***The SJ-R reports today that last week Dist 186 actually did something good - they decided to look at merit pay for administrators of Dist 186.  Supt. Milton says, while he supports it, he is not sure how well it is going over by the look of the 'body language' of many of the administrators.  Tough.  Look at their salaries - they can handle some job performance measures before they get a 4, 5 or 6% raise just for breathing.

Now, Dist 186 has to go another step and implement merit pay for their teachers.  Although, Board President Conley already thinks that occurs:  "If we expect results from the kids and from the teachers, we should expect it from our administrators, who serve a very important function. We should be good stewards. End of story."  Expecting results and judging salary on performance are not the same thing...

***Keeping w/Dist 186, are you not amazed at how many spouses or children end up being the MOST QUALIFIED applicant?  Once again, this is not nepotism.  The Director of HR for 186 just happens to be married to the MOST QUALIFIED nurse who applied for a 186 job.  Really.

***It is disappointing that a media outlet would attempt to stifle debate or dictate the terms of a community discussion before such dialogue even gets rolling.  The SJR editorializes today that if there are any groups out there who are opposed to the new Salvation Army location they should check their emotions at the door.  The newspaper of record trivializes the opponents from the last attempt: BACK IN 2006, neighbors complained vehemently about the proposed community center site and packed city council and Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. The tone of the debate left much to be desired.

At times, some opponents did not seem to care about a population that most needs this community’s help. It was a classic case of people supporting the mission of The Salvation Army as long as those served were not in their back yards.

The SJR leaves a lot to be desired on a daily basis - reporting, editing, photo selection, etc.  Whether you agreed with the tone or tenor of the comments made by the neighbors of the proposed facility, they were fully within their right to make those comments and have those feelings.  The public process of zoning and planning is open to any and all who wish to make their thoughts and feelings heard.  Such a process is not only for the rationale, logical discussion of the 'betterment' of society.

And then you get this as a conclusion:  Public discussion of this site is welcome, but knee-jerk, not-in-my-back-yard arguments should be rejected.  The SJR doesn't want any NIMBYism when it comes to this discussion.  That is short-sighted and ignorant.  Zoning and planning most directly impacts those in the near vicinity.  In the previous case, those neighbors felt very threatened about their quality of life and their property values.  In the recent discussion that is just beginning, perhaps there will be businesses that would rather not see a homeless shelter in this area.  What will the SJR say if Horace Mann or The Hilton, with its new Bennigan's, opposes this location?  Will the SJR call it NIMBYism and dismiss it as irrelevant?

***Crazy Rod again screams from the roof top of his asylum, "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!!!"

***Poll numbers show Crazy Rod not very popular in Illinois.  Why do they keep paying for these polls?  Send us the money and we'll write the article for you...

***Hair(less) Joe and the Patriotic Tax.  Today's WSJ has a some more info about this idiotic pronounciation that paying more taxes is patriotic:  Regarding taxes and social justice, the issue is whether the high taxes that Mr. Biden favors promote economic growth and prosperity, not least for America's poorest citizens. There he doesn't have evidence on his side. Studies from around the world, including the annual Wall Street Journal-Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, conclusively indicate that countries that keep taxes low tend to have the least amount of poverty.

As for fairness, we'd note that today the top 1% of taxpayers pay twice as large a share of income taxes (39%) at a 35% rate than they did in 1980, when they were taxed at a rate of 70% yet paid only 19% of income taxes. In that sense, the tax code is more "progressive" now.

By the way, Mr. Biden and his wife recently released their tax returns, and they reported an average of $380, or 0.2% of their income, in annual charitable contributions over a 10-year period. The national average was about 2% of income.

***Listen to Kelm & Kirk live on the intertubes!