The Patch was a nice place to catch local info. I guess it has now become a political platform. It sure would be good to have an information source that wasn't polluted with the political views of the right and left... Those that constantly push their negative views are paving the way to gridlock and eventually America becoming a tier two nation.

Couldn't agree more. The message boards about local stories, political or not, are being taken over and used as platforms for extremists to air their views, and the Patch moderators just let it happen. I quit the Daily Herald and the Lake County Sun when they started charging large fees to read their websites, and now the Patch is becoming unreadable. Not sure where to go next for local news. What a shame.

Interesting that Republicans don't want political discourse in our area and that they believe that a pure listing of an incumbents votes is partisan. I would argue that the absence of political writing is just as political as its presence. If you are unable to make an argument for your point of view, then maybe you should consider that your point of view is incorrect.

Interesting that Ms. Gill now claims that Republicans do not want political discourse in this area, when Ms. Gill previously barred Republican comments on her blog site that contradicted her strange logic and fact gathering talents. When proven wrong in the past, she simply deleted those comments that contradicted her and barred several from ever commenting on her blog postings.

If the Patch publications want to open their doors to far left wing bloggers like Ms. Gill that is their business. If Republicans want to complain that the coverage is skewed to the left, they too have a right to complain Ms. Gill. Gill's past history of barring contrary opinions speaks volumes.

Patch needs to place a disclaimer at the end of each bloggers piece making it clear that the views expressed (in this instance) are Ms. Gill's and Ms. Gill's alone.

After spending a decade distorting and deriding everything Mark Kirk stood for, and the past two years deriding and distorting everything Bob Dold stands for, Ms. Gill's credibility on these topics is less than zero. She has repeatedly proven that she despises any politician who is not partisan or more middle of the road. The proof is how she ignores Democrats who vote with Dold and other Republicans on issues, including environmental ones. Her partisan brand of politics have failed us in Washington DC and Springfield, IL.

And now she pretends that she wishes political discourse from all sides? Get real!

Funny, so far no one has defended Bob Dold's environmental voting record. Also, there is no bar to comment on my blog. However, I am unwelcome on Republican blogs, or are you offering a free regular commentary on Falbe's blog?

It is interesting how Mr. Dold's regular Patch PR effort distorts his positions on two key areas of interest in his District. 1) his on and off support of womens's rights 2) his 'concern' for the environment. As the election nears his 'moderate' bluffing tactics will increase and the distortions will continue. I hope Patch has the professionalism to present the other side as Ms. Gill bravely does.

Thanks RB. Dold is clearly trying to relive Mark Kirk's glories. These were the exact issues on which Kirk based his "moderate" image and the supporting issue organizations aided and abetted his efforts by endorsing him no matter how he voted, except in 2008 when Sierra and Conservation Voters dropped him. It was astounding to me that the News-Sun would shill for Dold as an environmentalist without even mentioning his environmental voting record. I have also observed that the discourse sought by Republicans always seems to be personal attack. I've stuck to the issues both on my blog and here on Patch. The Republican response has always been in the nature of a personal attack. Almost all of the Republican comments on my blog were about my looks or questioning my smarts and sanity. Some included violent imagery against me. No one ever said, "hey, I disagree with you because I believe that it's best for the district to... or best for the environment to ...." I wonder when the district will tire of engineered voting records covered by purchased advertising, false media reports, and personal attacks to support them.

Thanks for proving my point, Lou. I can always count on you to do so. More seriously, thank you Kirsten. I think the point is that I'm not the issue. I'm not running for office. Bob Dold is and he's running on the issue of the environment when his votes indicate that he is very willing to vote against protecting it. The side issue is the New-Sun's willingness to participate in Dold's little environmental stunt and not to one lick of research into his voting record. Bad journalism at the least and who knows what else they have in mind.

Ellen,

I vote both parties and I'm not especially happy with the current options.

My original point was... I enjoyed the Patch as a source of local information and now both you and the right have polluted the site with negative politics.

Everyone has a right to share their political thoughts, it would just be nice if we didn't get hit over the head with it everywhere we turn...

If there are going to be political columns in a publication, there should be columns representing both parties. Or the columnist should present both sides of an issue.

The issue of the environment is not the only platform on which Bob Dold is campaigning. As is easy to do with any issue, you are using things out of context to try to prove your point. You would have much more credibility if you were able to present both sides of an issue. Have you inquired as to the reasons that Dold voted as he did? Are you insinuating that Kirk did not represent the district well?

The "protesters" in town are similar. They keep repeating the same statement over and over again. They basically do not have any clue as to what they oppose and are unable to present a rational argument. They just think that everyone who works hard for a living is bad. They are targeting Boeing, and yet many of them undoubtedly arrived here on Boeing equipment.

I would like to see the Patch engage an ultra-conservative writer to counteract your views.

Requiring the Patch to carry diametric positions on any given topic, in order to write on that topic, would amount to censorship, which I'm sure they're loathe to do and is antithetical to the purpose of the site and this section. If you are opposed, then take Ms. Gill to task and prove she's wrong. Better yet, write your own Local Voice column. Sounds like the Patch is looking for more contributors...

...and still no explanation of why Bob Dold's environmental voting record is good for the district.

I find it interesting that so many people complain about the environment, air pollution and such, yet every single person contributes to this problem each day without a second thought each time they get into their gas guzzling cars, or SUV''s, which Lake County is loaded with.

We all applaud when we want to widen roads - which also brings more traffic, people and pollution - or when villages refuse to update their existing zoning, so therefore more homes or businesses can be built, under the guise of keeping property taxes "lower." When all it does is bring more pollution, crime and congestion. Not to mention a huge burden on our schools.

The fact remains (and most people aren't aware of this) that there are only a handful of people working with the Illinois EPA who go out and enforce violations of environmental rules. Heck, even the landfill in Grayslake was exceding legal limits for quite some time before anyone caught on, right here in our back yards.

Perhaps instead of clamoring over what candidates at the federal level will or will not do, we need to start holding ourselves accountable as well, at the grass roots level, which means our village leaders, then district representatives first.

We can pass all the laws in the world, but until there are people at the state level who can enforce the existing laws, or we start caring about what overpopulation has done - which is an equally troubling/polluting issue, we're all hypocrites, yourself included.

.

I agree that grassroots support for the environment is important and worthwhile. However, controlling industry requires a nationwide Federal approach. Coal burning pollution kills trees everywhere not just the blocks around the plant. A Keystone pipeline disaster can destroy the drinking water in six states for instance. Federal laws should not be relaxed at this time (a Romney and Republican position), they should be strengthened. Dold's not the guy for doing that based upon his voting record.

So, you're right my car pollutes. That's an excuse for adding more pollution? I don't think so. Yes, personally do what we can. Personally, the only way I can help stop the Keystone pipeline is that it could destroy the aquifers of six states and it's being proposed so that the US can IMPORT oil from Canada, send it to Texas and EXPORT it as gasoline. That does not justify the pipeline. It's a red herring.
Thankfully, the Republicans are now allowing the Feds to demand higher MPG's from the manufacturers. Are you against that? Industry pollutes. A free market is not going to drive Peabody coal to stop burning dirty coal. It's more profitable. Clean coal takes investment. Incentive drives investment. The Federal Government can encourage those incentives. That's all I'm saying....

I might also add that I have an extensive knowledge of things related to coal-produced energy, to the point I was given a prestigious award for it a decade ago. Perhaps you'd like to not have electricity in your home too. Because regionally, that's how a vast majority of electricity currently makes it into your house, even though you don't see it firsthand every day. Does that stop you from using it? Once again, it makes you hypocritical. But do you stop and think about that on a daily basis? Probably not.

Just pointing out how yet another thing you use on a daily basis and take for granted is bad for the environment, yet let's take up a cause that doesn't even exist yet, and turn it political. It shows your agenda is what matters to you, and your politics, not truly the environment.

Nightcrawler: Below is a link from the same source you used, (the EIA) which clearly shows that the U.S. gets 48.7% of it's electricity from coal, compared to 19.4% of it from nuclear plants. It even has a nice colorful pie graph for everyone to look at.

Next time you claim I am giving false information, please check your facts. I stand by what I said. Forgive me for using the word "regionally" and not "nationally."

By my calculations, that would in fact be a "vast majority," especially when the coal produced electricity out-produces any other source by more than a 2-1 margin.

Source: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/research/where-our-electricity-comes-from/

@RB: Did you even read my post? Because if you did, you'd see I wasn't defending coal, but merely pointing out how hypocritical it was the we do in fact rely so heavily on something as polluting as coal to begin with. I swear, that's why I stopped posting here for so long, is because everyone either wants to pick fights or make everything political.

In fact, let me re-type what I posted, which you responded to: "Just pointing out how yet another thing you use on a daily basis and take for granted is bad for the environment, yet let's take up a cause that doesn't even exist yet, and turn it political. It shows your agenda is what matters to you, and your politics, not truly the environment."

That's not defending the use of coal. In fact, it seems to be pointing out the exact opposite, so not sure why you took issue with what I said.

Also, you're blaming environmental problems on the Republicans in Congress? Last I checked all legislation also had to make it through the Democratic controlled senate too, so again, I'd suggest you go and check to see how many of those senators have signed off on legislation allowing polluting industries, because there are also a ton of those.

And watch how fast your electric bills skyrocket when they outlaw coal and start using more expensive natural gas-fired plants. Hate to tell you, but a lot of your environmental friends who tout that as a cleaner source of energy are the same ones now complaining that fracking (or drilling through the ground deeply) in search of that natural gas is harming the environment as well.

You can't have it both ways.

The other thing that drives me nuts about blogs like this blaming someone and making things political is how quite often a politician will vote against something beccause they feel the bill didn't go FAR ENOUGH to help the environment, so they vote against it.

They are then blasted as being "anti-environment" because someone blogging sees they voted against a measure, without first doing some research and finding out why, when in fact that individual often refused to vote for it because he or she wanted the wording in the legislation to be MORE strict.

But no one ever talks about that.

Interesting, from Wikipedia:

Because the concept of man made pollution doesn't cover the reality of what we see, another look at the issue outside that of an alarmist is demanded. In the man induced theory, the depletion of ozone is due to release of man-made chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds.

Over time these heavier then air chemicals are believed to work their way up into the upper stratosphere. CFC's would break apart under UV radiation releasing chlorine atoms that would destroy ozone. (see many views above)

Assuming this man induced theory on the origin of the ozone hole is correct, the area most affected would be the mid-Latitude Northern Hemisphere where the industry and population centers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, India, Asia, Russia, China and Japan exist. This is precisely what is not happening! This area is where the least action occurs.

Instead, we are observing a substantial annual ozone hole in one area only, the Antarctic and then only during times of no sunlight (the polar winter). Once the sun returns, the hole disappears quickly. A substantially smaller hole (NASA calls this the dimple because it's so small) is also known to occur over the world's second cleanest area, the Arctic.

A second issue exists. The sun generates explosions that produce bursts of high-energy protons. Ozone layer density on Earth can be dramatically affected by SPE's, which can locally decrease ozone content in the stratosphere up to 5%.

(Continued)

Some events that have caused serious dents in our levels of ozone levels can be measured using Nitrate Spike Signatures.

They show us large thinning of our ozone layer occurred prior to the creation of CFC's in September of 1859 and in July 1892.

Thirdly, There is growing evidence that ozone levels at the poles is directly connected to the strength of our magnetic fields. The ever weakening fields are believed to be assisting with the size and strength of the ozone hole. Projections for the hole, if tied to magnetic levels of the planet, are for an increasing hole, despite the banning of CFC's.

Making this post political? Read the title of the posting...."Mr. Dold, Environmental Votes....."
It's a political discussion!
Republicans believe Corporations will do the right thing. They won't when it comes to pollution. They are interested in a profit. Libertarians want complete hands off and no EPA. This leaves us with the Democrats to try to workout a solution. Clean coal is one. The Federal Government must be involved in solving our problem with pollution. Otherwise, you have Northwest Indiana polluting Chicago as it does today. You have dirty coal killing trees everywhere. No, I did not say the Republicans are the cause of pollution (another incorrect assumption on your part, similar to you saying I called you a Republican). Republicans are the 'drill baby drill party', but they did not cause all the pollution. They are in the pockets of big oil and big coal, so don't expect any solutions from them. Yes, it will take politicians to pass laws to protect us from profit driven pollution causing corporations....and, as you point out....help us to help ourselves.

So I guess that every company that pollutes must be owned by a republican too, right? Hilarious how far-fatched and one-sided yoru claims are RB. Stereotyping everyone into large groups like this is part of what is wrong with this country. I don't care what political affiliation anyone has, everyone is polluting, white, black, brown, Republican, Democrat, Independent ... and many of those businesses are run by Democrats and Republicans.

From Obama's own mouth: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/obama-oil-drilling-up-on-my-watch/1

I am so glad that my post has generated some discussion because I believe that political discussion is a good thing. Everything that happens around us is political, so saying there should be no discussion just means we have no say in what happens to us. However, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Bob Dold's votes on the environment are ok, or why those votes entitle him to run as an environmentalist. Also, I spent the last few days in Juneau, Alaska and report back to you that both the Mendenhall and Sawyer Glaciers have receded significantly. Since I have family in Juneau, I've been here a few times and note that all this has happened over the past decade.

Ellen, thanks for your post and topic. The truth hurts.
I've been to the Mendenhall Glacier and am sorry to hear it receded so much.

10,000 years ago, this very area in Illinois was loaded with glaciers, which melted into and became lakes and rivers throughout our region here.

How do you suppose that happened? Were humans polluting and getting it blamed on them too 10,000 years ago? The Earth goes through natural cycles, and I'm just wondering if some people simply assume all of this is caused by us based on them believing everything Al Gore and his film told them.

I have yet to see one scientist show me undeniable proof that these occurences are directly linked to us. I'm not saying that might not be the case, but please, show me one rock solid study that proves it without question.

It doesn't exist.

http://www.coachoutletonlineoe.com/
http://www.louisvuittonbeltspc.com/
http://www.coachoutletsstorebm.com/
http://www.guccibeltsmh.com/
http://www.coachouletbtf.com/
http://www.coachoutletuse.net/
http://www.coachoutletb1.com/
http://www.coachoutlethcs.com/
http://www.coachoutletonlinetpc.net/
http://www.coachfactorystorebg.org/
http://www.coachoutletonlineeu.net/
http://www.coachoutletonlinesm.net/
http://www.coachfactoryonlinemb.com/
http://www.coachfactoryoutletion.com/
http://www.hermesbeltsoutletns.net/
http://www.coachoutletmls.com/