Recently the Illinois Legislature amended a law permitting the observation of a moment of silence in the classroom "may observe" to "shall observe". Now, schools are required to have a moment of silence for prayer or personal reflection. Unsurprisingly someone has already filed suit on the basis that this law now violates the First Amendment.

Last I checked, the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So, which part of this is being violated? I don't see any religion being established, I don't see anyone being prohibited from practicing their religion, in fact, it looks like quite the opposite to me. Is silence only to be found in religion? Is personal reflection? Does 30 seconds of quiet time in any of our lives constitute a negative thing? If you don't believe in God, you're more than welcome to think about something else during that time. And if, by some chance, you're part of the population of this country that believes that there is some sort of higher power in this universe, maybe the chance to take a break and think about that for a few seconds is okay.

Maybe, just maybe, there might be some benefit to slowing down, and thinking during the school day. God knows that happens far too infrequently.

Is a moment of silence specifically religious? And is acknowledging religion the same as condoning it?

Not the first one. Not that that was a good idea really. At least GWB told us what he was planning before he got us in a war. No, I'm talking about Hillary. I'm not going to argue a position based on her qualifications, her positions, her claiming to be a Cubs fan but running for office in New York (seriously, if you're going to be senator of somewhere you don't live, at least have some loyalty to your baseball team). My position is simply this. She's female.

Oh my god! He's a misogynist bastard!

No, I'm simply aware that the biggest international issues facing this country right now are primarily centered around parts of the world that haven't bothered to notice that the last few hundred years have happened. The ruling bodies of not only our "enemies" but our "allies" run countries where women aren't even allowed to drive. There is no way on earth that they're suddenly going to accept mandates from a woman, or from a country "so weak" that they "allow" a woman to rule them.

Yes, it's wrong, and it's stupid, and most of the world (I'd be willing to say most of the population of even the countries I'm referring to) would, at worst, not care, and at most applaud the change. We're not getting out of the Middle East before the next president takes office. They're going to be inheriting a mess, and an already-in-progress war. If the next president is female, she's going to have to be a war president.

Ignoring the reality of the response of the extremists to our actions is what's gotten us where we are now. We can't afford to continue to do so.

If a politician is convicted of a crime while in office, can the constituents file a class action suit against them for breach of contract, using the oath of office as verbal contract?

I have an idea to reform US federal politics. I just came up with this yesterday, so it needs a vast amount of refinement and improvement, but hear me out.

The way our system is structured (despite what many people seem to think) it's congress that has the power. The function of the senate is to be more temperate and calm, but the House is supposed to reflect the will of the people. The Senate is long term planning, the House is short-term reaction. The shorter terms and smaller-group, population based selection of the House reflects this. However, our nation has become, in some ways, too homogeneous for geographically based assigning of representative districts to work well. So, my idea is to change how representatives are elected. Rather than drawing districts by arbitrary geographic boundaries, which allows for gerrymandering, as well as insuring that in some districts, some minority populations effectively have no representation; I would suggest making Representatives directly elected, by the population as a whole.

Term length would become "at the pleasure of the people". At any time a group could gather 10,000 signatures to call for a replacement of a Representative. This would force a special election, in which all candidates would be selected by write in. A minimum of 30,000 votes for a person would make them eligible for the seat, and the person with the most votes above 30,000 would then take the seat. If no one got 30,000 votes, the incumbent would retain their seat.

This would serve as a method of allowing minority groups to band together to insure that they had at least one representative, and add a performance review aspect to the election. Rather than unseating "your" existing Representative, you could unseat the one who is least effective, and therefore has the least support.

I think this would lead to a more vibrant and dynamic House of Representatives, that would more accurately reflect the populace's desires.

Like I said, there are a lot of holes in this theory, but it's a start.

A quote from "The Audacity of Hope" by Barak Obama

I'd begun to see how any challenge to convention harbored within it the possibility of its own excesses and its own orthodoxy.... In this slow, fitful process of sorting out what I believed, I began silently registering the point in dorm-room conversation when my college friends and I stopped thinking and slipped into cant: the point at which the denunciations of capitalism or American imperialism cam too easily, and the freedom from the constraints of monogamy or religion was proclaimed without fully understanding the value of such constraints, and the role of victim was too readily embrace as a means of shedding responsibility, or asserting entitlement, or claiming moral superiority over those not so victimized.

I know too many people who repeat what they've heard without adding any knowledge of their own. What's worse, is that their sources are limited to a single stream, so there is little chance of a new idea developing. I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself from time to time. Too often now, a statement is critiqued not so much for content, as it is for who has created it. A singer who agrees with you is now considered a better source of information than a scholar who does not.

Bell's makes my favorite beers. (Actually, they make one of the only beers my non-beer-drinking wife likes too.) Unfortunately it's going to be harder to get them. The franchise to sell Bell's in Illinois, was apparently put up for sale. They buyer was a large "less than friendly" company that the owner of Bell's didn't want to work with, so he's pulling the beer from Illinois as a form of protest.

Chicagoist has more.
Chicagoist - The Bell's in the Distance

While I applaud Mr. Bell's decision, I'm saddened by the effect it will have on us, the people who appreciate good beer.