimulate the economy and make people feel good. Then, when the Democrats take power, they need to complain about deficits forcing Democrats to cut spending and raise taxes. Of course, this proves that republicans know that spending does in fact stimulate the economy, but it also proves that Democrats need to stop playing their role every time.

Supreme Court
Hartmann answered another question about the Supreme Court by describing the role of Justice John Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison giving the Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. This highlighted the disproportionate power of the Court over the other branches and the need to support President Obama so when a conservative justice retires, he will be able to make the appointment.

Small Business/Business Monopolies
I asked Hartmann to address the Mark Kirk campaign trick selling big business deregulation policy to small business voters. Hartmann's response was familiar. It was something I observed with a friend of mine while we were vacationing in New York several years ago. We stopped off at a shopping mall near the Port Authority and noticed that all the stores were exactly the same stores we could find in any mall in the Chicago area. Hartmann said if you parachuted out of an airplane into a shopping mall, it would take you a while to figure out where you were because everything looks the same everywhere in this country. The point is that the policies being sold to small business people by Mark Kirk are monopolistic and are the policies that are replacing small businesses with large chains.

Relating my question to his point that we need to do some trust busting, Hartmann pointed out that the breakup of AT&T during the Carter Administration was actually a boon to the shareholders and stimulated the economy as the baby bells expanded their businesses and hired. To further illustrate, Hartmann pointed out that cable companies in France are required to lay wire usable by each company directly into each home. Unlike here, the last wire fits into any company's cable box, so there is competition for each user's business. Consequently, the French pay about $33 for high speed broadband and hundreds of television channels. That hit home to me as my bill goes up and up at the same time my channel count goes down and down.

What's happened to the republicans
Hartmann addressed the vitriol against Obama. He said that the republican party has nothing for us, and because they have nothing, they prey on religious extremists, gun nuts and racists. In power, they act like it's absolute power, and out of power they feign outrage to pick at everything the Democrats do. He urged us to take a look at the 1956 republican party platform. It was about supporting human needs, social security, supporting the UN, labor, health care, and newsflash to Rand Paul, civil rights. Hartmann quipped, "They've gone of the edge now."

Meeting Mr. Hartmann

I had the opportunity to speak with Hartmann briefly before the class. I told him a bit about Mark Kirk, posing as a moderate and voting decidedly not moderate. Hartmann revealed that there was a similar  politician out his way. He advised that the best we can do in the situation is to keep telling our neighbors what the guy voted for or against. They'll ultimately pick up on it.








Photos used with permission. @Ravi Ganapathy - http://www.ivarpix.com/

What I Found (and didn't) Looking for Lincoln

I was in Springfield on Wednesday and Thursday morning. The legislature was out and I had no appointments. I didn't go to talk about Illinois budgets or pensions or lobby anyone for anything. I went with my dad to the Lincoln Museum and have a look-see around town just for fun.

The Gill Gill Debates
My dad and I have an ongoing debate about Lincoln's presidency. He sees it as more of a success than I do. I tend to focus on Whig economic policies favoring the wealthy and granting unlimited railroad subsidies of land and money. I seen many of Lincoln's policies were the precursors to the corporate problems faced in the gilded age and today. The trip didn't really change my mind, but I think I'm reassigning at least some of the blame.

Historic Landmarks and  Bus
Each historic landmark has a sign "Looking for Lincoln". That's because of the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition. The landmarks are stops on the SMTD Historic Route bus line. We heard the route is scheduled for termination in August for lack of usage, but found it to be the best way around town with the lack of street parking and frustrating abundance of one-way streets. On Wednesday, we went to the Old State Capitol, the Lincoln's Springfield Home, the Lincoln Tomb, and made a brief stop at the New State Capitol. We also visited the Korean War National Museum. Thursday morning we spent at the Lincoln Museum.

The Springfield Neighborhood

I visited the Lincoln Springfield Home when I was a kid some time in the 1960s. The only thing I remembered about it was that  it smelled really bad. The home became a national historic site in 1972 and the National Park Service cleaned it up and redecorated based on old photos and conventions of the day. The house smelled just fine proving that the federal government can do something right after all.

The feds also restored the immediate neighborhood, so the exhibit now encompasses the two or so blocks surrounding the home. The ranger told us that home was much smaller, more like the surrounding homes, when the Lincoln's first purchased it. They built on and put a wall between the kitchen and eating area to create a separate dining room more befitting an upper or upper middle class family of the era. He said that Mary felt an eat-in kitchen wasn't fitting for a family of their stature. In any event, it seems to me that the Lincolns may have built the first Illinois mcmansion. There is no mention of what the neighbors thought of the expansion.

The Old Building
The Old State Capitol was my favorite landmark of the trip. The building is not the as-built, original building. It had been mistreated after the state moved out and had to be painstakingly taken apart and rebuilt. The various state government offices are now recreated with mostly non-original, period furniture, found or created based on photos and one original desk that had been re-acquired. While not exactly original, the rooms felt original and were enhanced by a terrific tour guide. We got in the mix of a high school group and they were lucky we were there because Dad and I were the only ones who could answer the tour guide's quiz questions.

Of particular interest were the Supreme Court room and the Law Library. The Supreme Court room was plagued with a huge pillar in the middle standing between the plaintiffs' and defendants' tables. They tried removing only to find that it held up the Senate floor. I wondered if the clever attorney in Lincoln had found a way to exploit the justices' and opponents' obstructed view during his oral arguments before the Court.

The library doubled as a lounge and game room because the lawyers riding the circuit for months at a time had nothing to do during the nights they were in town. I can imagine attorney Lincoln telling story after story in that room. An orator gifted with brevity in his official speeches, Lincoln was known to stretch out a casually told story. I can also imagine that lawyers were more civil toward each other because they knew each other better and perhaps because the bar was still a closed club of white Anglo-Saxon males.

Lincoln's Tomb
The Tomb was first dedicated in 1874, but rebuilt some time in the 1895. Lincoln's body was viewed at the time and they noted he was still recognizable. The body had been embalmed for the 12 funerals en route from Washington to Springfield and they did a lasting job. The tomb was rebuilt again in the early 1930s. The burial room struck me because Mary is not next to Lincoln, but entombed in the wall with her sons Eddie and Willie. Tad is on another adjoining wall, and Robert, the only son who lived a long life is in a separate area.

The Museum
Finally, we saw the relatively new Lincoln Museum. The main areas depicted scenes from Lincoln's pre-White House and White House life.

The Fox News Room
Most striking was what my dad called the "Fox News" room, where the walls were covered with the negative political cartoons of the day. Lincoln either went to far or not far enough, depending on whom you were speaking with.

Poor Mary
A room that struck both of us was the dress room. It contained depictions of Todd-Lincoln dresses and dresses of other wives of men in the administration. The dresses weren't all that interesting, but the comments about each dress were less about fashion and more about Todd-Lincoln's difficult relationships with the other women at court. Todd-Lincoln was at the same time viewed as too base and western for her speech and straightforward manner and too stuck up and social climbing for her redecorating of the White House, shopping trips and extensive wardrobe.

Todd-Lincoln usually gets most of the blame for the Lincoln family social climbing and political ambition, and the younger children's illiteracy and bad behavior. However, some believe that it was Lincoln himself with the social and political ambitions, and others point out that it was Lincoln himself who encouraged Tad and Willie in their antics. Perhaps it's just easier to tag Todd-Lincoln, already viewed negatively, with the negatives of our first assassinated president.

I left Springfield with a new sympathy for Todd-Lincoln. Her husband was a social climber with political ambition, but spun himself as a country boy and rail splitter who just happened to be clever enough to gain power, but she was tagged as a conniving go-getter. Abraham asked Mary to keep up the splendor of the White House during the war and when she did, she was blamed for being extravagant during wartime. Abraham let the boys run wild in his office and at the White House, but Mary was blamed for her unruly and ill-educated children. Todd-Lincoln lost 3 out of 4 children, and her husband right before her eyes, and rather than help, she received an incompetency trial. She argued fervently in correspondence for her release from a mental facility at Batavia and won it only to have son Robert destroy the letters that gained her freedom.

What We Miss
While the museum seemed like a nice interactive and engaging exhibit for children, I felt it failed to delve into Lincoln's life and thoughts for critical analysis applicable to today. The issues illustrated in the exhibits were the typical grade and high school essay questions asking whether Lincoln really wanted to free the slaves, whether the criticism he received from all sides was justified, and why he wanted to save the union at all costs.

I'm not sure that most people even know that Lincoln protected and subsidized the earliest of powerful corporations, the railroads and brining in foreign labor to build them, or that his early writings about banking centered on fears that U.S. manufacturing was taking a back seat to British or that he signed both the first serous attempts and bank regulation, the National Currency Act of 1863, and the National Bank Act of 1864 that originally authorized the OCC. While we discuss how Lincoln emancipated the slaves only in the secessionist states and thought about plans to move freed slaves to colonize Africa, we rarely mention that he also ordered troops to massacre the Santee Sioux of Minnesota seeking payment under a treaty that the federal government failed to honor or that he wanted to open voting rights to landed women, but close them for un-landed men. We learn about slavery and the Emancipation Proclamation, but we forget to discuss how the Whigs and early republicans calls for free labor apply to today's labor issues or the role of corporations' need for cheap labor in today's race relations.

Lincoln struggled with the complexities of his day, but he also struggled with many of the complexities of our day, labor, corporate  power, free trade, banking and currency, budget deficits, immigration and race relations among all races, women's rights, education and even mental health issues. The Civil War, slavery and Lincoln's death seem to obscure our analysis of the parts of Lincoln's administration might help us today.  That's our fault and not Abe's.

Senator Susan Garrett Takes A Stand

Mark Kirk recently addressed a group of Illinoisans:

Has someone laughed at you because you are from Illinois?"

Smirking a tea party talking point and offering no ideas or solutions to Illinois budget problem, Kirk thinks this is his U.S. Senate issue proving he cares little about Illinois.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, State Senator Susan Garrett has taken a stand. In an email sent to constituents today with an attached survey, Garrett had something to say:

Like many of you, I was born in Illinois and have lived here most of my life. I love this state and believe that in many ways we are one of the greatest states in the country.

There are many things that make Illinois a great place to live and work. Illinois is located right in the middle of the country, making us an international transportation hub. The modernization of the rail system, adding high-speed rail, along with additional runways at O’Hare Airport will keep us competitive in terms of transportation. We have plenty of clean water and fertile soil; 80% of the land in Illinois is farmed for agriculture, and we export food products across the world. Our state's university system is deemed one of the best, with campuses all over the state to serve our unique population of students. Finally, Illinois is home to many leading corporations, including a number in the biotech industry. The wonderful diversity of our state, from big cities to small towns, from industry to agriculture, offers endless possibilities.

Where we have lost our way is at the state government level. Since I have been in office (almost 12 years) we have struggled and juggled to keep the funding flowing for existing programs while adding new programs to the revenue rolls. Now we are faced with a budget deficit of $13 billion, and it is our responsibility to solve this problem.

I believe our budgeting process must be reformed so that we prioritize our spending based on needs. State contracts should be scrutinized and frozen unless the services are absolutely critical. Line items should be added to this year’s budget, demonstrating specific cuts, so that all those affected will know in advance what to expect. Budget cutting should not be looked at as a “four-letter-word,” but rather as a way to ensure that our most important programs (especially health care and education) receive the necessary dollars. And finally, once we go through this review process and establish priorities, we must assess whether any types of new revenue are needed to balance our budget and pay back debt.

Illinois is a great state, and it has the potential to be even better.

The survey included the big question: "1. Are you in favor of raising taxes to increase revenue for the State General Revenue Fund?" She also asked how much of an increase and which services should have only minimal cuts and which should have maximum cuts.

As Garrett points out Illinois' great diversity, Kirk comments that the Highland Park high school girl's basketball team should cast a blind eye on racial profiling and attend an Arizona tournament. Apparently, Kirk is very concerned about girls high school sports. He just doesn't care about those same girls once they grow up and try to get good paying jobs.

I'm not saying that I think Garrett has all the answers to Illinois budget woes. Who does? I also don't necessarily agree with her budget freeze suggestion. However, I admire her loyalty to Illinois and her work to make it better.

Mark Kirk's not working or trying to create a better Illinois. He's laughing for cheap political gain and laughing from a distance as he has no intention of working to improve Illinois. He just wants to stay in DC and get a promotion.

Garrett and Kirk are not running against each other. This doesn't mean a whole lot in politics, but it shows the difference in character.

government can now lock-up political enemies indefinitely

There's a quote in A Clockwork Orange where the Minister of the Interior disparages traditional penal practices.

He just sort of looked right through us poor plennies, saying, in a very beautiful real educated goloss: "The Government cannot be concerned any longer with outmoded penological theories. Cram criminals together and see what happens. You get concentrated criminality, crime in the midst of punishment. Soon we maybe needing all our prison space for political offenders."

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (7-2) that someone can be held after their sentence is complete for sex offenses. See Washington Post (Jesse J. Holland).

The act... was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

All the government has to do to lock up political dissenters indefinitely is to 1) plant child porn on their computers, and 2) get prison officials to certify the person remains a risk to children. Of course, failing to admit guilt is evidence that the person has not acknowledged he remains a pedophile.

Of course, no one will be convicted of "thought crimes" or "seditious speech". They'll all be framed for child porn.

What? You insist the U.S. government would not conspire to break the law to silence political critics? Remember Fred Hampton, Mark Clark and the other Panthers.

U.S. Senate candidates bamboozle about their military service

by Carl Nyberg

In Connecticut, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal was the candidate the Democratic Party wants to replace Christopher Dodd as U.S. Senator. (There will be a contested primary in August.)

New York Times (Raymond Hernandez) (h/t Talking Points Memo) quotes Blumenthal misstating his personal history.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008.

While Blumenthal served in the military during the Vietnam War era, he did not leave the United States.

Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar.

There's an Illinois politicians who sure hopes "ambiguous language" that leaves a misleading impression isn't disqualifying for the U.S. Senate in the eyes of the media.

From U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk's official website.

The U.S. Navy named Kirk “Intelligence Officer of the Year” in 1999 for his combat service in Kosovo.

I suspect Kirk's claim contains multiple aspects that are misleading and one that is false.

1. Kirk did not get the award because he served in a combat zone. There were plenty of intelligence officers who were in the Yugoslavia theater longer than Kirk and who did more than Kirk. I'm not sure why Kirk got the award. I suspect it has something to do with him being on Congressional staff. But I do know, he did not get the award for "combat service".

2. Try doing a Google search for "Intelligence Officer of the Year" and "U.S. Navy". If this was a real award, shouldn't it come up on some official Navy website with lists of other winners and other nominees? I think Kirk was awarded "Intelligence Officer of the Year" for reservists who were junior officers. It may even be a smaller subset of officers, for example those in the Yugoslavia mission. Kirk wants people to think he was evaluated the best in the entire Navy. Only it ain't true.

3. There was an article during the GOP primary, State Journal Register, IIRC, that explained that Kirk never served on the ground in Yugoslavia and it sounded like he took just one flight that entered the edge of the combat zone so he could make misleading claims about his service later.

So, in one sentence Kirk is misleading or dishonest on three different points. And the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times never has called him on it. It took the State Journal-Register to get to the truth.

UPDATES: This story is developing. Please take a look at the following posts for updates:

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/skepticism-on-mark-kirks-military.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/mark-kirk-betrays-lgbt-community-again.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/flight-suit-doesnt-make-navy-pilot.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/kirk-downgrades-claims-of-his-military.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/lets-take-look-at-kirks-award-with.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/this-isnt-some-recent-staff-oopsie.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/kirk-lies-about-military-service-story.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/details-on-kirks-award-show-kirks.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/mischaracterizing.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/whats-wrong-with-tribunes-coverage-of.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/mark-kirks-story-keeps-changing.html

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/06/mark-kirk-perspective-of-reserve-intel.html

Maddow May As Well Have Been Talking to Mark Kirk--He Needs the Lecture

Gunning not just for personal triumph for yourself but for durable achievement to be proud of for life is the difference between winning things and leadership. It is the difference between nationalism and patriotism. It is the difference between running for office and devoting yourself to public service. It's agreeing that you are part of something, taking as your baseline that you will not seek to reach your own goals by stepping on the neck of your community.~~Rachel Maddow to Smith College Graduates

Dangers of Overstating a Point

File this under "Dangers of Overstating a Point to the Point it Becomes a Lie." All of Mark Kirk's ballyhoo over Giannoulias' part in Broadway Bank and Broadway Bank's closure and transfer to MB Financial was just too much, and people stopped buying it. It's not believable that one loan officer form one community bank who left the bank years ago is responsible for the entire economic meltdown.

Now Giannoulias' numbers are up and Kirk's shtick about how terrible Illinois is and how he'll clean up Illinois politics from the U.S. Senate just looks foolish.

Growing in America

Shortly after I wrote my post on collectivism in the U.S., I turned on my radio to hear a programming special, Growing in Austin, hosted by WCPT Sunday morning gardening host Mike Nowak. The broadcast came from the Third Unitarian Church in the Austin Neighborhood of Chicago and was a discussion about community gardens, the growth of the movement, related job creation, access to quality, nutritious food and some general how-to's in starting your own community garden

One issue discussed was U.S. Agricultural policy that separates communities from their food source. The guests noted that they were having problems starting farmers' markets in Illinois because few Illinois farmers produced the type of products consumers were looking for in their local farmers market. The reason for the lack of Illinois farmers at farmers' markets (most of our local farmers market farmers come from Michigan) is the regional farming and food over-production policies that started under Nixon.

During the Nixon administration, the USDA and Congress, with the help of the large agriculture corporations, decided that it was a good idea to divide the country into agricultural regions. It seems to make some sense, dairy in the Northeast because of available pasture and grains that cows like to eat, citrus in the South because that's where it's warm, corn and soy in the Midwest because it fits the seasonality, wheat in the high plains because of the long stretches of flat land and fruits and vegetables in the west where the sun shines and there is a long growing season.

They also changed the farming subsidy system. Depression/Dust Bowl-era policy had the government paying farmers to keep their grain off the market to support prices and check soil usage. The new policy allowed  the government to simply pay farmers for their excess grain so they could get the money and also sell whatever they could produce on the open market and whatever price they could get for it. This also seemed to make sense not to restrict farmers productivity when food prices were high and food was needed around the world.

However, sense didn't enter into the equation because the reasoning wasn't logic, but political. High food prices and pictures of starvation around the world were contributing to the lack of the administration's popularity. No one took the cost and energy of transportation into account. Gas seemed cheap and plentiful at the time. Also ignored were the deterioration of food freshness and quality and that the policy encouraged consolidated corporate farming to the detriment of the American family farmer.

The U.S. needs a new agriculture policy, but corporate farms own Congress similar to the financial and energy corporations, so it's unlikely. More likely is that people will begin their own food movements, buy collectively from local farmers, grow their fruits and vegetables in their backyards, contribute to school and community farms. It's already started.

Small Uses of Socialism (ie Social Security/Single Payer Health Care) Won't Make the Country Socialist. Bush/Kirk-style Ownership Society Will

We've had Social Security for years and all of those years also saw huge growth in the private sector. No, Social Security has not made our country socialist. Single payer health care reform would help private health care providers thrive because they wouldn't be tied to an insurance industry that adds nothing to the provision of health care. What will and already is taking away from the private sector is what Carl talks about below, the private sector itself.

I have a theory that the more Bush/Kirk-style "ownership society" our leaders inflict on us, the more socialism will take hold in this country. People who cannot afford housing and cannot get newly hard-to-get loans, will collectivize to buy those empty foreclosed homes. Municipalities will be forced to repeal local ordinances that are designed to prevent that from happening because it the trend will no longer be among racial minorities and immigrants. It will be the white former middle class and they'll demand a change in the laws.

People who cannot afford healthy food will farm their small plots of land. Many have already started doing it. It's called common interest gardening. It's already big in California and Seattle.

As Americans tire of purchasing bad or dangerous products from fully unaccountable multinational corporations, co-op businesses will gain in popularity. Here's a definition of cooperative businesses from the National Cooperative Business Association. Cooperative businesses:

• Are owned and democratically controlled by their members-the people who use the co-op’s services or buy its goods-not by outside investors; Co-op members elect their board of director from within the membership.
• Return surplus revenues (income over expenses and investment) to members proportionate to their use of the cooperative, not proportionate to their “investment” or ownership share.
• Are motivated not by profit, but by service-to meet their members’ needs or affordable and high quality goods or services;
• Exist solely to serve their members.
• Pay taxes on income kept within the co-op for investment and reserves. Surplus revenues from the co-op are returned to individual members who pay taxes on that income.

NCBA has been around since the turn of the last century. Cooperative living was part of  America's past because people living isolated on the plains or in small towns new that they could not do it alone. While through better communications and transportation, we're no longer living physically isolated, we've become isolated by extremist Bush/Kirk-style capitalism sucking live out of our small businesses, schools and communities. However, people are smart. As our leaders perpetuate an economy that does not work for them, they will develop workarounds like they did during the Great republican Depression of the 1930s. They'll turn back to cooperative living and doing business.

powerful people should not be held accountable

Carl Nyberg:

Here's my take on the Republican Party's approach to economic issues.

For Republicans, a policy is successful if it concentrates wealth and power for the rich and powerful.

Republicans are so myopic, they would rather live in a world with less wealth and have the wealth concentrated in fewer bank accounts than to have more wealth but have it distributed more equitably.

Communists have a similar problem. They are so obsessed with equality that they would rather have a society with less total wealth as long as it is equitably distributed.

Digby (working off Paul Krugman) makes a good point about Libertarians.

The funny thing is that the same people [Republicans/Libertarians/pro-business Democrats] who believe we should rely on tort law [to provide the financial penalty for bad actions by people/corporations in power] also push "tort reform" which essentially guts it.

The pro-oil industry politicians want to have the oil industry free of government regulation and immunized against large judgments in civil court.

Oil companies get to make mistakes and we just have to accept that because those are the laws enacted by our elected officials.

TV celebrity opines about Highland Park High School at political fund raiser

Carl Nyberg:

The former half-term Governor and losing VP candidate came to the Chicago area for one day and criticized Highland Park High School's decision not to participate in a basketball tournament. See Sun-Times (Abdon M. Pallasch).

It seems that in Palin's world states ought to be able to make policy that she likes, even if the policy discriminates and violates the U.S. Constitution.

But it offends Palin's sensibilities when school districts make policy that she doesn't like, even if the policy is legal and in the purview of the school district.

Everybody extolls the virtues of local control until they're on the losing side of something important to them.

12 (or more) Things I Learned About Sheila Simon

Last night, I attended Tenth Dems University Meet the Candidates forum featuring Lt. Governor candidate Sheila Simon. I'd met Simon once before very briefly and had the impression that she was shy. However, last night I found her to be very warm and personable. That's no. 1.

No 2 is that she plays the banjo in a local band.

Nos. 3-12 include a list Simon went through. These are her 10 strongest disagreements with republican candidate for Governor, Bill Brady:

3.  Brady supports teaching creationism in the public schools. Simon disagrees.

4.  Brady opposes abortion in all cases, including cases of rape or incest. Simon disagrees.

5. Brady sponsored a bill to allow animal shelters to kill more animals at one time. Simon disagrees. (Democat says "ick".)

6. Brady voted against a repair and deduct remedy for tenants. Simon explained that repair and deduct is an important remedy for low income tenants who live in rental units in need of repair. If the tenant cannot afford to make the repairs himself and pay the rent, with this remedy, the tenant is allowed to deduct the cost of repairs from the rent without risking eviction.

7.  Brady voted against FMLA. Simon favors family medical leave.

8.  Brady voted against requiring health insurance companies to cover prostate or mammogram screening. Simor would require such coverage.

9.  Brady voted against requiring health insurance companies to cover a set minimum stay after delivery of a child. As a mother who was booted out of the hospital right after the birth of a child, Simon would require this coverage.

10.  Brady is against including sexual orientation in the Illinois Human Rights Act. Simon favors inclusion of sexual orientation in the human rights law.

11.  Brady opposes videotaping of murder suspect interviews. Simon favors the videotaping because "it's the right thing to do."

12.  Brady opposes many of the Illinois Reform Commission proposals that Simon supports and helped create including improvements to the open meetings act, contribution limits and disclosure of contributions.

The meeting included the obligatory discussion about Illinois pensions. She favors protecting  pension rights and pointed out the constitutional requirement.

Simon admires Quinn for his stand on tax increases when it's not the popular thing to do because we need to fund the public schools. A young man from a Waukegan high school asked Simon about the teacher layoffs, adding that some of the best teachers from his school were let go because they were also some of the youngest. The student commented that his struggling school was not going to survive with so many teachers and para-professionals eliminated.

Another audience member asked how we can cure the corruption in the state. Simon said we need to change the political culture and mentioned that our continued involvement, as individual citizens working in groups like Tenth Dems helps that happen because we are consistently watching and do not disappear between election cycles.

Simon believes in being open and respectful to the ideas of those on the right , but is concerned about the absolutes invoked by the Tea Parties. One of those absolutes with which she disagrees is that government is always a bad thing. She thinks we should all be able to agree that the state keeping the Ford plant from moving to Indiana was a good thing as are small business tax incentives to hire.

Simon believes something she learned from her father who learned it from his mentor, Senator Paul Douglas: start off shooting for something big, and then understand that small changes might end up being as big as the big changes.