Quest for the Office of Attorney General

It's primaries season, with all those down-ballot offices and names you've never heard of and don't have time to research.  You probably know--more or less--who's running for governor.  But what about those other state-wide offices that usually fly under the radar but are, nonetheless, pretty powerful? 

Enter the Attorney General!

And no, the attorney general is not a warrior lawyer.  Though that would be pretty cool.

Chicago Tribune Forum: full outline

The Chicago Tribune's Editorial Board endorsement session: 

Democratic candidates for Attorney General (AG)
Jan. 24, 2018

The following is an outline of the candidate forum.  It is broken down into the main questions and the time at which they were asked.   Candidate responses are mostly in bullet points except for a few sections that were more coherently summarized in a paragraph. I have inserted important background information into the discussion by putting it in parentheses with the word "NOTE."

Race for Governor of Illinois

March 20, 2018 is our date for primary elections!  Illinoisans will be selecting their party candidates for governor, attorney general, Congress, the Illinois General Assembly, and others.  Perhaps the biggest question, though, is "Which Democrat will be running against Bruce Rauner for governor of Illinois?"  

You might think it's too early to be worrying about this, but first impressions are everything, as they say, and the inevitable hoary, smeary, weary campaign advertisement blitz is now imminent.  Why not get informed first (in a single article!) so you know what those silly, biased ads are actually talking about.  

So!  To spare you the trouble of wading through a morass of news articles and campaign websites, I've made this handy-dandy comparison chart of where the major candidates stand on various issues.  It is coded as follows:

• Italics – a goal that all three candidates have in common
• Bold – a goal that is unique to that candidate
• Regular font – some overlap between candidates on this goal

If the chart looks too daunting, you can just skip down to my analysis of the race.  Or if you're not in the mood for analysis, you can just skip to the end where I tell you which candidate I like best. :) 

Seriously, though, I hope everyone will find this article helpful and informative, no matter who you vote for!

Men, Women, and Success...5 years later

I started this blog five years ago with a post about gender roles and what I thought were my "unconventional" views on them.  Looking back at it now, it makes me cringe.  Not because I disagree with everything I said in that post, but because I was making the argument that part of the reason that women don't have as many high-powered jobs as men is because women tend to prioritize their personal lives (friends, family, doing things they enjoy) more highly than men do.  I argued that men are more likely to want power and wealth, and so it's okay if there are never quite as many women in positions of power as men.  Five years later, having learned quite a bit more about the world and about the history of feminism, I feel appalled that I wrote this because it so closely resembles the arguments that anti-feminists have made for centuries.  The New York Times recently quoted an article that they published in 1882: 

“‘Literal people may ask, Why, then, does not woman have the right of suffrage?’ it stated. ‘The answer is easy. She does not want it. Of course, it must be admitted that women, or some women, think they want the ballot. But they do not really want it.’”

A Guide to Libertyville's April 4th Elections

You've probably seen signs popping up all over the place these last few weeks.  Mayor?  Village Trustee?  School Board?  But who are these people anyways, and what do they do?  Researching all the candidates for local elections can be a big pain, so I've gathered all the useful information that I can find, right here, complete with links and sources!  I've thrown in my own opinion here and there, but you can ignore that if you like.  :)

First, the basics: 

Voting sites will be open from 6am to 7pm on April 4th.  You can also vote early or by mail if you wish.  You can find all the information you need, including where you should vote, right here: https://www.lakecountyil.gov/351/Voter-Power. 

Normally, municipal elections have a turnout of about 5%, so why don’t we see if we can get a few more people out this year?  

Second, a quick list of the candidates:

*Note, if there is only one name listed, they are running unopposed; for the trustees and board members, you are usually voting for several people to fill whatever vacancies are available.

Libertyville (* = incumbent)

• Village President – Terry L. Weppler*, Jeffrey A. Harger
• Village Clerk – Sally A. Kowal*
• Village Trustee – James H. (“Jay”) Justice*, Richard A. Moras*, Patrick W. Carey*, Gary L. Franzen
• District 128 Board of Education – Pat Groody*, Ellen Mauer*, Karin Lundstedt*, Kevin Huber, Jeffery Harte; (for the 2-year seat) Kris Hoult, Mackenzie Thurman
• District 70 School Board – Joshua Gordon, Marc F. Grote, Wendy Schilling*, Chris Coughlin, Tom Vickers*, Timothy P. McGrory, Adam Phillips, Kellen Ronald Merchen
• Township Supervisor – Kathleen M. O’Connor*, Robin M. O’Connor
• Township Clerk – Anne Hansen*
• Township Assessor – Peggy A. Freese*
• Township Highway Commissioner – Marty Neal*
• Township Trustee – Lawrence W. Falbe*, Matthew A. Kovatch, Carol A. August, David Nield*, Terry A. White*

Third, here is what my research has yielded about these candidates. 

Don't Be Shocked

Sometimes I need to remind myself of the obvious things, because they are so easy to forget.  Only two weeks into the Trump presidency, I hear endless shock and outrage that our nation could do such things.  

The outrage is justified. 

But perhaps not the shock.  

I think it’s time to do a reality check for the young, white people of my generation.  Many of us, myself included, have grown up assuming that it’s obvious that all people deserve equal rights, opportunities, and respect.  Yes, we know there are still bigots out there, but laws are in place to protect the rights of minorities, women, etc., and our country is still refining and improving those laws.  President Trump is suddenly casting all that into doubt.  

But here’s the thing.  These rights are not obvious, in any historical sense.  The sense of morality that we grew up with is a really NEW THING—so new that our own parents grew up in a time when these ideas of equality were neither obvious, nor popular.  The laws guaranteeing equality, which may seem like ancient history to anyone born after 1980, are brand-spanking new.  

Let’s spend a minute thinking about the rights that we may have taken for granted:

People should all be given the same rights and opportunities.

The Civil Rights Act, which officially desegregated America and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, passed in 1964 after a decade of organized, mass-protests.  It was followed by the Voting Rights Act (1965), which overrode state and local laws that had prevented African-Americans from voting.  
 

That was barely over fifty years ago.  

People of different races should be allowed to marry.

2017 marks the 50^th anniversary of the nationwide legalization of interracial marriage in the United States!  Mr. and Mrs. Loving had been arrested, fined, and then kicked out of their native Virginia for violating the state’s “Racial Integrity Act” which prohibited marriage between a white and a non-white.  In the aptly-named case Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court struck down all bans on interracial marriage.  

Children with disabilities should have access to quality public education.

To quote from my Human Learning and Development class:

“Until the 1970s, most U.S. public schools either refused enrollment to children with disabilities or inadequately served them.  This changed in 1975, when Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, required that all students with disabilities be given a free, appropriate public education.”

Incidentally, this is what Hillary Clinton was fighting for back in the 70s.  

Eugenics and forced sterilization are BAD.  That’s Nazi stuff. 

Actually, the US had eugenics programs before the Nazis, and we kept doing it even after WWII.  An estimated 65,000 Americans were sterilized under these state laws between the 1920s and 70s—mostly poor women of color who were deemed “feeble-minded” or “promiscuous.”  Eugenics laws were upheld in the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell in 1927.  Most of these laws were repealed in the 1970s.  Even so, there was a recent case in California in which 146 female inmates were sterilized without proper consent between 2006 and 2010.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sterilization-united-states_us_568f35f2e4b0c8beacf68713

http://www.msnbc.com/all/eugenic-sterilization-victims-belated-justice

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/

 

You cannot ban people from the United States because of their beliefs.

The McCarren-Walter Act (1952) banned anyone who was believed to be a Communist from entering the United States and also allowed for the deportation of Communists.  President Truman vetoed the bill, calling it “un-American” and “inhumane,” but Congress overrode the veto.  The act remained in place until 1965. 

~~~~~~~

My point is, these assumptions we make about human rights—that we consider basic, fundamental, obvious—are anything but.  They are revolutionary.  They are new.  They are fragile.  We are the first generation in American history to grow up with these assumptions. 

So be outraged.  Be outraged that Trump and the Republicans are threatening rights that so many people died and protested and suffered for.  Be outraged that our country is now sinking lower on the scales of justice.  

But don’t be shocked.  After all, you can’t honestly assume that laws which have only been around for 40 or 50 years will be permanent.  They could disappear as quickly as they came. 

At the Crossroads

I've started watching the Ken Burns documentary on the American Civil War.  It has reminded me of certain very salient things, as we await the beginning of the Trump administration. 

First, America has been through far worse times than this.  One half of the country may feel deeply, personally betrayed by the other at this moment, but we have already been through far more divisive and painful times, and we emerged as one nation that went on to share many powerful moments of victory, loss, and progress together.  If we can recover from the Civil War, we can recover from this. 

Second, I also recognize, in a sense, that we are still recovering from the Civil War.  Many of the old questions about race, rights, and power are abruptly in the spotlight once more.  This time, however, there is no neat division along geographical lines.  Much has been made in recent days of the division between the cities and the country, and the silent majority who did, in fact, come out to vote for Donald Trump.  We cannot separate city from country and there can be no question of secession this time.  We must learn to communicate and live with each other, if our nation is to continue being a successful nation.  I posted this article on my facebook page arguing that "The Other Side is Not Dumb."  I still support that stance, especially in the sense that the concerns of the other side are not dumb, and it is absolutely worth talking to people rather than rejecting them.  This interview from the Washington Post poignantly expresses the genuine suffering that rural people have been living with for the past few decades, and, above all, it demonstrates the power of actually talking to people and building human connections.  Arguing on Facebook and Twitter is not enough to change anyone's mind.  Only by knowing and respecting people can you have a real conversation.  I believe that. 

But.

I am not telling anyone to calm down.  I am not telling anyone that it's okay and we will definitely get through this.  There is nothing definite.  The fact that our democracy and our nation survived the Civil War does not mean that we will survive this--it only means that we can.  But we will have to fight. 

The concerns of the other side are not dumb, but the propagation of false information and the creation of echo chambers online is the greatest threat to our democracy in recent decades: not terrorism, not economic decline, not even Donald Trump can destroy our government as effectively as an electorate who has no idea what's actually going on.  If people can surround themselves with information that they want to hear and ignore reality completely, they cannot make informed decisions.  Barack Obama recently said, "I have complete confidence in the American people—that if I can have a conversation with them they’ll choose what’s right. At an emotional level, they want to do the right thing if they have the information."  I share that confidence that people are very capable of making good choices if they have good information.  But with recent stories showing how hugely popular fake news and pro-Trump twitter bots swarmed the internet in the run-up to election day, I am increasingly alarmed at the possibility of elections essentially being rigged through an online media barrage of misinformation.  This is something that will be extremely difficult to address in the short term without resorting to measures that basically amount to censorship.  We need education first and foremost, teaching people to challenge their own assumptions and distinguish good news sources from bad, but that is a very long, long-term solution.  We need to find solutions that will be effective immediately.  Some ideas, such as this plug-in that labels news on facebook as "verified" or "not verified" are a step in the right direction, but that won't be enough. 

In tandem with the problem of misinformation, we need to deal with prejudice.  There is a whole movement now calling on liberals not to malign Trump supporters as a monolithic group of women/minority-hating ignoramuses.  I agree that categorizing people in this way is wrong and counter-productive.  Treating them with contempt and hatred will only make things worse.  However, the fact remains that Trump ran a campaign based on bigotry and hate, and we just vindicated all of that by electing him.  Many Trump supporters have come out of the woodwork recently, including women, Muslims, and immigrants, who admit they voted for Trump in spite of his racist/misogynist rhetoric, usually because they agree with his economic policies or because they truly believe that Clinton is more corrupt than he is.  But this idea that all the hateful, ignorant things he said on the campaign trail can be overlooked if he just makes positive changes to the economy is extremely dangerous.  In the words of Irish Senator Aodhán Ó Riordáin, "When are we going to have the moral courage to speak in terms other than economy all the time?"  (I recommend you watch the whole video).  He was addressing the Irish government on their response to Trump's election, but this applies to everyone the world over.  There is something much, much bigger and more dangerous at work here: a shift in our moral codes and in our standards of acceptable conduct between people.  It's not just in America, it's all over Europe and perhaps all over the world.


It is easy to compare what is happening now, both here and globally, to what happened in the 1930s.  There is the rise of protectionism, isolationism, and a tendency to have faith in strongmen and autocrats.  There is a rising belief that the current systems are somehow broken, that we can save ourselves by reverting to semi-imagined times of former prosperity, shutting ourselves in and putting our nation "first."  There are increasing numbers of ever more popular politicians who espouse racism, religious prejudice, and unhumanitarian policies in the name of patriotism.  Many of you already know who these people are, but here's a shortlist: Donald Trump, Marine LePen (running for President of France in 2017), Viktor Orban (Prime Minister of Hungary), Geert Wilders (leader of the Dutch Freedom Party), not to mention well-entrenched autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan.   Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel, now the strongest world leader who still advocates for democracy based upon liberal values, is under fire at home.  She could lose her place as chancellor.  It is very clear: the world is tilting towards fascism yet again, and the election of Donald Trump just gave it an enormous push in that direction. 

In Europe, people are particularly afraid of Vladimir Putin, especially now that the United States, the backbone of NATO, has a president who says he will no longer fund NATO or honor its commitments.  

Hitler is often an absurdly, casually overused point of comparison for anyone with ideas we don't like.  But in all seriousness, we need to think about Hitler's invasion and annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938, which the world chose not to oppose, as a potential parallel to Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014.  Who would stop Putin from taking the rest of Ukraine if the world and, particularly, a Trump administration, refuse to oppose him?  This article paints a nasty picture of what might happen if this trend is allowed to continue: the disintegration of NATO and the European Union, and Russia taking over neighboring countries like the Baltic states.  Some friends of mine, who are very well informed and whose opinions I respect, think that this scenario is way overblown.  They argue that Putin would have little to gain from taking over Eastern Europe.  At least by taking Crimea, Russia got an important naval base at low cost.  But the fact is, we don't know what Putin is planning, and he has demonstrated clear expansionist ambitions.  He is a former KGB man, who, as the leader of Russia, has been known to have political rivals assassinated in broad daylight and to have Russian dissidents poisoned even on foreign soil.  He is apparently very popular in Russia, which he rules with an iron fist, and he still possesses one of the most powerful military apparatuses in the world. 


To quote John Oliver, "Things are not going to be okay."  We must act.  There are still strong reasons for hope.  There are key differences between our world now and the world of the 1930s.  The United Nations is stronger than its predecessor, the League of Nations.  The European Union could yet hold together and be a powerful force in the world (as long as Marine Le Pen is not elected next year).  Donald Trump may be a fascist, but our republican institutions are much stronger and more deeply ingrained than those in Germany during Hitler's rise.  Reminder: Trump is certainly not Hitler--he's not advocating for the extermination of an entire race or for taking over the world, but he is still a dangerous advocate for violence, irresponsibility, and selfishness.  Crucially, Trump doesn't enjoy anywhere near as much popular support as Hitler, who, between 1934 and 1938, "gained the backing of the vast majority of the German people."  Having lost the popular vote and being vehemently opposed by a majority of Americans, Trump currently has a far more limited mandate to work with.  We need to keep it that way.  

All of our greatest victories as a nation--the Civil War, WWII, the Civil Rights Movement--were never foregone conclusions.  History could've turned out very differently were it not for the actions of certain key individuals and many, many thousands of people who were willing to make serious sacrifices for a better world.  We need to remember that, every day, as we try to bring stability and sanity back to our world. 

Many people have already made to-do lists.  Here's mine.  

1) Have real conversations with Trump supporters you know.  Don't block them out.  Don't automatically blame them or get angry at them.  Tell them you're afraid.  Tell them of all the harm you fear will come from a Trump administration.  I've already done this with one person close to me.  We did not change each other's minds, but we did make it clear that A) we care about each other, B) that our fears and concerns are genuine, C) we left the door open for more conversations down the road. 

2) Do not tolerate bigotry in any form, anywhere.  That includes when you're trying to have an open conversation with a Trump supporter, and they say something racist or misogynist.  Point it out, tell them that they are degrading your friends/family/colleagues by saying such things, and tell them that you won't tolerate those kind of comments.  Some may refuse to stop, or some may refuse to keep talking to you, but just because you can't get through to everyone that doesn't mean you should back down.  The point here is to prevent our society from evolving backgrounds to one where it is increasingly acceptable and commonplace to say bigoted things.

3) Support the National Popular Vote compact.  Part of the dysfunction in our political system is that only a few states really matter in any presidential election: the swing states.  Voter turnout and interest would be much higher if the president was chosen by direct popular vote.  This compact has already been passed in 11 states.  If enough states pass it so that they make up a majority of the electoral college votes (270), then all of their electors would, from then on, be bound to vote for the candidate who wins the national popular vote.    

4)  Join the Safety Pin Movement.  Put a safety pin on all your coats, backpacks, etc., so that if someone needs help in the face of prejudice or violence, they can easily recognize you as someone who is willing to step forward and assist them.  

5) Donate and volunteer.  Support our institutions against corruption by those in power.  Donate to the ACLU so they can take the Trump administration to court if they violate the constitution.  On Last Week Tonight, John Oliver also suggested the following organizations that will need your support in the coming years:  Planned Parenthood, Center for Reproductive Rights, Natural Resources Defense Council, The International Refugee Assistance Project, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, The Trevor Project, and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

6) If you're going to post articles on facebook, make sure that they actually add something to the conversation.  An endless parade of articles bashing one side or the other will do no good.  It will just wear people out and reinforce your echo chamber.  Post articles that bring up a new point of view that you hadn't thought of before.  Post articles that offer solutions instead of just complaining about problems. 

Senator Ó Riordáin said that we are at "an ugly international crossroad" in history.  He is probably right.  But this pivotal moment could be remembered in one of two ways: as the time when the world slid into darkness once again, as it did in WWII...or as the time when people rose up en masse to defend the free society that our ancestors sacrificed so much to attain.  The level of prosperity, freedom, equality, and rule of law that Americans enjoy right now is not normal.  It is an extraordinary anomaly in history.  We have both so much to lose and so much to fight for.  We've already made serious mistakes that have brought us to this point, but it is up to every one of us, individually, to reverse the tide of hate and ignorance, and preserve the highest and best attainments of human civilization.  Do not run.  Do not move to Canada.  Stand by your country.  Count your blessings, and fight for every single one of them. 

The Race for Illinois State Comptroller!

Every election season, I'm frustrated by the lack of information on the smaller political offices: comptroller, state representatives, county coroner....  Nobody likes to talk about these guys.  Their theatrics usually pale in comparison to the presidential race, especially this year; but these are the races where your vote really counts.  Only the people in your district, county, or state can vote for them, and a dozen votes here or there could really make a difference.  Yet when I read up on local campaigns, newspapers like the Chicago Tribune, the Sun-Times, or NBC are mostly full of "He said," "She accused," "He shot back"--it's an echo chamber of useless information.  All I want is a straightforward comparison of what the candidates have actually done so far in their careers. 

I have searched far and wide, and such a thing is nowhere to be found, so I decided to do it myself.  One of the biggest local races this November is the race for state comptroller: probably the most important government job you've never heard of.  In this post, I will present every useful thing that I have found about the two main candidates, such as their voting record, career accomplishments, and public statements.  From there, hopefully you and I will be able to decide who we really want to hold this office. 

What is a state comptroller anyways?

Basically, they're a big-wig accountant, which doesn't sound too impressive, until you realize that it's up to them to prioritize how state money is spent.  They decide who receives government money and in what order.  They are also meant to be a fiscal watchdog, weeding out fraud and overseeing the state budget and state contracts.  Incidentally, Illinois hasn't passed a proper budget in two years, and has the worst credit rating in the Union, so the job of state comptroller is pretty important right now. 

And the candidates are...

Japan's War Legacy

I present to you my second paper on Japanese history.

70 Years Later: Trying to Write the Last Chapter on Reconciliation

In the 1980s, Japan was at the height of its “economic miracle.”  Countries around the world looked with (sometimes hostile) envy at Japan’s seemingly endless growth and prosperity.[1]  Perhaps in response to these factors, Japanese nationalism and ultra-nationalism grew; books on Nihonjinron proliferated as beliefs in Japanese exceptionalism saw a great resurgence in popularity.[2]  At the same time, emboldened politicians began to openly defend Japan’s war legacy in ways that deeply offended their neighbors.  A series of “textbook crises erupted” starting in 1982 as the Ministry of Education sought to tone down descriptions of Japanese aggression during WWII.[3]  Public figures began to make overt comments that denied or diminished wartime atrocities;[4] although these men often lost their jobs as a result, the increased tension in international relations was evident.  This decade also saw “comfort women” come forward in large numbers for the first time to testify about their sufferings during the war.[5]  This painful and volatile issue brought new shame and anger to the surface on both sides. 

Thus, the 1980s was a period that both revived and reframed the debate on Japan’s war legacy.  It was a war of words between newly resurgent and vociferous Japanese nationalists, foreign peoples who still felt that Japan had been insincere in its apologies and had not done enough to make amends, and certain individuals in Japan who wished to delve deeper into the past in order to atone for the wrongs of their nation and—as in the case of Kurahashi Ayako[6]—the wrongs of their own family members.  This inflamed atmosphere, which persisted through the 90s and into the new millennium, led to some very conciliatory WWII anniversary statements from Prime Ministers Murayama (in 1995)[7] and Koizumi (in 2005).[8]  These statements were brief, humble, reassuring, and to the point. 

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s statement in 2015, on the other hand, was clearly intended to shift the arc of the debate.  Although he repeated much of what was said in the previous two statements, he also went considerably further—notably by addressing the events that led up to WWII.  Murayama and Koizumi had focused on expressing their regret and emphasizing all the good that Japan had done since 1945, but Abe dared to openly “reflect upon the road to war.”[9]  By taking a more comprehensive, long-term view of the “lessons of history,”[10] Abe carefully set the stage for making an important break from his predecessors: his desire to write the final, conclusive chapter of this 70-year narrative by bringing an end to Japanese apologies for WWII.  

The Rise and Fall of Japan's Reigning Empresses

Female Tennō

*Note: Before you begin reading this, I must explain one term: tennō.  This is the Japanese title for the reigning monarch.  It's particularly significant when talking about Japanese empresses, since there have been many empresses (wives of the emperor) throughout Japanese history, but only six female tennō.  Strikingly, all six of them ruled during the Asuka-Nara period between 592 and 770.  Why did women rule so frequently during such a short time, and never again afterwards?  None of the articles or books that we read in my history class ever explained this phenomenon, so for my first paper topic I researched female tennō.  I learned a lot of fascinating things about them, and I think I even found a real answer to my question.  Here are the results!