A standing ovation from the press box

The late and iconic sports writer, Jerome Holzman, wrote a book, "No Cheering in the Press Box," which was a reminder that even sports reporters should remain objective.

Apparently, this admonition does not apply to journalists of color, who met this weekend at a conference for...journalists of color...and gave Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama standing ovations. The Chicago Tribune tells the Chicago Tribune:

At [the conference], organizers reminded conference participants that [Obama's]his appearance was being broadcast nationally and they should maintain 'professional decorum.' Before Obama arrived, a panel discussed the question of journalistic objectivity, including whether journalists should clap for politicians in public.

As it happened, Obama received a standing ovation from much of the audience at the start and end of his appearance.

And more, according to the Sun-Times:

Sporting a beige suit and a U.S. flag lapel pin, Obama found a receptive audience among the minority journalists and students at McCormick Place, who gave him standing ovations, 10 rounds of applause and a rush of cell phone picture-taking.

Let's hear it for what used to be a professional once called journalism. At least they didn't usher him into the conference with palm fronds.

Turning trash into cash...

for insiders.

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley would eliminate competition in the city's commercial trash-hauling industry, leaving condominiums, businesses, office buildings and other customers at the mercy a city-designated monopoly.

Instead of shopping around for the best price and service, customers would have to use haulers designated for their neighborhoods by the city. On top of what the customers would pay to the haulers, they'd have to cough up another 5 percent to 6 percent to the city for "administrative fees."

The plan would not effect smaller residential buildings, who already have the pleasure of being under the thumb of the city's own non-competitive public trash pick-up service.

Details are in Crain's Chicago business here.

I want my money back

This is why our taxes were increased?

$24,999 for a taxpayer funded magazine to make Todd Stroger look good

There's gold for Chicago pols in new housing bill

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

It shouldn't be hard for Chicago and Illinois pols to turn the humongous housing bill that passed the U.S. House last week into a pot of gold for their cronies and themselves.

Even a naif like me could figure out how to convert to personal use Chicago and Illinois' share—yet to be determined—of the $4 billion expressed from Washington to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed homes. Someone from the Department of Rising Neighborhoods or whatever local agency administers the plan would call his cousin and say, "Hey, Jake, old buddy, I've got a great deal for you. We just bought a foreclosed home for $200,000. I'll make sure we sell it to you for $150,000. You can then turn around and sell it for $200,000, or whatever you can get, and we'll split the difference."

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) outlined this plausible scenario in detailing his opposition to the housing bill that will rescue homeowners, banks, financial institutions, brokers and others troubled by the housing bust.

At first, the bill was an effort to help homeowners in difficulty, but the bill has grown to gargantuan proportions. In addition to the $4 billion, the bill would provide $5.3 billion for more affordable housing, $4.6 billion for first-time home buyers, $729 million for home-loan insurance and $210 million for counseling for homeowners facing foreclosure. It also would provide untold billions to prop up the nation's top mortgage makers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in what is described as the most concerted effort to stabilize the mortgage and financial markets since the Great Depression.

That's according to the summaries handed out to reporters, who, I'm willing to bet, haven't explored every wrinkle of this monster which, by the way, will increase the national debt limit to $10.6 trillion from $9.8 trillion to help pay for all this largesse.

But Roskam has read it, and what jumped out at him was the total lack of protections against fraud and chicanery of the type that characterizes Chicago and Illinois politics. Roskam, in House floor debate, noted how the bill's proponents expressed confidence that cities—"victims" according to the bill's proponents—would spend the money judiciously and wisely. Roskam said "judicious" and "wise" were not terms he would apply to Chicago and Illinois. "Do you want Rod Blagojevich to be your landlord?" Roskam asked in a news statement. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) didn't like what she heard Roskam saying about the—shall we say—opportunities that the bill would open up, and issued a scold. Roskam, she said, obviously hadn't read the bill. Otherwise he would know that all the desired protections are in a plan that housing authorities must submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Roskam quickly replied by citing the plan requirements, "on page 3, section 4 of the bill." And, no, he continued, the plan that Waters mentioned indeed has "no prohibition against self-dealing." It only requires such things as setting goals for sales and accessibility by different groups. It is not about "potentially corrupt practices."

Obviously, a plea to the national conscience to stem Chicago corruption won't do much to slow down this juggernaut. And while Roskam might be playing to his west suburban audience by, tsk, picking on Chicago, he can just as easily be painted by political opponents as favoring the throwing of people out onto the streets and the cataclysmic failure of the nation's housing and financial markets. The cost of this bill is just about anyone's guess; Congressional Budget Office estimates run to $41.7 billion. So, when you're talking about money like that, what's a few hundred thousand, or even a couple of million, skimmed off by Chicago and Illinois fixers?