NewsJive w/the Online Editor

My wife rose from bed a little earlier this morning, walked to the church down the street from our house that serves as our polling place, and performed her civic duty of casting a ballot in today’s primary election.

I, on the other hand, did not.

People are often shocked when I tell them I don’t vote in primaries.  I’m the journalist, the editor, the reporter who covered a fair amount of politics in his day.  I’ve even had lengthy conversations with two of the candidates running for president, Obama and Huckabee. (O.K. Huckabee is not really a candidate in this contest.  Sorry, the polls talk in politics.)  Anway, shouldn’t I be first in line to vote?

The answer is simple.  I refuse to participate in any political process that forces me to select one party over another, such as a primary where I would have to pull either a Republican or Democrat ticket.  It’s a matter of journalistic integrity, and, yes, it reads and sounds arrogant no matter what way you put it.

Of course, not every journalist or editor, follows this mantra.  Many vote and some go as far as to contribute monetarily to political campaigns.  Doing so can be a real ding in the armor of credibility for one who must appear unbiased in the media.  This is especially true for newspapers covering smaller territories.

The bottom line is I’m not saying I’m apolitical, but I certainly prefer to play an apolitical role in my profession.

It won’t be a red letter year for many local Super Bowl watchers this Sunday – not like 2007 where we had the Chicago Bears to root for, or even 2002, when it was the St. Louis Rams taking on the New England Patriots.

This time last year our news staff was preparing for the possibility rioters would take the streets of downtown Carbondale following Bears-Indianapolis Colts game, especially if the Bears won.  Well, they didn’t — Bears 17, Colts 29 — and I was out on The Strip that Sunday night, as dejected Chicagoans attending Southern Illinois University Carbondale filed out of bars with choice words for Indianapolis.  No riots, though, not so much as a broken beer bottle, I think.

The police will probably be able to stand down this year, as the number of Patriots and New York Giants fans in Southern Illinois combined probably isn’t enough to turn over a teacup let alone a car.  Maybe I’m taking that statement a little far, but anyway, I’m going to climb out on the limb to say the majority of Southern Illinois Super Bowl viewers this Sunday will be rather… unattached …to either team.

All we can hope for is a stand-out commercial or a wardrobe malfunction to talk about Monday, because I have yet to see anyone this week who’d slap a high five on a perfect season for the Patriots.

There may be no greater political Judas to Illinoisans right now than U.S. Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman, since he announced Tuesday he was effectively scrapping the federal government’s plan to fund its portion of the $1.8 billion FutureGen facility set to be built in Mattoon.  The energy department’s 180 on the test power plant that would have been fueled by Illinois coal reserves is bad news for the state’s coal industry, no doubt.  However, Bodman’s change of heart is indicative of the fundamental lack of interest our government has in finding alternative energy resources for the future of this country.

If you heard President Bush’s State of the Union address Monday night, you might remember this line stuck in the middle of the speech:

“To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology.  Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil.  Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded.  Together we should take the next steps:  Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions.”

Fewer than 24 hours later, Bush’s energy secretary told a bicameral Illinois Congressional Delegation…”he would not release a ROD on FutureGen,” according to a letter from Illinois legislators to Bush.  “Further, he (Bodman) stated that he was going to scrap your signature clean coal initiative, redesign it, and recompete it.”  The letter further states “when the Secretary was assured that we were prepared to provide adequate funding and to resolve any other outstanding issues between the Administration and the FutureGen Alliance if he would take steps to move FutureGen forward, he unequivocally refused.”  Bodman, nor any energy department representative as of Wednesday evening, had given much detail explaining why the department changed its mind about funding FutureGen.

The irony between Bush’s words and Bodman’s actions less than a day later is staggering.  If that kind of irony could be harnessed as energy it could power floodlights from here to Prince Edward Bay.  For Bush to discuss decreasing our dependence on oil within a decade, only to have a member of his cabinet pull the plug on a project that’s already been working toward such a goal for half a decade, sends the message this administration has never seriously embraced research into alternative energy resources.

The people and representatives of Illinois are fighting to preserve FutureGen and a shot to revitalize the state’s coal industry, but it seems this fight has entered a new phase, one that means more than jobs and bragging rights.  We should expect our legislators to frame an argument that says we want FutureGen for more than economic prosperity; we want it because we are ready to help this nation end its destructive and expensive addiction to oil.