'Chicago Way' is no way to run mass-transit system

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

Imagine the astonishment of the feds who came here to investigate last year's CTA Blue Line subway accident that injured more than 150 riders and scared untold more. It has to be the same level of stupefaction that greets feds who come here to prosecute the indigenous mob.

Actually, you don't have to imagine the astonishment.

The shock and awe, typically registered by out-of-towners who get a glimpse at how Chicago really works, is graphically laid out in the National Transportation Safety Board's report, released last week, of the subway accident. The "worst" he's ever seen. That's how one NTSB official regarded the CTA's track inspection and maintenance non-system. The train derailed because the track was deteriorating, because no one noticed, because inspections weren't done, or not done well enough, and if they were, the problems weren't getting reported and those that were, weren't getting fixed. Lucky no one was killed. Riders and taxpayers have a right to be enraged at the "Chicago Way" of doing things.

The investigation, citing a deficient safety culture, noted "a series of latent conditions and active failures at many levels through the CTA corporate structure, which is characteristic of an organizational accident." That's bureaucratese for: This is one pathetic, dangerous operation.

But it's the result of more than just one kind of failed "culture." It's the convergence of multiple failed cultures that constitute the Chicago Way, and explain why the CTA is a mess, operationally, physically and financially.

The Chicago Way dictates that the CTA must first be an instrument of political power and greed for City Hall and Springfield; moving people efficiently and safely is but a secondary consideration. The Chicago Way has fostered a larger regional transit setup in which transit, engineering, marketing and other professionalism is smothered in a balance of power struggle among competing political forces in the Chicago area and the state. The latest permutation of the power struggle is again -- sigh -- "reform" that would give the Regional Transportation Authority badly needed and stronger powers to knock some heads together, to get the city and suburban rail and bus lines to act like the single system they should be. A good idea. But it would require a supermajority of the newly constituted RTA board to do anything that would really matter.

Then there is the Illinois Way, which is actually the Democratic Party Way, because all the dolts and opportunists who run (or ruin) things in Springfield are Democrats. The supporting cast of Republicans is like the chorus in the background of a Greek tragedy, wailing in observance, but not doing much else.

Let's not forget the Organized Labor Way, which for decades saddled the CTA with outrageous work rules and pay demands. Yes, labor leaders have made some concessions, no doubt in the spirit of public interest, and not because they were forced.

Throw in the Riders' Way. If they have to pay a bigger share, it's a capital crime. Even though the bargain they're getting, courtesy of taxpayers, allows them to ride for not much more than the price of a good candy bar. Politicians feed this sense of entitlement in many cowardly ways, some of them so covert that they escape even sharp eyes. I refer to a provision of the "reform" legislation that exempts $200 million in aid to regional transit from a law that requires that it be matched by revenues generated from fares.

Which leads us to the Assured Funding Way. This cultural mind-set argues that mass transit must finally get from taxpayers the kind of "assured funding" that it deserves. We go through this Kabuki dance every decade or so. When the RTA was created in the early 1970s, assured funding was a regional gasoline tax. Sure enough, that wasn't assured enough, so that was dropped in favor of a regional sales tax, which was "more assured." Now, an increased sales tax and a huge real estate transfer tax on the sale of Chicago homes, rest assured, are the answers.

Eventually, taxes will be raised, fares will go a little higher, some service will be "rationalized" (cut), political egos will be bruised and "reform" will bring a "new day." But the Chicago Way and other ways of doing things here won't change, and in 10 years, we'll be back where we started.

PGA to Chicago: Drop Dead!

By Dennis Byrne

Chicago Daily Observer

Seeing the good, but hardly record-breaking crowds at the former Western Open in Lemont watch Tiger Woods impressively capture his mind-boggling 60th professional golf title this weekend, the PGA feels confirmed in its decision to shaft one of the nation’s best golf cities—Chicago.

The Professional Golf Association has not just snuffed the Western Open name—a Chicago institution and professional golf’s oldest tournament—but has decided to move it out of Chicago—one of the nation’s most enthusiastic golf venues—leaving us without a single PGA event.

According to the PGA, we’re supposed to feel good about that.

For those who don’t share my passion for golf, here’s a way to better understand the PGA’s insult: If you’re a big fan of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, think about insult when the legendary Sir Georg Solti commemorated his last concert as music director of the CSO in New York’s Carnegie Hall.

Read more at Chicago Daily Observer

Craig the villain, not cop

Individual rights don't extend to solicitation in public bathrooms

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

So why is the cop who enforced the law by arresting Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) for trolling for sex in a public washroom now the one who's getting hammered?

The cop, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police Department were doing their jobs. But you might get the idea from some of the reaction that the cops did something awful. "They should mind their own business," is the heart of the astonishing criticism.

So, it has come to this, a debate over whether public restrooms can be used for sexual meet-and-greets. Even though Craig has been humiliated and is contemplating giving up his U.S. Senate seat -- at least that's the latest word -- the question of the legitimacy of the police arresting panderers in public bathrooms lingers as an issue. This is the consequence of today's "progressive" canons, which now challenge even routine law enforcement as "entrapment."

Consider CBS' "Sunday Morning" commentator Ben Stein last week when he called Craig the "innocent victim of a setup by the evil-minded police of Minneapolis-St. Paul that Stalin would have admired."

Stalin? You mean the Stalin who had 20 million murdered? Sheesh, Ben, for good measure, why not throw in Pol Pot, Genghis Khan and Hitler?

Said Stein: "Sen. Craig has been the victim of a police lynching. A [Republican] party that believes in individual rights should be rallying to his defense, not making him walk the plank. Shame on the GOP leadership, and utter disgrace to the airport police and their thug behavior."

Thug? Does that mean that Karsnia grabbed Craig by the ankles, dragged him out of the stall over the filthy washroom floor, kicked him unconscious and transported him across the Bridge of Sighs into oblivion? Now that would be thuggery.

And "individual rights"? Does Stein think that sexual solicitation among strangers who may not want to be solicited is a right? In this way of thinking, I gather that Stein wouldn't want the cops to move in on a bunch of prostitutes who had set up a booth in front of his home. Or who were prowling his apartment building's vestibule in search of johns.

Stein and others were pouring it on the Police Department for supposedly depleting their resources by entrapping consenting adults for nothing more than what goes on in a singles bar, when every cop in the department supposedly should be sweeping the airport clean of terrorists. Hanging around a public bathroom to hook up for some sex between two (or more, I suppose) consenting adults is, by this train of thought, none of anyone's business. What Craig did, Stein said, was a "trifle." And certainly no reason to ruin a man's career.

Oh, stop. Here's one good reason, and reason enough for me, for arresting Craig: People should not have to put up with having public bathrooms turned into sexual staging grounds. Let the horny little devils use the Internet to hook up.

But in today's environment of radical individualism, everything comes down to "choice." As in, "I choose to hunt for men with boyish faces in public restrooms." Choice trumps decency, deportment and all the other things that once comprised standard instruction for all children.

But, hey, it's my bathroom too. Choice, apparently, doesn't extend to those of us who choose not to have their feet tapped by the guy in the next stall, especially when your only choice is to use this particular facility while on the interstate highway or at the airport. And therein lies the difference between what goes on in a singles bar (gay or straight) and what shouldn't happen in a public bathroom. If I don't like what happens in the meet markets, I can stay out of them.

I'm old enough to remember when train stations and bus terminals were infected by this kind of virus, and you wouldn't want your kid to go in alone. If some guy gets arrested for thinking that the airport restroom should become the same kind of pit, then more power to the cops.

Especially when it nabs a hypocrite like Craig, who has spent his career attacking the very kind of behavior in which he has wallowed. The villain in this is Craig, not the police. Spare them the ridicule and simple-minded comparisons to Stalin.

The light goes on in GOP HD

A few minutes after you read this, there is no guarantee that Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho won't change his mind again about resigning because he was nabbed in a Minnesota airport men’s room trolling for sex.

As of this writing, it has been almost impossible to keep track of his on-again, off-again plans to carry out his statement after his arrest became public that it was his “intention” to resign his Senate seat on Oct. 11

Even USA Today’s OnPolitics fast-moving web site couldn’t keep up with the current state of Craig’s intent, and, apparently, neither could his office, as his spokesmen, being of two minds like their boss, issued contradictory clarifications.

Still, his waffling has provided a clearer look into his mind, and the sight of what’s there isn’t pretty:

Read more at Political Mavens

Thompson's Bold Vision

By Dennis Byrne
RealClearPolitics

As Fred Thompson proclaimed his presidential candidacy on NBC's "Tonight Show," the most telling moment came when he sparked wild cheering as he spoke this truth: America has laid down more of its blood and treasure in the cause of freedom than all other countries combined.

Bingo.

If Thompson's advisors don't know what his campaign theme should be, they know it now. It is, indeed, a grand and visionary statement that leaves all opponents of both parties quibbling in the dust over the details of public policy and personal qualifications

Read more at RealClearPolitics

Plenty of Road Rage for All

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

'Now, I'd never say that," I said to a friend who had just spoken the unspeakable:

"Women drivers use their cell phones more often than men," implying, of course, that you're more likely to get whacked by a distracted woman driver than a man. "You," I said, "will go straight to the dark, infernal pit reserved for misogynists such as yourself."

Still, I had to wonder if he was right. Especially as a woman talking on a cell phone had nearly clipped my car as she made a left turn while I was waiting at a stoplight. Jerk. So, I commenced my own informal survey, observing over the last few months the sex of drivers who were yakking on their cells. My survey concluded that women cell-phone users outnumbered men 2-1, and, during some weeks, 3-1.

Of course, this is only "anecdotal" evidence, proving nothing. It led me to an Internet search of the "literature," as scholars are wont to say, of the demographics of phone users. It failed to turn up anything definitive. (Rare, in my view, is the study that's definitive, especially ones done by sociologists. Pointless, perhaps, but definitive, no.)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a December 2004 report that men had a slight edge over women in daytime cell-phone use in cars. The report concluded that "there is no significant effect of hands-free or hand-held cell-phone use on accidents." The American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies agreed, adding that the accident risks by some previous studies may be overstated by 36 percent. They also find no evidence that cell-phone bans reduce traffic accidents.

Blah, blah. I don't buy it. How else do you explain that after the few times I've used a cell phone while driving, I can't remember driving through some intersections?

But if you want to ban a worse, more dangerous device, I'd suggest ...

Cruise controls.

That's right, outlaw that seemingly innocent device that automatically controls the speed of your car, freeing you of the laborious task of pressing your foot against the gas pedal.

This may make me the only driver in the world who thinks that cruise controls are a menace in the wrong hands. Cruise controls are supposed to be used only on straight highways in light traffic. But the cruise-control putz, like the cell-phone user, is oblivious to other drivers as he dials in a set-in-stone speed while plying crowded interstates, winding mountain roads and even city streets, his foot off the accelerator.

On an interstate, he'll pick, say, 68 m.p.h., and position himself in the left (fast) lane. Never mind that the guy he's passing in the right lane is going 67. He doesn't speed up or slow down because, by God, 68 is what he's decided to go, and no one or nothing will change his mind. Not even the growing line of cars stuck behind.

Thus, the cruise-control putz has created the dreaded and deadly traffic node. The node is best seen, as are clouds, from a distance, a mile or two back. From afar, the node appears as a tightly moving long, narrow and dark monster, making its way at a relentless pace, up and down hills and around turns. Up close, the cars are bunched dangerously close to each other, as their drivers jockey for position, some swerving into the right lane to try to cut in line farther up, and raising already frayed tempers to near violent levels.

Honk and flash their lights as other drivers might, no one is getting past cruise-control putz. One misstep by anyone, and look out for the chain-reaction accident.

Even after cruise-control putz passes the car on his right, he may still choose to stay as the fast-lane captain, despite the roadside signs instructing him: "Slower traffic keep right."

The smart, patient and safe driver (me) assiduously avoids nodes; he adjusts his speed so that he never catches up, allowing a mile of vacant highway between him and the node, until, hours later, the node somehow, miraculously, unravels.

The temptation when you pass one of these morons is to give the driver the evil eye and the bird. But don't bother; the driver probably wouldn't notice because she's on her cell.

Rahm Emanuel loves his earmarks -- enough to admit it in the New York Times

Some controversial, worthwhile reading for Chicagoans on the Red State blog.

An inane idea in any language

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribun

The door at my local Blockbuster video store is labeled "entrance." Right below, for Latinos who might be puzzled, appears the word "entrada." Over at the local Home Depot, the word "electrico" appears on a large overhead banner, in case any Spanish-speaking customer can't read the other word there: "electrical."

This is insane. You mean to tell me that Latinos are too dense to figure out that this door is for going in? Or that Spanish-speakers are unable to make the intellectual leap between entrance and entrada, even though they share the same root?

We've gone from being helpful to Spanish-speaking immigrants to the downright absurd. If you speak only Spanish and you're interested in faucets, you might be able to figure it out just by seeing where the pipes and fixtures are located. If you are half-observant, you might notice the sign that says, "plumbing," and the next time not need a sign that says, "plomeria." The chain stores know all this, but they're putting up the signs anyway because they are bending their knees to the radical immigration lobby. These folks want to dump English as the national language because, to them, anything that smacks of English-only suggests that "assimilation" is a good idea, when they believe that the whole concept of assimilation is a bourgeoisie, white-bread, if not racist, idea that no longer has a place in America. And anyone who disagrees is a "nativist," "hater" or racist.

It's why we have to print ballots in a foreign language, even though you must speak English to become a citizen and, the last I heard, you must be a citizen to vote.

Where, you ask, does it end? I thought the silliness of stenciling entrada on a door was as far as you could go. Until I saw what was going on at the Waukegan schools. English-speaking teachers are getting involuntarily transferred out of their classes and schools because they don't speak Spanish. As reported in an Aug. 17 Tribune story, Valerie Goranson now has lost her job, twice, because she speaks only English and some other teachers, noticing the 25 percent increase in the school district's Latino population, fear they might follow.

Well, the school district responds, language isn't the only reason for reassignments; they're also a part of a systemwide restructuring plan. The district also points to a 1973 Illinois law that requires a bilingual teacher in schools with more than 20 students who speak the same foreign language. That's a law that needs changing. Its supporters say it's needed because studies show students learn better in their native language. Other teachers disagree, the story noted: "We have kids from China, Belize, Serbia and everywhere, and they catch on and end up doing well," said Linette Oliver, a Waukegan teacher. "I don't understand why we can't do that for any child, no matter where they are from."

On Oliver's side are her first-hand experiences and those of her colleagues; the success of millions of immigrant children who -- miraculously, we are to believe -- learned math and other subjects that are taught in English, and common sense. Apparently, no "monolingual" teachers had to be elbowed out of the way for this to happen.

By the way, you might be surprised, as I was, to see the term monolingual increasingly applied to teachers -- and other Americans -- who speak only English. How insulting. It's as if English-speaking teachers were the same as teachers who spoke only, say, Kataang.

English is our national language, and in this setting it is inaccurate and disingenuous to refer to an English-only teacher, or another American, as monolingual. English-speaking is a more precise description than the generic monolingual, but you can expect the politically correct elites to continue to use the deprecatory term precisely because it diminishes the importance of speaking English.

Being able to speak more than one language is admirable. But, in the American classroom, we need to acknowledge the greater importance of learning English. And not treat its speakers as a disposable category.

BP: No increased lake discharges

This is a press release today from BP:

BP Pledges No Increase in Lake Michigan
Discharge Limits at Whiting Refinery

Warrenville, IL, August, 23, 2007- BP America today promised to operate its Whiting refinery to meet the lower discharge limits contained in the refinery’s previous wastewater treatment permit.

“We have participated in an open and transparent permitting process with the State of Indiana and obtained a valid permit that meets all regulatory standards and is protective of water quality and human health. Even so, ongoing regional opposition to any increase in discharge permit limits for Lake Michigan creates an unacceptable level of business risk for this $3.8 billion investment,” said BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone.

BP has obtained regulatory approval to increase average daily discharge limits for ammonia from 1,030 to 1,584 pounds per day and for total suspended solids (TSS) from 3646 to 4925 pounds per day to modernize the Whiting refinery and greatly increase the amount of Canadian heavy crude it can process.

During the next 18 months, BP will continue to seek issuance of other permits, continue project design and explore options for operating within the lower discharge limits. BP America notified the State of Indiana of its decision late yesterday afternoon and reiterated its dedication to the proposed refinery expansion.

“We are committed to this project. It is important for the nation, it is important for the Midwest, and it is important to BP and to the thousands of BP employees in the State of Indiana,” Malone said. “We are going to work hard to make this project succeed.”

“We will not make use of the higher discharge limits in our new permit,” said BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone. “We’re not aware of any technology that will get us to those limits but we’ll work to develop a project that allows us to do so. If necessary changes to the project result in a material impact to project viability, we could be forced to cancel it.”

BP has already agreed to participate with the Purdue Calumet Water Institute and the Argonne National Laboratory in a joint effort to identify and evaluate emerging technologies with the potential to improve wastewater treatment across the Great Lakes. Malone announced today that BP will provide a $5 million grant to Purdue University to help underwrite the research effort.

The $3.8 billion project is designed to increase the amount of Canadian heavy crude processed at the more than 400,000 barrel-per-day refinery from 30 to 90 per cent and also creates the capacity to increase production of clean fuels by 1.7 million gallons a day. The project will create 2000 construction jobs and 80 permanent jobs.

Hastert to resign early?

Hastert Early Resignation: An Illinois Republican source tells us former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) plans to resign November 6 this year instead of finishing out his term. This would create a vacancy and trigger a special election in the 14th District.

Read more in Human Events

Bush Did It

By Dennis Byrne
Human Events

So, it has come to this: A 20-year-old Illinois college student is whining because she won’t be able to vacation in Costa Rica, because she got pregnant, because she couldn’t get birth control anymore, because it cost $20-a-month more at the university clinic, because its federal funding was cut, because President George Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act.

Boy, doesn’t that beat all. Bush lied to us, got us into an unnecessary war and now he got a 20-year-old pregnant and denied her the entitlement of drinking mai tais on a tropical beach.

Read more at Human Events

Climate's impact on human migration

This is a fascinating graphic of how humans migrated across the globe from their origin in Africa to the collapse of the last ice age. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it's worth a look.

Two-Team Town

Or why this Sox fan can cheer for the Cubs.

If anyone has good reason to hate the Cubs, it’s my brother Bill and me. Growing up on the North Side and in the northern suburbs we, the only White Sox fans in sight, had to put up with the crude, rude taunting of Cubbie fans.

Very bad for the psyches of a couple of eight- and ten-year-olds.

Read more at Chicago Daily Observer

Boneheaded BP Sun-Times boycott

Not that anyone has noticed BP calling uncle, but the Chicago Sun-Times has joined august Chicago aldermen in calling for an “all-out” boycott of the company’s service station because of its supposed reckless polluting of Lake Michigan.

In almost 30 years of laboring for the Sun-Times (including a stint on its editorial board) and its sister paper, the Chicago Daily News, I cannot remember it, or any other Chicago paper, calling for such a boycott. I might be wrong, and would appreciate the details.

Credit the Sun-Times for its courage; it’s not often that one for-profit business seeks to publicly instruct another on its moral and legal obligations. Such edicts usually are left to high-and-mighty non-profits. Attempts to drive away business are usually left to competitors, and the last I looked the Sun-Times was not in the oil business. It’s especially courageous in light of the Sun-Times’ precarious financial position; some may call it an act of putting principle over expedience.

At base, though, the paper’s call for a boycott is an act of cowardice.

Just like other critics of federal and state approvals of BP’s plans to spend $3.8 billion to upgrade its northwestern Indiana refinery to turn Canadian oil into gasoline, the Sun-Times provides not a shred of evidence that it will do any environmental harm. The science and the law are on BP’s side; demagoguery and hysterics are on the side of its opponents.

Opponents are forced to revert to the emotional argument that there must be no “backsliding” on pollution, and that the increases of ammonia and suspended solids constitute is bad. And why is it bad? Like children, they say, “Just because.”

The editors at the Sun-Times, if they are rational, have to know that its call for a boycott won’t work. (One reader pointed out to the editors in a letter the reasons why.) They have to know that it’s transparent posturing. There’s only one reason for doing it:

A desperate attempt to be on the side of what they believe is popular opinion. And that’s cowardice. And the soiling of a fine newspaper’s integrity.

Karl Rove for anchor

Now that presidential senior adviser Karl Rove has left the White House, speculation heightens among those who care about what he'll do now.

Simple. He should replace Bob Schieffer as the host of CBS News' Sunday news program Face the Nation. Or how about him replacing Tim Russert as moderator of NBC's Meet the Press.

Or more to the point, he should boot George Stephanopoulos off ABC's This Week.

This would produce howls of protest from Democrats. How can you make President George W. Bush's biggest insider the host of a major news program? What about bias? They'd go berzerk.

And well they should. No one can fairly make the transition from top White House operative to host of a network news shows. They were right when they vehemently protested ABC's decision to make Stephanopoulos host of This Week. Stephanopoulos, you'll recall, was a senior political adviser to the former President Bill Clinton's first White House run and later became Clinton's communications direct.

What's that you say? They didn't protest? Oh. So I guess that they wouldn't mind if a major network would do Rove the same kind of favor. Or that they wouldn't hoot when he shows up on Fox News.

Sure they would

“Deported immigration activist Elvira Arellano”

Wrong.

Elvira Arellano is a deported immigration lawbreaker. Yet, the writers and editors of hundreds of news stories feel compelled to call her an “activist,” a much more generic term that attempts to deflect her year-long spit-in-the-eye of U.S. immigration laws.

Even more egregious are the comparisons of Arellano to Rosa Parks, the heroic African-American woman who helped break the hold of Jim Crow segregation in the South. Parks broke an unjust and immoral law; Arellano broke a law that is neither. America’s immigration laws arise from the right of every sovereign nation to protect its borders.
Arellano was deported after her arrest in Los Angeles after leaving her yearlong refuge in a Chicago church. There was no question about the illegality of her multi violations; she admitted to them herself. She, in effect, dared authorities to arrest her.

Read more at Political Mavens

Filtering the facts from the fallacies of BP controversy

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) is correct to call for congressional hearings into government approval given to BP for a $3.8 billion upgrade to its northwest Indiana gasoline refinery.

Just as long as the hearings help to clarify and correct the barrels of misinformation and distortions swamping the debate over the massive project that will bring cheaper and more abundant gasoline to the Midwest. The distortions have been sloshing around now for more than a month after approval of the project by federal and state regulators came under fire. A public summit of the major players in the controversy last week seemed to do little to clear them up.

Take the issue of "backsliding": Can any additional "pollutants," no matter how infinitesimal or harmless, be discharged into to the nation's lakes, rivers and streams, even if they are legal and within federal and state limits, as BP's are?

Some critics, such as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would go so far as to inaccurately suggest that any additional discharges are illegal. As he said in a letter to Benjamin Grumbles, the Environmental Protection Agency's assistant administrator for the Office of Water, "A specific provision in the federal Clean Water Act prohibits any downgrade in water quality near a pollution source even if discharge limits are met."

Well, yes, but there's a legal exception, according to the EPA, that he fails to mention, either from ignorance or mendacity: "Anti-backsliding provisions of the [Clean Water Act] contain an exception where material and substantial alterations to the permitted facility justify the application of less stringent effluent limitations...to accommodate important economic or social development." Regulators correctly determined that the economic and social benefits of the refinery expansion meet that requirement.

Other critics don't go as far. They regard the exemption as a "loophole" that BP will use to "foul" Lake Michigan. Such claims usually are made without precise evidence about how the discharges will "foul" the lake, endanger the water supply or lead to horrific events that might justify the critics' hysteria.

For example, in ranting about the relatively small amount of ammonia allowed into the lake, the critics ignore the fact that ammonia is not a bioaccumulative chemical. It breaks down in the water. If it didn't, all the fish in the Great Lakes might have disappeared eons ago from swimming in their own urine.

Also conveniently missing from the debate is the context that could be provided by comparing BP with other industrial and city "dischargers." According to the EPA, BP's 4,925 pounds of suspended solids allowed a day compares with 16,630 at International Steel Group's East Chicago plant and 121,861 at its Burns Harbor facility. Ispat Industries' East Chicago plant is allowed 130,453 pounds, about 27 times BP's limit. Chicago, of course, is on another planet, permitted 243,000 pounds, almost 50 times BP's. Maybe Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who is threatening to sue BP, ought to sue himself. Except, I suppose that Chicago's discharges don't count because they aren't into the lake; they're just gifted to the Illinois river system.

Note also might be taken of the fact that no ammonia limits are imposed on a bunch of papermakers and cities such as Milwaukee and Green Bay. Chicago's allowable ammonia discharge (from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District) is 61,000 pounds, compared with BP's 1,584.

Considering these facts, Stephen Elbert, BP America vice chairman, should have said at last week's summit, "Nuts. You don't want our jobs and economic development? We'll take them elsewhere." Instead, he went well beyond what is required and promised to look at suggested alternatives to cleaning up the plant's discharges. But, he added, any discharge alternative will have to "fall within the economic boundaries of the project," a perfectly legitimate position.

Mary Gade, EPA Midwest regional administrator, probably said the smartest thing all day when she asked everyone to get beyond the headlines and emotions and begin a more practical discussion.

The issue is larger than BP. In a way, it's a test of national importance of whether we can balance legitimate environmental and economic concerns. Of whether we can avoid couching the debate, as did Ann Alexander, a local Natural Resources Defense Council attorney, in such destructive and extreme terms as "sacrificing Lake Michigan in the name of oil addiction." Of whether politics will run roughshod over the public interest. Of whether demagoguery and emotion will trump facts and reason. Of whether radical environmentalism will prevail over science.

Nothing happened in Iowa

By Dennis Byrne
Human Events

Annoyed about all the national publicity that the Iowa Republican straw poll garnered last week in Ames, the New Hampshire Legislature today set its 2012 state presidential primary for next week. – News item.

Just kidding. Sort of.

Insanity isn’t quite the word (but it’s close) to describe the coverage of the straw poll, which the media, political operatives and the candidates themselves (the leading ones, that is) declared to be an important national milestone on the road to the White House and, hence, the fate of the world.

Absurd may be a better word: Here’s how Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday” described this momentous occasion: “This weekend, all eyes were on the American heartland and the race for president.” I assure you, from the Heartland, that all eyes were definitely not. Mitt Romney, the “winner” of the straw poll, declared: “Today, the people of this great state sent a message to America, and that is that changes begins in Iowa.” Message, not heard, not received.

Read more at Human Events

Correction: Obama meant that he'd only drop by Pakistan

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."--Barack Obama

By this, we're supposed to believe that Obama would pay a courtesy call on Musharraf. Or deliver a polite e-mail, saying, "Hey, could you please do something about those terrorists?" Or send the Rev. Jesse Jackson with a message, which no doubt would prompt Musharraf to act, but probably not the way that Obama has in mind.

Seems that the partisan Media Matters for America has objected to my conclusion in a prior post that Obama meant that he would unilaterally invade Pakistan. This, I am instructed, was a wildly inaccurate reading on my part and others of what Obama meant. Thing is, the critics never say what Obama supposedly really meant. I suspect the public believes he meant exactly what Obama's handlers wanted them to think: that he'd go into Pakistan and kick Osma bin Laden's butt.

What's happening is a broader effort by Media Matters and other liberal mouthpieces to try to soften Obama's belligerence with idiotic word games. They simply are echoing Obama's feeble effort at damage control, in which he said that "The misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up. I never called for an invasion of Pakistan." We're now supposed to believe that well, yes, perhaps Obama meant military action (Dropping in special forces? A missile attack? What?), but it can't be called an "invasion." Then what is a deployment of armed forces or an attack by air or sea against a soverign ally to be called? An excursion?

To be charitable, this attempted deception is so transparently mealy-mouthed that it ought to embarrass the folks who use it. Then again, some folks simply are incapable of being embarrassed.

Illinois politics a smear on Obama resume

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

Is America, nay, the world, ready for a U.S. president -- Barack Obama -- who bubbled up from the sordid politics of the Illinois legislature? From a political party whose stranglehold on Illinois government has brought the state to the brink of insolvency?

The rest of America should excuse many of us here if we blanch at the idea that someone, anyone, who just a few years ago occupied a seat in Illinois' laughable legislature might soon be president.

True, the first president to emerge from the Illinois legislature was Abraham Lincoln, but that's little comfort. Today's Illinois legislature is rock bottom, exceeded in incompetence only by the preening, useless Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And true, Obama can't be blamed for the current madness in Springfield and the Democratic Party's abject failure to govern. Yet, that's where Obama cut his political teeth.

At last, the national media are catching on, noting that Obama talks a good game about bringing a new day to Washington, but what he's really bringing are old ways from one of the nation's most corrupt political states. The Boston Globe noted that two-thirds of the money Obama raised for his state Senate campaign came from political-action committees, corporate contributions or unions -- all special interests. The Los Angeles Times reported that Obama has raised $1.4 million from members of law firms and consultants led by partners who are lobbyists. The Washington newspaper, The Hill, reported how he used lobbyists to help build his fundraising base.

But Obama has more going against him than being the spawn of political hacks and hypocrites. His recent statements raise troubling questions about his competence, such as his ham-handed declaration about invading a sovereign ally, Pakistan.

Supposedly an "agent of change," Obama's promise that he would unilaterally invade Pakistan sure has a familiar feel; anyone remember the Iraq war? Who would have thought that within Obama lurked a neocon?

The impact of Obama's threats were immediately apparent, in helping to destabilize Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf 's shaky government and raising the specter of Islamic extremists running a nuclear-armed state. Obama has objected that his remarks have been taken out of context, so, fair enough, let's look at the speech in which he issued the warning.

The Bush White House could have written some of it: "It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action," he said. And: "As president, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

George W. Bush reborn? A reminder for Bush haters and Obama fawners: Bush also said he had actionable intelligence justifying the invasion of Iraq.

Ironically, Obama's explanation resonated with the AFL-CIO presidential debate audience in Chicago last week, and, I suspect, a good part of the American public. Obama's handlers probably got the politics right. But, as policy, it was dangerous and hardly "nuanced." No surprise there, considering that Obama's foreign policy adviser is none other than Anthony Lake, President Bill Clinton's controversial former national security adviser. This is the same guy who allowed Iran to deliver weapons to the Muslim government in civil-war-torn Bosnia, in effect inviting Muslim extremists into Europe.

A new day in Obama's Washington? Spare us. Obama in the White House would be an old day, incorporating the worst of the Bush administration (according to his critics) and the worst of the Clinton administration. Not to mention the Illinois legislature.

Did Durbin Break Senate Ethics Rules in Kos Video?

The answer appears to be a resounding yes. Read the details in Human Events

The Leftwing Circus Comes to Town

By Dennis Byrne
RealClearPolitics

The YearlyKos presidential forum here in Chicago did such a wonderful job of spotlighting the extreme elements of the Democratic Party that conservatives should hope that they make it a monthly, even weekly, event.

Consider: It really takes something to make Hilary Clinton look good, but the leftwing bloggers who partake of the poisonous rhetoric that flows on the Daily Kos web site pulled it off. Of course, making Clinton look good isn't saying much when you're sharing the debating stage with the other Democratic candidates, there to kowtow to their base.

When Clinton spoke the truth at the forum about lobbying practices in Washington, the crowd roundly booed her. Asked about taking campaign money from lobbyists, she pointed out that lobbyists "represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses, they represent, you know, social workers. They represent--yes they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

See, right there she stepped in it, not just on the lobbying thing, but acknowledging what the lefties don't want to hear: Corporations, for all their faults, do something good; they give people jobs.

Read more at RealClearPolitics

Such a deal for transit riders

Commuters' fares fall short of fair share

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

Did you know that every time a CTA rider pays his fare, you figuratively match it? Two bucks from him, almost two bucks from us taxpayers.

Pace suburban bus riders get more from taxpayers: We pick up about two-thirds of the tab. Even though Metra serves some high-tone suburbs, we cough up 45 percent of its costs.

These facts have been strangely overlooked in the legislature's fight over increased state subsidies for the CTA, Metra and Pace. The state already gives Chicago-area transit about a half-billion dollars a year but still the halls of the state Capitol reverberate with threats of big service cuts and higher fares unless Illinois taxpayers come up with yet more money for mass transit.

The arguments for a subsidized mass transit system are well-worn but legitimate: It's transportation for people who can't afford to drive and a sensible alternative for those who can, it reduces pollution and energy consumption, it helps direct sensible land use in the suburbs and so forth.

In a nod to its importance, the Illinois General Assembly in the early 1970s started providing annual mass-transit subsidies, through the newly created RTA. But lawmakers thought that the taxpayers shouldn't pay for all the costs, so they created a requirement that the riders in the aggregate must pay for at least half of the total costs. In other words, if the total cost of mass transit in the region was $500 million, riders would have to pay at least $250 million, and the rest could come from other sources, namely government subsidies. If the total cost increased $100 million, to $600 million, riders' fares would have to generate $300 million. Obviously, that would require a fare increase.

But why was their share set at 50 percent? Why not 60 percent or 75 percent? Fifty percent was an arbitrary number that was determined by political compromise; there's nothing magical about it. Indeed, New York City and District of Columbia riders pay a higher share of the cost of their rides.

If CTA riders, for example, were required to pay 60 percent of the total cost, it would generate well more than the $110 million that the CTA wants in increased subsidies this year. Yes, it would require a basic fare increase of roughly 38 cents. But more creative ways are available for increasing fare revenues other than an across-the-board hike. One would be a higher rush-hour fare, when it can be justified by higher demand.

Of course, the RTA and the local transit boards could raise the fares on their own authority because the state-mandated 50 percent rider share is only a minimum. But politically speaking, it would be easier for the legislature to take the heat by forcing a higher rider share. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley would be able to say that the legislature made us do it.

Think about it. We don't pay half a motorist's costs when he drives to work or goes shopping. When gas costs $3 a gallon, he pays $3 a gallon, and a $1.50 check doesn't arrive later. Airline passengers and freight shippers don't get this kind of break either; their customers pay most of the costs. Yes, there's an argument that government provides motorists and truckers "huge" subsidies through highway construction and maintenance. But those subsidies fall far short of half the cost of highways; most of those costs are paid by the motor fuel tax, which is a user tax. No similar user tax exists for transit users; in fact, the biggest transit subsidy here comes from a six-county RTA sales tax, which falls on all of us.

Suggesting a fare increase is memorialized as "touching the third rail." Doing so immediately makes you an enemy of the poor, as if the only people who ride trains and buses are scraping out a living in bum jobs or on welfare. They're not; those who are too poor to afford a fare increase should be helped in other ways than by giving a subsidy to every rider, whether or not he needs it.

Transit riders have generally escaped the huge energy cost increases that have afflicted all forms of transportation. And they have benefited from the political cowardice of politicians and transit boards that have failed to impose regular, reasonable increases. A state mandate requiring that riders pay a bigger share of their costs is the only way to ensure more realistic fares.

Of course, there'll be carping, e.g., "I shouldn't have to pay one penny more for such rotten service," even though the criticism is unfairly broad-brush. But here's a thought for the crabbers: The next time you're furious about your late bus or train, maybe things would be better if you paid more of your share.

When fear (about everything) lurks around every corner

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

I'm done. I'm alarmed out. Alarm numbness has set in.

There's no escaping the alarms about our lives, nation, globe and universe. The number of alarms issued by experts, politicians and media has become, well, alarming. Everywhere we turn, we're greeted with more "alarming" news. NBC's evening news guy Brian Williams, for one, can't seem to get through a single show without once saying, "In alarming news, ..."

Alarming news about our health, children, marriage, weather, life savings, retirement, schools, national security, politics, religion, driving, environment?go ahead, name any topic, and you'll discover something alarming about it. So many alarms are going off at the same time that it has become impossible to know which one we ought to be alarmed about. Or, we're so overwhelmed, we can't pay attention to any of them.

Take a ride on Google News, and you'll find stories about "alarming cop vacancies," "alarming evolution of germs," "young pitching arms breaking down at alarming rates," "reducing the alarming trade gap," "the alarming spread of fascism in Putin's Russia," "car rental excise taxes proliferate at alarming rate," "alarming rise in global HIV," "teen sex trends hit alarming plateau," "Kashmir battles alarming increase in suicides," "alarming increase" in multiple driving-under-the influence cases in Sheboygan County, "alarming number of tourists go without travel insurance." This, in just a few hours.

Wait, breaking news; this just in from a Google News alert: The dry spell in Northern Luzon threatens a "very alarming impact on agriculture, water resources, health conditions and energy supply" and could last months, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration said.

Now back to our regular programming: The European Union says it is "very alarming" that not enough companies have "independent directors" on their boards to limit the potential of abuse. "Very alarming," I guess is one notch above merely alarming, which is akin to just an orange, rather than a red, homeland threat level.

None of which may be as alarming as the two-for-one alarm, as in the "double dose of alarming reports" that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) cited when arguing that America should get out of Iraq pronto. Which makes, I should imagine, the alarming report of thousands of dead carp in Ontario's cottage country only half as alarming. Which is about as much "cause for alarm" as the bazookas, snakes and toys stuffed with narcotics making their way into Canada through the mail.

Rates are alarming -- whether increasing or decreasing, such as "anorexia [in India] rising at an alarming rate," or "Tibet warming at an alarming rate." Most frequently alarming, of course, is global alarming, err, warming. Even in Chattanooga, Tenn., the local Kiwanis Club couldn't escape a professor's warning that "global warming trends are alarming" and that "it's kind of like we're running out of time." From China we hear about "glaciers melting at alarming rate."

Health alarms are prolific and sometimes conflicting, such as "84 percent of sunscreen products are harmful to health, says alarming [study]." If you're befuddled by that, plenty of clear-cut health alarms are available: "[The World Health Organization] warns of alarming health situation in Sri Lanka," "Aluminum and possible alarming health hazards," "Alarming health statistics -- Obesity," "New research reveals alarming increase in mental health prejudice," "Alarming health effects of global warming," "secondhand smoke is an 'alarming' public health hazard," "Rising trade in human organs is alarming," on and on to dumbfounding lengths.

The job of alarming us has turned into a mega business. The alarmers usually are found lurking in non-profit "public-interest" groups, whose members make a profitable living spinning out news releases about the latest "risk" at dizzying speed. An editor who tries to read and evaluate them all is guaranteed permanent brain damage. Reporters who try to verify every claim end up disappearing into a quagmire of minutiae.

Perhaps we haven't gone far enough. We need a company (consultants take note) that can rate the alarms for everyone. A 10 would be a comet five minutes away from hitting New York City. A 1 or a 0 would be anything that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) calls alarming.

Far be it for me to diminish the importance of any of these alarms, but we need a breather. The act of being alarmed is a subjective thing, rooted in the mind and emotions of the beholder. If I'm alarmed, I'll know it. I don't need the likes of Brian Williams and the rest of alarmhood to tell me when I'm scared. So, just shut up, will ya; we are all exhausted.

"Is 61 years in prison enough retribution?"

"Notorious triple murderer William Heirens seeks parole yet again."

The Chicago Tribune asks this question in a featured story and the correct answer is: For this child murderer, 61 years is not enough. He should spend the rest of his life there, as was intended in the first place.

But, yet again, we're being asked to (a) have mercy on this diabetic old guy because he's been in prison long enough, and (b) let him out because he's no murderer, the poor guy.

This public plea for forgiveness/justice comes around as regularly as Halley's Comet, ever since Heirens became the poster boy for the "wrongful conviction" crowd. Freeing William Heirens would be their crowning achievement, a blow against a criminal justice system that they believe is inherently flawed. Heirens confessed to his crimes, not that it mattered to these folks. They're playing Heirens to inflate their celebrity, because that's how they get the grants and contributions that keep the game going.

The wrongful conviction crowd has done quite well for itself, freeing a number of prisoners whose DNA has contradicted the evidence of their guilt. They've done fine work in exposing the brutality that was allowed to continue for too long in the Chicago Police Department. We all should be glad when innocent people are freed, even though its not clear whether the guilty received undeserved forgiveness with the innocent when former Gov. George Ryan freed or commuted sentences for a bunch of them. Ryan's was a cynical act, designed to burnish his image in the face of his own criminal prosecution. It didn't work, but the wrongful conviction folks were pleased to have him on their side. In a way, they deserved each other.

Heirens didn't have the benefit of DNA evidence back in the 1940s when he pleaded for his life for the grizzly murder of Suzanne Degnan and two others. Suzanne was snatched from her bedroom and later found dismembered in Chicago's sewer system. Heirens says he was coerced to confess to escape the state's own grizzly justice in the electric chair.

Heirens and his handlers have this down to a fine art, coming up with a question here, a seeming inconsistency there and a Plan B finger pointed at someone else. Just enough "evidence" to raise doubts about Heirens' guilt.

But it's BS.

I'm not going to go into the details yet again; years ago when this waltz started I interviewed the prosecutors at the time at length, examined the documents and talked to the Degnan family about their own certitude. I'll just say that I believed then that they got the right guy, and I still believe it. The criminal justice system 60 years ago intended that he should be in prison the rest of his life, and that's where he belongs--not just for the brutality of his crimes, but for the integrity of the system.

Heirens' handlers, though, aren't dummies. Quite the contrary; they've got great PR savvy and a determination to never give up on their poster boy. First, they thought that they could convince everyone that Heirens was innocent, so he could be freed with no strings attached in front of the cameras in what would be a beautifully self-serving PR coup.

No one other than the ideologically blind bought this innocence line though, so it required a change in strategy: We won't talk about his guilt; we'll play the compassion card. This poor old guy has suffered enough. Who can he hurt now? He long ago met the criteria for parole. He's the longest serving prisoner in Illinois history.

Having previously learned a lesson about how negative public reaction can sink Heirens' bid for freedom, they kept a low profile this time. The problem was that they needed to put some public pressure on the parole board without giving the Degnans and opposing forces time to make their voices heard. So, the plan was to allow an in-prison interview with the pathetic creature, so that a mostly sympathetic story would appear a few days before the parole board hearing. Make it a big spread complete with a tape of the harmless old guy in his wheel chair. No tape, of course, of the Degnan family or the prosecutors. And from Heirens, not a word of contrition or of comfort to the victims' families. Ever.

It's a simple plan, and so far it's working beautifully. The TV cameras will be there when Heirens is wheeled out prison and into the waiting arms of his handlers. They'll receive their plaudits and more grants will flow. And during it all, a little girl's brutal murder will be forgotten

Politicians mucking up arguments

As Indiana approves the expansion of a BP refinery, Illinois officials muddy real issues

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

The cynic might say that Mayor Richard M. Daley is making a stink about increased Lake Michigan pollution from a planned expansion of a BP refinery because he wants to avert attention from allegations that an old friend of his had mob connections.

Daley is going full tilt in his fight against Indiana and Washington approvals of the $3.8 billion upgrading of BP's Whiting, Ind., refinery because it supposedly will degrade the lake with more "sludge" and ammonia. His outrage has flowed. "That is our drinking water. That is our economic development. That is our recreation," Daley exclaimed with such passion that it might have left the impression that we're going to find viscous, black muck oozing from our faucets. Not missing the hint, the Park District (read: the taxpayers) is organizing a petition drive to flood the Indiana governor with "thousands" of signatures.

Happily for Daley, this cross-border assault on us by Indiana came just as a key witness in the Family Secrets mob trial was talking about how a Daley pal -- Fred Barbara -- helped bomb a suburban restaurant in the early 1980s. Daley wasn't as forthcoming with reporters about that, so the cynics might be right about the BP expansion being a handy diversion.

Not being a cynic, I think that the explanation is simpler: opportunity. Opportunistic politicians -- such as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who can be counted on to demagogue anything handy, and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), desperate to appease his increasingly liberal North Shore constituency -- are making similar stinks. Opportunity, as in a chance to ride the wave of ill-informed and knee-jerk criticism that is pounding the shore.

I'm as devoted to maintaining the cleanliness of the Great Lake as the next guy who never goes in the water because it's always too cold, or because the suburbs near my home charge "non-residents" outrageous prices just to sit on the beach.

But the level of discourse about this project has been anything but rational or informed. Consider the critics' reference to the sludge that supposedly is going to crud up the lake. The description conjures up 19th Century images of thick, viscous blobs of muck percolating from a filthy concrete culvert into the lake.

Just for the record -- and everyone is allowed to argue with it -- here is the company's response to the assertion that it will be pouring sludge into the lake, an explanation I don't see much mentioned by the critics: There is no sludge in the discharges.

Sludge refers to the concentrated larger solids that are removed by treatment from the wastewater before any discharge into the lake. Sludge is disposed of as a solid waste; it never reaches the lake. Tiny dispersed solids, too small to be caught by the treatment's fine filters, do reach the lake; they are about 10 microns in size (1/25,000 of an inch.) The 20 million gallons of treated wastewater discharged daily into the lake is 99.999 percent water; the remaining 0.001 percent is mostly two kinds of salt -- chloride and sulfate -- and even tinier amounts of nutrients, organics and metals, most of which are found naturally in Lake Michigan.

The critics like to say, as a matter of shorthand, that BP wants to "dump" 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more "sludge" into the lake every day. But citing percentages alone is misleading without reporting the huge raw number upon which the percentages are based. In fact, a 35 percent increase in maximum daily particulates translates into an increase of less than a dozen parts per million. The actual increase would be more on the order of 8 parts per million. Same infinitesimal increases apply to ammonia.

BP notes that if the wastewater were toxic under the definitions and regulations of the 1977 Clean Water Act, no discharge would be allowed. Simply stated, according to the company, the current or planned discharge is not toxic; it is not harmful to humans or aquatic life. If you don't believe that, then argue with the legal limits.

These kinds of technical and legal arguments deserve airing, as the critics demand. Certainly, you can argue with the facts and the company's interpretations of them but that would be a vast improvement over the current level of hysterical discourse. This is a monumentally complicated technical issue, one that is too easily simplified. That's understandable, because we all yearn to have the world explained in simple, comprehensible terms. Passion in arguing the issue is OK. But that doesn't excuse the politicians and BP's

Chicago Proposes 401(k) Accounts for Transit Workers

By Dennis Byrne
Budget and Tax News

A groundbreaking effort to switch a public employee pension system from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan is underway in Chicago.

The Chicago Transit Authority wants to follow a growing trend in the private sector toward a 401(k)-type retirement system in which the employer and employee make regular contributions into a retirement account controlled by the employee. Supporters say this approach can save taxpayers money while still providing solid retirement income for state workers.

A CTA spokeswoman said Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, the state's most powerful Democrat, has signed on to the retirement restructuring.

Read more at Budget and Tax News

More subsidies for the wealthy

The Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, whose merger is a done deal, pride themselves on being an arena for the pure marketplace. At least that's what we hear whenever some regulator suggests that it should increase its oversight. The very thought is enough to choke on an option.

Yet, along comes Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley suggesting that the city "absolutely" give the merged companies a multi-million-dollar subsidy to stay in town. Not that anyone had seriously threatened a move as a result of the merger, but you never know, right? Maybe it's just a wedding present, who knows? The money would come from a city tax increment finance district, a neat way that government increases our tax burden without us feeling like we've been burdened.

Considering the controversy surrounding TIFs, it'll be interesting to see just how seriously the two exchanges take their own free market credo. If offered the money, will they take it, or will they stand on principle? Maybe we could make a futures market on the outcome.

Benchmarking the Iraq war

Careful reading of report shows patience required

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

The Bush administration's report to Congress on the status of the Iraq war on balance should give Americans encouragement -- if they'd bother to read the document themselves instead of just listening to the back-and-forth rhetoric.

Instead, before President Bush's critics even had time to skim it, they, like our Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Dick Durbin, were taking potshots that were too simple-minded to deal with here. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in truly ridiculous fashion, didn't wait until the end of Bush's news conference last week before concluding that the president's "policy has failed." No doubt, editorials and commentaries -- with only superficial examination of the report -- will repeat the same the policy-has-failed line.

But it hasn't -- at least not as badly as the harshest critics would have it -- as any fair, careful reading of the report would show. Don't bother e-mailing me that only Bush the Evil Idiot and Bush lickspittles would say such a thing; let's look at the 18 assessments of the war made by the report.

Many news accounts said that "only" eight benchmarks recorded satisfactory progress, implying that the other 10 were failures. I don't know how someone came up with the number, but the way I read it is: eight successes, four mixed, one "progress but not enough" and five unsatisfactory to varying degrees.

Satisfactory progress has been made on: forming a constitutional review committee and completing the review; moving ahead with legislation to form semiautonomous regions in Iraq; establishing political, media, economic and service groups to support increased Baghdad security; providing three trained-and-ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations; establishing all of the planned joint-security stations in Baghdad neighborhoods; protecting the rights of minority political parties in the Iraq legislature; and allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Significantly, the report said Iraq has made satisfactory progress in ensuring that Baghdad doesn't become a safe haven for, in Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's words, "outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation." As a result, the discovery of weapons caches there has tripled since last year because of "an erosion of insurgent safe havens."

The report gave a mixed review on establishing new election law procedure and reducing the level of sectarian violence. Benchmarks for granting a general amnesty and disarming sectarian militias could not be rated either way because the "right conditions are not currently present" for their accomplishment.

In what I would place in a separate "not-satisfactory-now, but-progress-is-being-made" category is making Iraq Security Forces evenhanded in its enforcement actions. The report noted "significant progress," but its "overall judgment" was unsatisfactory because "we are holding the ISF to a high standard." As they should.

That leaves five "unsatisfactory" ratings in areas of: de-Baathification (reconciliation) reform; equitable distribution of oil supplies; insulating military commanders from political influence; increasing the number of ISFs to operate independently; and ensuring that political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against ISF members. It's not as if nothing was happening. While rating progress on these benchmarks as unsatisfactory, the report said that no revisions to current plans or strategies are required to achieve some of these benchmarks because progress is being made.

Obviously, this is the Bush administration's view of things, and while events change daily, the report is, in its own words, reflective of "trend data" and "trajectory." Many Americans see only U.S. casualty figures as a measure of the war's success or failure -- and that's certainly a legitimate measure -- but it's also important to have a longer view. That longer view says some things are working, and some things need to have time to work, raising the question: If a policy appears to be working, or soon will be, how rational is it to abandon that policy?

Clearly, the report ought to give pause for more thoughtful examination by knee-jerks like Obama and Durbin. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) had it right: "There is nothing in this report that should justify anyone who's not already made up their minds that they want to retreat from Iraq to vote to mandate a retreat from Iraq. The report is too mixed. There's too much on the line in Iraq."

Instead, we get the monumentally irresponsible Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) thoughtlessly intoning: "It would be immoral to wait until September to change a failed policy." To the contrary, abandoning that policy now in the face of progress would be immoral.

Sex abuse victims get shafted again

The Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed to pay $660 million to 508 alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse. Considering how the church allowed this outrage to continue for decades, the amount isn't unreasonable.

But wait, the victims won't be getting a lot of that money. The plaintiffs' attorneys can expect to receive as much as 40 percent of the $660 million settlement money for their work.

No doubt that some of that money will go to Democratic candidates who have financed their campaigns with lush contributions from trial lawyers. Just how indebted the Democrats are to the trial lawyers was demonstrated again yesterday as five of the Democratic presidential candidates came to Chicago to personally vie for the attorneys' support. The kiss-ups at the assembly of trial lawyers were Senators Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Barack Obama (Ill.), Joseph Biden (Del.), former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Richardson was the only non-lawyer among the candidates.

None of the candidates had to say it, but the trial lawyers can continue to count on the Democrats to kill real tort reform, as long as the lawyers keep the money flowing.

It's the ideology, stupid

There continue to be reports of wide-spread amazement that the Liverpool bombers turned out to be doctors. This wonderment usually is expressed by folks who look to the old standbys--poverty and education denied--to explain harmful, illegal and, dare I say it, evil acts.

"How do physicians who have taken an oath to do no harm commit such acts?" is how it usually is asked. The question is dangerously naive. We've known for years that the terrorists, the leadership most certainly, have risen from a well-educated, middle and sometimes upper class.

Yet, whenever President George W. Bush reminds us that we are engaged in a world-wide war against an ideology, he's portrayed as a lunatic. Now that everyone can no longer deny that's the case, perhaps we can get some realistic ideas from Democrats about how they would fight this war.

Divisive diversity

You can have diversity as long as it is not divisive. That's apparently the operating rule in Kansas City, Mo., where the appointment of a member of the anti-illegal immigration group, the Minutemen, to the city's Parks and Recreation board has angered the diversity guardians.

The Wall Street Journal today reported (subscription required) that the clash erupted after the Kansas City Star outed Frances Semler, 73, who believes "...very strongly in obeying the law," as a Minutemen member. It didn't take long, the Journal reported, for the ruckus to start:

The city's National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Jewish Community Relations Bureau held a new conference on June 14 to9 condemn the appointment. Later that day, the city council, voting 9 to 3 adopted a resolution calling for Mrs. Semler's removal from the parks board.

Beth Gottstein, a board member who voted for the removal, said, quite predictably, "This is about racism and divisiveness--everything we are not supposed to be about."

In case you're confused, as I was, Gottstein wasn't talking about her vote to oust someone from the board because of her views and associations ("Are you or have you ever been a member of the Minutemen?). Bouncing someone off a public body because of her views and affiliations smacks of the old Communist witchhunts and feels like the kind of divisiveness that violates the First Amendment. No, Gottstein was talking about Semler's views and affiliations, which are not illegal and, to many Americans, not even offensive.

Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser, who appointed Semler, is standing by her woman, refusing to remove her. "Diversity," he said succinctly , "is also about the diversity of views."

The South Side Sun-Times?

Here's wishing the best of success to Cheryl L. Reed, the new Chicago Sun-Times editorial page editor. I have something of an interest in the fate the paper's commentary section, having served under four editorial page editors at the Sun-Times over a 12-year-span. I also wish her the best in taking the commentary section into a new direction, one that she says will be passionate liberal. Reclaiming its historic, liberal past is a suggestion I made with another editorial board member more than a decade ago. It didn't fly. It wasn't my first suggestion that didn't.

Some folks will doubt that I ever made the suggestion because of my conservative views, and that's fine. When I joined the board in 1986, I was a liberal, but for reasons to tedious to go into here I switched sides. It had nothing to do with who owned the paper, and--this needs to be said loudly--nor did much of the newspaper's day-to-day editorial policy.

It has become standard wisdom to say that the paper's owners, after its sale to Rupert Murdoch in 1984, was turned into a conservative newspaper. The assumption is made mostly by people who don't know what they're talking about. Whatever the perceived shift , it was the function of who was serving on the board. And while a number of board members were conservatives, many also were liberal. Indeed, some of them would be insulted to be called conservative

Board members always prided themselves on approaching each issue separately and taking a position based on its merits. It put us somewhere in the political middle and to the right of the board headed by well-respected Lois Wille in the day's before the Field brothers betrayed their heritage by selling the paper. On some issues, we took conservative positions; on others liberal. So, I still grate when I hear the paper's editorial page routinely called conservative.

The point here? I'm asking for fairness for all those editors, deputy editors and editorial writers who did their jobs conscientiously and honestly; they don't deserved to be labeled, or to be defamed with the conservative tag. And I sincerely hope that Reed extends to the new board members, who she says will be more reflective of the city's population, the same respect and freedom that I and my co-workers were granted by our editors. Among them was Steve Huntley, one of the most decent persons I know, who has moved along from editorial page editor to be a featured columnist. I know that Steve will bring distinction to the paper.

I have just one nit to pick: In a piece on the direction of the newspaper, Reed said:

Chicagoans, whether they drive a Mercedes or a rust heap, identify with hard work and hard workers. Many have risen from Chicago's middle class bungalows to lake-view condos but still root for the underdog Cubs or the South Side Sox. Being in the Midwest -- that whole Second City thing -- makes us all underdogs. [Emphasis added.]

I believe it wasn't an intentional slight. But if she was looking for descriptive for the Sox, she could have referred to them as the city's last World Champions. She needs to know that it's the Chicago White Sox, if she wishes her section to be viewed by the city's blue collar, working-class folks as one of them, or as their spokesman. After all, it's not the North Side Cubs or the South Side Museum of Science and Industry, the South Side Soldier Field or the University of South Side Chicago.

The Farm Bill Cometh

By Dennis Byrne
RealClearPolitics

It's hard to imagine Bill Gates, that high-tech icon, as a farmer. Yet, he has bought up hundreds of acres of Illinois farmland, putting the world's richest man in line for federal agriculture aid, just like any other American farmer.

Agribusiness; perhaps no other endeavor reaps as government aid. But all that aid will disappear on Sept. 30, when the 2002 farm authorization act expires--unless, of course, Congress passes a new one. And considering the powerful special interests at work, it's a safe bet that Congress will pass the 2007, on time and with as much or more largesse.

Gates, the good businessman that he is, can't be blamed for making a small--for him--investment in farmland, which is in high demand right now, and consequently, quite pricey. Crain's Chicago Business reported July 2 that Gates has spent $14 million buying Illinois farmland since 2006. Gates also owns 20 percent of California-based Pacific Ethanol Inc., the holder of almost $65 million worth of American farmland. Gates, the publication said, was positioning himself to benefit from the boom in ethanol, which is made from corn, soybeans and other biomass generated down on the farm.

Read more at RealClearPolitics

Chicago jury convicts a British lord

Chicago juries are in the habit of sending their own politicians to prison for a startling variety of corrupt acts, but none that I know of has had the pleasure of sending an esteemed member of the British House of Lords to the jug.

This will be a shock to their lordships, but Chicago juries recognize a fraud when they see one, even though the British peerage doesn't. It also will be a great shock to conservatives, especially in Canada, who insisted that Black was a victim of a politically motivated trial. Black was esteemed by certain conservatives, and managed to dupe some of them, such notables as Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle, to serve on his board.

But this is one conservative who is not lamenting his conviction. I leave to others to comment on whether the jury was right or wrong; I believe I shouldn't because I wasn't in the courtroom to hear all the evidence nor in the jury room to listen to all the arguments. I followed that practice and kept my mouth shut about the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. So, without saying the jury was right or wrong, I can t say I don't feel sorry for a man who made my life, and that of so many others who had worked for him, miserable.

Black took a struggling, but fine newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, and worsened its struggles. Cutting budgets, demeaning the staff and imposing his sense of what a newspaper should be on a publication in the nation's best newspaper town, brought the Sun-Times to new lows. Well, at least we presume so, because under his proprietorship the paper's official circulation figures were jiggered to make things look better than they were. Black also subjected the paper to the nastiest man I ever knew in this business by appointing David Radler as the Sun-Times publisher. Only the dedication of a determined and talented staff kept the paper afloat while it was being torpedoed by Black and Radler.

Radler turned on Black and got a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony against his former boss. What now would be sweet is if the two had to share the same cell. They deserve each other.

Judging Amy

In a perfect example of contemplating their own navels, the Chicago media have gone wild with the story about WMAQ-Ch. 5 reporter Amy Jacobson getting axed because she attended a pool party hosted by the subject of a news story that she had been covering.

A friend called the excessive coverage foofaraw, and perhaps it is. But it raises a larger question: Just how close should reporters get to their sources. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, writing on his blog, thinks it’s not a big deal. Responding to a comment, he said:

And you misunderstand the reporter/source relationship if you think it's all about having the notepad out and the voice recorder on all the time. Reporters and sources go to ballgames, play golf, dine and just hang out from time to time to build rapport, familiarity, trust and so on. The presence of kids might have even facilitated that, though I'd hate to think any journalist would deliberately use his or her kids as professional props.

Leaving aside the bit about the kids, I’d like readers to know that not everyone in this business thinks it’s a good idea to “just hang out” or otherwise socialize with people they are covering. It’s called “getting too close to your sources,” and it can lead to big trouble. By that, I don’t necessarily mean trouble for the reporter; it’s just bad journalism. Getting too close to the people you are covering raises serious questions about your objectivity. It skews your perspective and sets you up to be used.

Does any but the most naive reporter seriously think that he’s being entertained and befriended because he’s such a swell guy? Early in my career 30-plus years ago, I found myself being invited to some nice parties thrown by people on my beat. I accepted some of the invitations, but it soon dawned on me that it’s harder to write a balanced and fair story when you’re palling around with the very people you’re writing about.

Of course, some journalism educators no longer teach that objectivity is a myth, and therefore it’s not just all right, but recommended, to buddy around with the mayor, governor, alderman, county president, congressman, senator and whoever your little heart desires. But don’t ask your readers to trust you. Because you’ve betrayed them.

Middle America doing us proud

Their Cities Lead U.S. in Volunteering

When it comes to giving of the most personal kind—volunteering—the Heartland is a standout compared to the coasts. A new report has found that the cities with the highest levels ofr volunteering are largely focused in Middle America.

Volunteer rates in America’s largest cities range from a high of 40.5 percent in Minneapolis-St. Paul to a low of 14.4 percent in Las Vegas. After Minneapolis-St. Paul, the cities with the highest volunteer rates are Salt Lake City, Austin, Texas; Omaha, Neb.; Seattle; Portland, Ore.; Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Charlotte, N.C.; and Tulsa, Okla. The cities with the lowest volunteer rate are Las Vegas; Miami; New York; Virginia Beach, Va.; and Riverside, Calif.

I guess the liberal-leaning New York, Los Angeles and other liberal-dominated coastal cities are simply too busy demanding that someone else—the federal government and taxpayers—do the good works for them.

This post also appears on Political Mavens

Very latest round of cliches places thinking at risk

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

Ever evolving, language sometimes brings forth an ugly mutant. Words or phrases that at first sound clever, inventive or insightful soon enter the vocabulary of every dullard, stocking the ever-expanding universe of cliches. Sadly, there are no black holes to suck them into oblivion. We can't pass a law against language abuse -- nor should we -- so our only weapon against this onslaught is scorn. So, let's get to it:

Very latest. TV news operations think that by putting "very" in front of "latest" we'll think that we're getting something later than merely the latest. As in: "Now we go to Frank Frake, who's on the scene for the very latest." As if we'd turn to another station if Frank were going to give us only the latest, without the very. Likewise, the 10 p.m. news tells us to tune in at 5 a.m. tomorrow for the very latest when the latest hasn't happened yet. Is there a lesser degree of latest, short of the very latest, such as kind-of-the-latest, or the penultimate latest? In truth, there's no very latest. It's either the latest or it's not. It's like saying, "very unique" or "very pregnant." It's very aggravating.

Place at risk. Or "put at risk," as if there's a spot for risk on the bureau or kitchen counter. Risk is not an object that has a location. Yet, the placing of risk has become a scourge. What is the compulsion to use a clumsy, refried phrase in place of efficient, sharper words? Endanger. Jeopardize. Threaten. As in, "this constant use of placing at risk threatens my sanity." It has been embraced by an entire generation of journalists who apparently were never taught anything about an economy of words or read the venerable "Elements of Style." Or who want to sound like superior academic types, whence the risk placing came.

Nuanced. This headache-starter could have been created by political and media elitists who want to impress us with their understanding of complex issues -- stuff that the rest of us couldn't begin to get. Notice that the use of "nuance" is rarely followed by an elucidation of the subtleties, suggesting that the speaker himself may not really understand. Or perhaps that it's all just a bunch of gobbledygook anyway. Used in a sentence: "Al Gore's explanation for global warming is more nuanced than that of that idiot, Bush." Bush, who is credited with being as nuanced as an unpainted canvas, turned the tables on his 2004 presidential opponent U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by saying the Democrat's position on Iraq was "nuanced." Bush was cleverly mocking Kerry for not having a position, but, of course, Democrats didn't get it.

Snarky. Thank the Internet for this one, which often is deployed by dullards to feel like they've come up with a clever insult. Gag.

Grace note. Usually meant as a compliment, such as: "He ended his speech on a grace note," suggesting that the closing remarks were "gracious." It doesn't. It's a musical note that is added as lilting embellishment or ornament, played quickly, "printed in small type, and not counted in the rhythm." Would it be ungracious to suggest that the constant misuse of "grace note" reveals ignorance?

Within 3. Or 2, 1 or whatever. As when the TV announcer says the Bulls, having made a basket, have made the score 75-72 and now "have pulled to within" 3 points. No, "within 3" would be something less than 3, such as 2.95. I guess it's too difficult to simply say, "The Bulls have pulled to 3 points behind."

Change. Not the stuff that slips out of your pocket and between the cushions on the couch. This is the stuff, any stuff, that you're for if you are progressive. Here's U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently on the subject: "We are [cliche warning] striking a chord and I think people have confidence that maybe we can [cliche warning] bridge some of those divides in this country. That's what it's going to take to bring about [cliche warning] significant, real change. Change can't [cliche warning] just be a slogan. Change has to be something that is demonstrated day-to-day on an [cliche warning] ongoing basis." Barack, either change your speechwriters or tell us what change you have in mind.

It's (all) about. My lambasting this most hackneyed phrase a decade ago was about useless.

The election is still a year away, but already the candidates are boasting that their campaigns are "about" honesty or some other virtue and that their legislation is "about the children."

It's about enough already.

Excuse me?

By Dennis Byrne
Political Mavens

Though wild-eyed and hysterical, President George W. Bush’s critics seemed most pleased that he had given an excuse for another scolding by commuting the prison sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Read the rest at Political Mavens

Brain drain of prosecutors in Cook County

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

From any reasonable point of view, there should be some balance between how much the public pays to prosecute criminals and free the indigent innocent.

That's not the case in Cook County, where assistant state's attorneys are paid less than public defenders. It's not because public defenders are paid too much; they earn every penny they make for the important job of representing defendants who cannot afford counsel. Rather it's because when compared with prosecutors in the nation's other large counties, assistant state's attorneys here are underpaid and overworked.

Cook County assistant state's attorneys have disproportionately heavier caseloads than in other large counties. Here they close more cases and have more statutory duties.

The disparities are causing more assistant state's attorneys, including some "first chairs" or lead prosecutors, to leave for better paying jobs, while making the recruitment of new prosecutors more difficult, Cook County State's Atty. Richard Devine said in an interview. "The balance in the criminal justice system is vital. When you tilt it and higher pay goes for defense than for prosecution, then we've got problems. We're seeing an accelerated rate of resignations; it isn't dramatic yet, but I anticipate that we'll see a brain drain."

How it got this way is clouded in the arcane politics of the Cook County Board, where political preservation and advancement seem to trump the public interest at nearly every turn.

*When the board passed the budget in February, the state's attorney's office lost 100 people (out of a staff of about 800), including 44 prosecutors and 10 investigators. With about 540 lawyers, the public defender's office is smaller, but it lost proportionately fewer lawyers than the state's attorney's office.

*The typical prosecutor's annual pay before then was about $63,000, compared with $73,000 for public defenders. Since then, prosecutors received a raise that would bring them closer to "parity" with the public defenders, but they still lag about 8 percent behind. This while the total number of active felony cases per attorney is 50 in the public defender's office and 109 in the state's attorney's office.

*In Cook County, the prosecutor's office costs each citizen $23.07, which is in the low-end among big-county annual costs and compares with Manhattan's $48.97 and San Diego County's $43.62. The average caseload each prosecutor carries in Cook County is 600.17, among the nation's highest, which compares with San Diego's 88.32. The average number of filings per prosecutor here is 533, also among the highest, compared with San Diego's 150. The average number of cases closed per prosecutor here is 434 misdemeanor cases and 73 felony cases, also among the nation's highest, compared with San Diego's 32 misdemeanors and 46 felonies.

With the defections, declining staff, large workload and static salary, morale in the office is "horrible," said state's attorney spokesman John Gorman. But morale could improve if the County Board, at one of its two July meetings, approves a cost-of-living increase that would help catch them up. The $8.7 million needed, Gorman said, could come from the county's "814 account," which is money set aside for raises for county employees. Apparently how much is in the account is somewhat foggy, as Gorman said, "we've heard figures from $37 million to $16 million." There may be enough votes to pass the raise, but a veto by County Board President Todd Stroger would require a four-fifths vote of commissioners to override, a virtual impossibility. The county's budget is heavy with red ink and opponents of a raise for prosecutors easily could depict achieving parity between assistant state's attorneys and public defenders as just another special interest pleading. Indeed, striking a balance between all the needs competing for county money is a challenge for even the most dedicated County Board and skillful County Board president, let alone for Stroger.

Yet, Devine sees salary parity as a high priority compared with other needs because an effective criminal justice system requires balance between resources for the prosecution and the defense. "Prosecutors can vote with their feet," he said, "and unless the County Board acts, we will have a loss of talent that will seriously impact the prosecution of criminals in this county."