By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
On an autumn weekend in 1958, we St. George High School "Dragons" filled 500--to be charitable--seats in Soldier Field. Far across the gridiron were the fans of another Catholic League football power, whose name I forget, filling another, say, 500 seats.
That left 99,000 empty seats. Well, not seats. Benches, with places to put about 100,000 butts.
Which is how I remember Soldier Field: A pile of concrete rubble getting in the way of a perfectly good ride on the Outer Drive. A place so unattractive, dysfunctional and unwanted that it had been reduced to hosting high school football games.
St. George, late of Evanston, played there only because it didn't have its own football stadium. So we always were on the road, pretending that this or that stadium gave us home-field advantage. Gately Stadium or Lane Tech Field, for example, where a crowd of 1,000 actually looked big.
If you haven't seen a few hundred fans spread out loosely between the 47-yard lines at Soldier Field, then you don't know the meaning of the word "empty." Empty meant Soldier Field. The Bears played elsewhere. So did the Cardinals.
Soldier Field was so desperate that it even booked stock-car races. I remember them in the late 1940s, the jalopies not exactly speeding around an asphalt track on the field's perimeter, just inside the stands. I can't remember how large the crowd was, but I doubt that anyone was in that 100,000th seat at the far north end of the then-horseshoe-shaped stands. Actually, that seat might not have been occupied since the celebrated 1927 Dempsey-Tunney world championship boxing match, one of the events that supposedly made Soldier Field a national treasure.
This was a pathetic, miserable place, and some of us native Chicagoans wish for an end to the constant carping about the conversion of what we're told is a venerable landmark into a yucky, discordant playhouse for the Bears. The latest lamentations were heard last week when the world awoke to the awful news that some obscure committee of the U.S Department of Interior had yanked Soldier Field's designation as a "national historic landmark."
For a while, we had been warned that Interior Secretary Gale Norton, on the advice of the National Park System Advisory Board, was about to de-designate Soldier Field. As if it were our last chance to repair our mistake.
But the expected de-designation came anyway, meaning that Soldier Field no longer was one of the nation's 2,500 most-hallowed sites, as historically significant and possessing "as much exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States" as--get this--the White House. For years, some of us were unaware of the Rock Pile's historical luminescence. But please, don't make us laugh so hard that it hurts.
The de-designation of Soldier Field now is being read as a comeuppance to Mayor Richard M. Daley and the rest of us Chicago provincials who, well, just don't care and no longer deserve this great honor. I guess we're supposed to say: "Oh, gosh, we're really sorry now that we didn't listen to the landmark preservationists when they blistered the idea of any alteration or removal of the Lakefront Blemish."
It was explained to us that the loss wasn't just Chicago's, but the entire nation's. Said Carol Ahlgren, architectural historian of the U.S. Park Service's Midwest regional office: "If we had let this [designation] stand, I believe it would have lowered the standard of National Historic Landmarks throughout the country." Here's news for her: Just including it on the list lowered the national standard.
Years ago, I suggested that the best way to settle the fight over Soldier Field was to bulldoze the entire mess, start from scratch and construct a memorial stadium befitting the 120,000 American military personnel lost in World War I. But no, the heat was on, and the designers of the remodeled facility had to accommodate the absurd demands of the preservationists. The result? An absurd compromise that indeed may be the ugliest structure in the city, if not the nation.
Well, perhaps, this will assuage the preservationists: Yes, Soldier Field was expelled from the landmarks list, but we got something better added: Lincoln Park's "exquisite" hidden Alfred Caldwell lily pool, which "symbolically celebrates the history of the Midwest." Which, according to the list's creators, puts it in the company of the U.S. Capitol.
----------
Comment: dennisbyrne.blogspot.com
Subscribe To The Barbershop.
Posts
All Comments
Monday, May 01, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Oil Slick
Award Congress another Brass Ball for doing its bit to make gasoline prices soar, then launching a witch hunt to nail someone else with the blame.
Because it takes a lot of brass for anyone in Congress to point fingers elsewhere, when Congress itself helped create, by its constant political and self-serving meddling, soaring gasoline prices and tightening gasoline inventories.
To appease the nation’s ill-informed greens and big-oil haters, Congress instituted a timetable that requires refiners to switch to ethanol from an additive called MTBE as the main component of clearer burning gasoline.
The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association pleaded with Congress: Don’t do it because that will increase the “likelihood of higher prices and a possible volatile market through 2006.”
Why? Among other reasons, there wasn’t enough ethanol capacity to replace the MTBE. The result: reduced inventories and higher gasoline prices, just as summer driving demand arrived. Along with other global factors, such as Middle East uncertainty and the impact on the industry of Katrina.
Never mind that the oil industry doesn’t have enough refining capacity to start with, thanks in part to overly rigid environmental and other regulations imposed by…Congress. Or that the clean air trade-offs of substituting MTBE with ethanol are debatable anyway.
The warnings were ignored, of course, even though they came from someone who might have known what he was talking about.
So turning from its own role in creating this mess, Congressional mops, such as my very own senator, Dick “the Lip” Durbin and others (i.e., Democrats) rushed to a gas station to stage a call for congress to “protect Americans from gas price gouging,” as if we got rid of some evil folks, our problems would end. Unconscionably, President Bush also added to the clatter by promising to do the same. All of which become bigger news than MTBE, federal regulations and timetables, gasoline refining capacity, market supply and demand, and that other boring stuff.
So, while we’re awarding Brass Balls, give one to media morons who focus on so-called price gouging and “outrageous” Big Oil salaries because they find the rest of the complex story all too difficult to understand, or who understand it, but don’t think the public will, so they just ignore it.
Executive salaries and anti-consumer conspiracies are standard scapegoats for liberals, the media and others looking for simple explanations for complex, bad news. But if they want to blame big business and their other bogeymen, they might keep in mind that one reason Congress helped create this mess was because of the involvement of the ethanol lobby, whose leading members include top ethanol producer ADM (whose political contributions are legend) and corn farmers. Their feasting on taxpayer subsidies is gluttonous and growing.
So, why don’t the politicians and media mention them? Is it because Durbin, for example, represents one of the biggest corn-producing states, which also is the home of ADM? You bet it is.
Because it takes a lot of brass for anyone in Congress to point fingers elsewhere, when Congress itself helped create, by its constant political and self-serving meddling, soaring gasoline prices and tightening gasoline inventories.
To appease the nation’s ill-informed greens and big-oil haters, Congress instituted a timetable that requires refiners to switch to ethanol from an additive called MTBE as the main component of clearer burning gasoline.
The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association pleaded with Congress: Don’t do it because that will increase the “likelihood of higher prices and a possible volatile market through 2006.”
Why? Among other reasons, there wasn’t enough ethanol capacity to replace the MTBE. The result: reduced inventories and higher gasoline prices, just as summer driving demand arrived. Along with other global factors, such as Middle East uncertainty and the impact on the industry of Katrina.
Never mind that the oil industry doesn’t have enough refining capacity to start with, thanks in part to overly rigid environmental and other regulations imposed by…Congress. Or that the clean air trade-offs of substituting MTBE with ethanol are debatable anyway.
The warnings were ignored, of course, even though they came from someone who might have known what he was talking about.
So turning from its own role in creating this mess, Congressional mops, such as my very own senator, Dick “the Lip” Durbin and others (i.e., Democrats) rushed to a gas station to stage a call for congress to “protect Americans from gas price gouging,” as if we got rid of some evil folks, our problems would end. Unconscionably, President Bush also added to the clatter by promising to do the same. All of which become bigger news than MTBE, federal regulations and timetables, gasoline refining capacity, market supply and demand, and that other boring stuff.
So, while we’re awarding Brass Balls, give one to media morons who focus on so-called price gouging and “outrageous” Big Oil salaries because they find the rest of the complex story all too difficult to understand, or who understand it, but don’t think the public will, so they just ignore it.
Executive salaries and anti-consumer conspiracies are standard scapegoats for liberals, the media and others looking for simple explanations for complex, bad news. But if they want to blame big business and their other bogeymen, they might keep in mind that one reason Congress helped create this mess was because of the involvement of the ethanol lobby, whose leading members include top ethanol producer ADM (whose political contributions are legend) and corn farmers. Their feasting on taxpayer subsidies is gluttonous and growing.
So, why don’t the politicians and media mention them? Is it because Durbin, for example, represents one of the biggest corn-producing states, which also is the home of ADM? You bet it is.
Ain’t no foie gras kind a town
Aldermen in that toddlin’ town, Chicago, have banned the sale of foie gras, the goose- and duck-liver delicacy. Or as one anti-fatty-liver blog puts it, the “delicacy of despair.”
Foie gras now joins smokin’ in public places, handguns and nuclear weapons as verboten in Chicago.
What’s next, a ban on not just the sale, but also the possession of foie gras? Carrying concealed foie gras? Second-hand foie gras?
Won’t the ban simply push the sale of foie gras into the suburbs? Just like Chicago’s decision to be a nuclear-free zone decade ago turned suburban Cicero into a nuclear zone?
At least Chicago’s aldermen will be able to boast: “Ain’t no foie on us.”
Foie gras now joins smokin’ in public places, handguns and nuclear weapons as verboten in Chicago.
What’s next, a ban on not just the sale, but also the possession of foie gras? Carrying concealed foie gras? Second-hand foie gras?
Won’t the ban simply push the sale of foie gras into the suburbs? Just like Chicago’s decision to be a nuclear-free zone decade ago turned suburban Cicero into a nuclear zone?
At least Chicago’s aldermen will be able to boast: “Ain’t no foie on us.”
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Dem Snow Job
A gleeful Democratic National Committee has discovered that Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary and former Fox News commentator, has in years past been critical of President Bush.
Obviously lying in wait for the happy moment that Snow’s appointment was made official, the DNC rushed out a jubilant press release quoting Snow’s past criticisms of Bush: The president looks guilty (Katrina), is “impotent," an “embarrassment,” and so forth.
This from a party that has criticized Bush for supposedly surrounding himself with yes-men. Imagine the DNC’s joy if Bush had installed as press secretary someone who had never uttered one critical word about Bush, or who had never encountered a single original thought.
Obviously lying in wait for the happy moment that Snow’s appointment was made official, the DNC rushed out a jubilant press release quoting Snow’s past criticisms of Bush: The president looks guilty (Katrina), is “impotent," an “embarrassment,” and so forth.
This from a party that has criticized Bush for supposedly surrounding himself with yes-men. Imagine the DNC’s joy if Bush had installed as press secretary someone who had never uttered one critical word about Bush, or who had never encountered a single original thought.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
The Sorry State of Illinois
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune Op-ed Columnist
April 23, 2006
Why was there even mild surprise last week when a jury convicted former Illinois Gov. George Ryan of corruption? When Illinois juries get their hands on a governor, they tend to put him away.
Of our seven prior governors, three now have been convicted. In Illinois, jurors are batting .750. So, give jurors a chance and they'll take down corrupt governors. Which makes me wonder about any bewilderment that this jury convicted Ryan on all counts. Look at history: just three governors before Republican Ryan was Democrat Dan Walker, who served 17 months for fraudulently obtaining bank loans. But that was after he left office, so maybe he doesn't count; the governorship was only training camp.
Five years before Walker was Democrat Otto Kerner who was convicted in 1973 on charges of bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, tax evasion and perjury. He was paroled after serving a year. Immediately before him was Republican William Stratton, who was indicted for federal tax evasion. He was acquitted. Not to worry; while the governor's suite at the federal pen is unoccupied, other top state officers often keep it warm.
Has any other Illinois office harbored such a high proportion of serial offenders? (Chicago aldermen, maybe, but doing the math gives me a headache.) In the face of such gubernatorial recidivism, you'd think that at least a few Illinois politicians might recognize the dangers and run the other way. How to explain such recklessness?
I think I know one reason, but obviously not the only reason. Once elected to high office, their lordships begin sharing the same rarified air that the rich and powerful heads of the town's big national and international corporations breathe. It's a long way from the humble work of hustling votes by ringing doorbells or holding someone's fedora. On MRI brain scans, it shows up as metastasizing clumps of self-importance. Governors, mayors, agency chairmen, department heads and even aldermen all display the symptoms. It makes them feel untouchable.
In fact, their egos are tolerated, if not cultivated, by the corporate power structure. It never hurts to have a few gofers who can change a law, ease a regulation or smooth over certain misunderstandings. Pols don't get it; they're grubby street urchins who are allowed into the ball to serve hors d'oeuvres.
But the corporate community also has large quantities of things that the Ryans and Daleys desperately want: power, access to money, endorsement, legitimization, to name a few. In this game of favor doing, the business leadership holds the high cards.
So, the corporate denizens are just the people to put the corrupt pols in their place. "George, we're running global businesses bigger than yours; don't hand us the same crap you give the voters about your pure heart and clean hands. We and this town can't take it any more. Cut it out, or we'll cut you out."
"Richie, your joke about not knowing about all the graft going on right under your nose makes us laugh. If we were running our businesses the way you run City Hall, we'd be out on our butts. Or, on trial, like those guys from Enron. You're through."
Instead, this town's corporate leadership gathers in well-upholstered clubs, patting themselves on their backs for their "civic involvement" with various booster projects. Or they issue studies telling us what the Chicago area ought to look like in 2020. They jabber on by "decaying infrastructure" and pony up millions for lakefront parks. And gratify themselves with their roles as community leaders whose names appear on the letterheads of visible do-gooder groups.
But get their hands dirty to clean up the swill--our state's most pressing problem--and where are they? Yes, they support such efforts as the Better Government Association and the Chicago Crime Commission, which carry on the fight, with quixotic-like determination. But the unwavering silence of the corporate suites about the costly and destructive system of graft inescapably suggests acquiescence, approval or even complicity.
This is meant to be a broad brush and harsh attack; it wouldn't be necessary if Chicago's and Illinois' business community were united in shutting down career criminals like George Ryan and some in Mayor Daley's inner circle. I don't mean that we should turn government over to a corporate junta. But the 12 honest jurors who convict the likes of Ryan sure could use some help.
----------
Comment: http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune Op-ed Columnist
April 23, 2006
Why was there even mild surprise last week when a jury convicted former Illinois Gov. George Ryan of corruption? When Illinois juries get their hands on a governor, they tend to put him away.
Of our seven prior governors, three now have been convicted. In Illinois, jurors are batting .750. So, give jurors a chance and they'll take down corrupt governors. Which makes me wonder about any bewilderment that this jury convicted Ryan on all counts. Look at history: just three governors before Republican Ryan was Democrat Dan Walker, who served 17 months for fraudulently obtaining bank loans. But that was after he left office, so maybe he doesn't count; the governorship was only training camp.
Five years before Walker was Democrat Otto Kerner who was convicted in 1973 on charges of bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, tax evasion and perjury. He was paroled after serving a year. Immediately before him was Republican William Stratton, who was indicted for federal tax evasion. He was acquitted. Not to worry; while the governor's suite at the federal pen is unoccupied, other top state officers often keep it warm.
Has any other Illinois office harbored such a high proportion of serial offenders? (Chicago aldermen, maybe, but doing the math gives me a headache.) In the face of such gubernatorial recidivism, you'd think that at least a few Illinois politicians might recognize the dangers and run the other way. How to explain such recklessness?
I think I know one reason, but obviously not the only reason. Once elected to high office, their lordships begin sharing the same rarified air that the rich and powerful heads of the town's big national and international corporations breathe. It's a long way from the humble work of hustling votes by ringing doorbells or holding someone's fedora. On MRI brain scans, it shows up as metastasizing clumps of self-importance. Governors, mayors, agency chairmen, department heads and even aldermen all display the symptoms. It makes them feel untouchable.
In fact, their egos are tolerated, if not cultivated, by the corporate power structure. It never hurts to have a few gofers who can change a law, ease a regulation or smooth over certain misunderstandings. Pols don't get it; they're grubby street urchins who are allowed into the ball to serve hors d'oeuvres.
But the corporate community also has large quantities of things that the Ryans and Daleys desperately want: power, access to money, endorsement, legitimization, to name a few. In this game of favor doing, the business leadership holds the high cards.
So, the corporate denizens are just the people to put the corrupt pols in their place. "George, we're running global businesses bigger than yours; don't hand us the same crap you give the voters about your pure heart and clean hands. We and this town can't take it any more. Cut it out, or we'll cut you out."
"Richie, your joke about not knowing about all the graft going on right under your nose makes us laugh. If we were running our businesses the way you run City Hall, we'd be out on our butts. Or, on trial, like those guys from Enron. You're through."
Instead, this town's corporate leadership gathers in well-upholstered clubs, patting themselves on their backs for their "civic involvement" with various booster projects. Or they issue studies telling us what the Chicago area ought to look like in 2020. They jabber on by "decaying infrastructure" and pony up millions for lakefront parks. And gratify themselves with their roles as community leaders whose names appear on the letterheads of visible do-gooder groups.
But get their hands dirty to clean up the swill--our state's most pressing problem--and where are they? Yes, they support such efforts as the Better Government Association and the Chicago Crime Commission, which carry on the fight, with quixotic-like determination. But the unwavering silence of the corporate suites about the costly and destructive system of graft inescapably suggests acquiescence, approval or even complicity.
This is meant to be a broad brush and harsh attack; it wouldn't be necessary if Chicago's and Illinois' business community were united in shutting down career criminals like George Ryan and some in Mayor Daley's inner circle. I don't mean that we should turn government over to a corporate junta. But the 12 honest jurors who convict the likes of Ryan sure could use some help.
----------
Comment: http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Monday, April 17, 2006
When Conficting Civilizations Collide
Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist
April 17, 2006
In H.G. Wells' "Time Machine," the helplessly fattened Eloi spend most of their time waiting around their pleasant surroundings to be snatched away by cannibal Morlocks. Those succulent pinkish Eloi who luckily aren't invited for dinner this time can only wait their turn, not so much in fear, but--simpletons that they are--in resigned ignorance.
Though he wrote it more than 100 years ago, Wells nonetheless had many of today's Americans nailed. Today's Eloi are Americans whose only "strategy" for dealing with the dreadful and grisly terrorist assaults on us is to pull back and wait for the next one.
The death sentence hearing of Zacarias Moussaoui, the "12th hijacker" of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a gory reminder of just what this non-strategy can produce. We relived it last week in the jarring words, sounds and sights of doomed people begging in the last seconds of their lives for help; screaming in terror as the World Trade Center collapsed around them; leaping in desperation and flames to a crushing death; or engaging in a final, fruitless life-or-death struggle with their murderers.
Such evidence, as well as Moussaoui's affected disinterest in the carnage, kindles a deep yearning for revenge. Creative revenge. Not simply execution, but just compensation. Suffocation in toxic smoke. Slow immolation. Drowning in blood gushing from his slit throat. A shove out the 86th floor. Release to the public at high noon on ground zero.
Maybe it's a measure of a civilized America that such suggestions are only newspaper column babblings and, thankfully, not a widespread sentiment. Even more, I sense that many folks, even in the face of the horrific evidence unveiled last week, aren't really that outraged anymore. At least in Chicago, it seemed to provoke less indignation than the news, revealed in the Chicago Tribune, that Sun Myung Moon, the head of the "controversial" Unification Church, is a lurking force in the sushi business.
As much as Moon's involvement bothers some, it serves an additional purpose by illustrating the relative importance of things. For example: What's worse, a religion that calls for arranged marriages or one that publicly stones women, but not men, for infidelity? A religious leader who says offensive things in the name of God, or adherents who invoke God's name as they murder thousands of innocent people? As much as it repulses some, Moon is trying to buy world domination, not grabbing it with terror and violence.
Thankfully, in America those offended by Moon only call for fish boycotts, not beheadings.
The Moussaoui trial should underscore the fact that we're fighting brutish enemies over more than power and money. We're fighting over values and beliefs. Moussaoui unapologetically claims that the Koran requires Islamic world domination and that non-Islamic nations must pay tribute to Islamic ones. "We have to be the superpower. You have to be subdued," he said. And in pursuit of that goal, his only regret is that he couldn't fly a planeload of innocents into the Capitol.
Moussaoui understands it better than Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and others who see little of global import in our conflicts and counsel a vague sort of withdrawal. Moussaoui sees beyond the gotcha politics of the Beltway and correctly regards this as an engagement of fundamentally conflicting civilizations: One more advanced and compassionate against another--violent and monstrous--that still is fighting in the Dark Ages, against Crusader spooks.
The fight over how and why the Iraq war is being fought is a legitimate one. But Iraq is just one part of the larger and more important debate. That bigger debate should have been settled by now.
To all you naysayers
Speaking of Iraq, some readers, in response to my April 3 column, explained that good news from Iraq isn't reported because there's no good news to report. None. Period. So, in response to their challenge to come up with some, I give you the liberal Brookings Institution and its "Iraq Index."
The index (www.brookings.edu/iraqindex), brought to my attention by blogger Jim Bowman, is, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive statistical compilation of Iraqi conditions, tracking economic, public opinion and security data. While partisans make sweeping assumptions about what are factual questions, the periodic report lays out such comparative data as pre-war and current levels of telephone and water service, unemployment, Iraq security forces, troop facilities and coalition strength.
I won't try to characterize the report one way or another, except to say that those blind to any good news will be surprised.
Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist
April 17, 2006
In H.G. Wells' "Time Machine," the helplessly fattened Eloi spend most of their time waiting around their pleasant surroundings to be snatched away by cannibal Morlocks. Those succulent pinkish Eloi who luckily aren't invited for dinner this time can only wait their turn, not so much in fear, but--simpletons that they are--in resigned ignorance.
Though he wrote it more than 100 years ago, Wells nonetheless had many of today's Americans nailed. Today's Eloi are Americans whose only "strategy" for dealing with the dreadful and grisly terrorist assaults on us is to pull back and wait for the next one.
The death sentence hearing of Zacarias Moussaoui, the "12th hijacker" of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a gory reminder of just what this non-strategy can produce. We relived it last week in the jarring words, sounds and sights of doomed people begging in the last seconds of their lives for help; screaming in terror as the World Trade Center collapsed around them; leaping in desperation and flames to a crushing death; or engaging in a final, fruitless life-or-death struggle with their murderers.
Such evidence, as well as Moussaoui's affected disinterest in the carnage, kindles a deep yearning for revenge. Creative revenge. Not simply execution, but just compensation. Suffocation in toxic smoke. Slow immolation. Drowning in blood gushing from his slit throat. A shove out the 86th floor. Release to the public at high noon on ground zero.
Maybe it's a measure of a civilized America that such suggestions are only newspaper column babblings and, thankfully, not a widespread sentiment. Even more, I sense that many folks, even in the face of the horrific evidence unveiled last week, aren't really that outraged anymore. At least in Chicago, it seemed to provoke less indignation than the news, revealed in the Chicago Tribune, that Sun Myung Moon, the head of the "controversial" Unification Church, is a lurking force in the sushi business.
As much as Moon's involvement bothers some, it serves an additional purpose by illustrating the relative importance of things. For example: What's worse, a religion that calls for arranged marriages or one that publicly stones women, but not men, for infidelity? A religious leader who says offensive things in the name of God, or adherents who invoke God's name as they murder thousands of innocent people? As much as it repulses some, Moon is trying to buy world domination, not grabbing it with terror and violence.
Thankfully, in America those offended by Moon only call for fish boycotts, not beheadings.
The Moussaoui trial should underscore the fact that we're fighting brutish enemies over more than power and money. We're fighting over values and beliefs. Moussaoui unapologetically claims that the Koran requires Islamic world domination and that non-Islamic nations must pay tribute to Islamic ones. "We have to be the superpower. You have to be subdued," he said. And in pursuit of that goal, his only regret is that he couldn't fly a planeload of innocents into the Capitol.
Moussaoui understands it better than Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and others who see little of global import in our conflicts and counsel a vague sort of withdrawal. Moussaoui sees beyond the gotcha politics of the Beltway and correctly regards this as an engagement of fundamentally conflicting civilizations: One more advanced and compassionate against another--violent and monstrous--that still is fighting in the Dark Ages, against Crusader spooks.
The fight over how and why the Iraq war is being fought is a legitimate one. But Iraq is just one part of the larger and more important debate. That bigger debate should have been settled by now.
To all you naysayers
Speaking of Iraq, some readers, in response to my April 3 column, explained that good news from Iraq isn't reported because there's no good news to report. None. Period. So, in response to their challenge to come up with some, I give you the liberal Brookings Institution and its "Iraq Index."
The index (www.brookings.edu/iraqindex), brought to my attention by blogger Jim Bowman, is, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive statistical compilation of Iraqi conditions, tracking economic, public opinion and security data. While partisans make sweeping assumptions about what are factual questions, the periodic report lays out such comparative data as pre-war and current levels of telephone and water service, unemployment, Iraq security forces, troop facilities and coalition strength.
I won't try to characterize the report one way or another, except to say that those blind to any good news will be surprised.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Illegal Immigrants: Just another unit of economic measure
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
April 10, 2006
Long ago, that supposed "giant sucking sound" of American jobs heading south to Mexico began to be muffled by a stampede of illegal immigrants coming north to grab away more U.S. jobs.
Now, if you're of a free-market mind, you might think that this is just ducky. Just as goods, services and capital should flow freely across borders to allow the market to work its magic, so should people. After all, isn't a person just another unit of economic measure, and if illegal immigration depresses the living wages of Americans and legal immigrants, well, it all works out for the higher good of economic efficiency.
As callous and daffy as this sounds, some posturing politicians actually believe it. Or act like they believe it. They don't see much difference between a person as a unit of economic activity and a person as a human being. They talk about the "collapse" of the American economy that would follow if we turned off the ready supply of cheap units of labor. Americans, they argue, would never tolerate a better paid, domestic and legal workforce to pick their veggies or mow their lawns because they would have to pay a few dollars more.
We should be scandalized. Arguing that economic necessity demands that we have a ready supply of cheap, exploited labor sounds like something that apologists for slavery would say. Yet, the argument has been so shamelessly expounded by liberals and conservatives that I've come to worry about the state of our national soul.
Think about it: Under the mislabeled "guest worker" program, official government policy actually would endorse and enable the exploitation of human beings. Years of struggle to make the workplace more humane--the minimum wage, no child labor, work-week standards, health requirements and so forth--would be diluted.
The majority of Americans know what this is about, and it's why they strongly oppose having immigration "reform" shoved down their throats by President Bush and Congress. "Reform" is really about special interests. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, put it well when he laid this outrage at the feet of Big Business, Big Politics, Big Labor, Big Media and Big Academia. Big Business for bigger profits. Big Politics to demagogue some votes from a growing segment of the population. Big Labor to bag more dues-paying members. Big Media because, well, that's what the media do. And Big Academia because its elites know what's good for the average American mope.
Krikorian also threw in Big Church, referring to clergy and laity angered by the possibility that their acts of charity, such as feeding, clothing and hiding illegal immigrants, would become a serious crime. I somewhat agree; it's too much like criminalizing the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, the faithful also should ask themselves if the kind of servitude they are abetting conforms to church teachings about social justice.
You'd think that the Kennedys, Durbins and Obamas would be furious at this betrayal of their party's historic principles. They aren't. So, irony of ironies, it is up to conservatives such as me to remind them of it. Not that I expect it to make any difference.
It won't, because Washington creatures are hellbent on feathering their political nests and doing big favors for their friends in business, labor and elsewhere. Never mind that the pols know that they are engaged in a charade by passing a joke of an unenforceable law. Ask yourself: If you have been here illegally for years, would you turn yourself in for some vague promise that some day you might get a chance to become legal? Why bother? Why trouble yourself with paying fines and back taxes, patiently standing in long lines waiting for a bureaucratic stamp of approval, suffering background checks and learning English--all to get something that you already have? You know it and the hypocritical pols know it: It won't work. It's worse than doing nothing at all.
We know so because it didn't work 20 years ago when the government offered amnesty to about 3 million illegal immigrants, at a cost to taxpayers of billions of dollars, only to have a fraction of those eligible apply. It was such a disaster that another 9 million or so have arrived and stayed illegally since this last "solution."
At this pace, in 10 years we'll be asking what to do about the 24 million people here illegally.
Chicago Tribune
April 10, 2006
Long ago, that supposed "giant sucking sound" of American jobs heading south to Mexico began to be muffled by a stampede of illegal immigrants coming north to grab away more U.S. jobs.
Now, if you're of a free-market mind, you might think that this is just ducky. Just as goods, services and capital should flow freely across borders to allow the market to work its magic, so should people. After all, isn't a person just another unit of economic measure, and if illegal immigration depresses the living wages of Americans and legal immigrants, well, it all works out for the higher good of economic efficiency.
As callous and daffy as this sounds, some posturing politicians actually believe it. Or act like they believe it. They don't see much difference between a person as a unit of economic activity and a person as a human being. They talk about the "collapse" of the American economy that would follow if we turned off the ready supply of cheap units of labor. Americans, they argue, would never tolerate a better paid, domestic and legal workforce to pick their veggies or mow their lawns because they would have to pay a few dollars more.
We should be scandalized. Arguing that economic necessity demands that we have a ready supply of cheap, exploited labor sounds like something that apologists for slavery would say. Yet, the argument has been so shamelessly expounded by liberals and conservatives that I've come to worry about the state of our national soul.
Think about it: Under the mislabeled "guest worker" program, official government policy actually would endorse and enable the exploitation of human beings. Years of struggle to make the workplace more humane--the minimum wage, no child labor, work-week standards, health requirements and so forth--would be diluted.
The majority of Americans know what this is about, and it's why they strongly oppose having immigration "reform" shoved down their throats by President Bush and Congress. "Reform" is really about special interests. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, put it well when he laid this outrage at the feet of Big Business, Big Politics, Big Labor, Big Media and Big Academia. Big Business for bigger profits. Big Politics to demagogue some votes from a growing segment of the population. Big Labor to bag more dues-paying members. Big Media because, well, that's what the media do. And Big Academia because its elites know what's good for the average American mope.
Krikorian also threw in Big Church, referring to clergy and laity angered by the possibility that their acts of charity, such as feeding, clothing and hiding illegal immigrants, would become a serious crime. I somewhat agree; it's too much like criminalizing the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, the faithful also should ask themselves if the kind of servitude they are abetting conforms to church teachings about social justice.
You'd think that the Kennedys, Durbins and Obamas would be furious at this betrayal of their party's historic principles. They aren't. So, irony of ironies, it is up to conservatives such as me to remind them of it. Not that I expect it to make any difference.
It won't, because Washington creatures are hellbent on feathering their political nests and doing big favors for their friends in business, labor and elsewhere. Never mind that the pols know that they are engaged in a charade by passing a joke of an unenforceable law. Ask yourself: If you have been here illegally for years, would you turn yourself in for some vague promise that some day you might get a chance to become legal? Why bother? Why trouble yourself with paying fines and back taxes, patiently standing in long lines waiting for a bureaucratic stamp of approval, suffering background checks and learning English--all to get something that you already have? You know it and the hypocritical pols know it: It won't work. It's worse than doing nothing at all.
We know so because it didn't work 20 years ago when the government offered amnesty to about 3 million illegal immigrants, at a cost to taxpayers of billions of dollars, only to have a fraction of those eligible apply. It was such a disaster that another 9 million or so have arrived and stayed illegally since this last "solution."
At this pace, in 10 years we'll be asking what to do about the 24 million people here illegally.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Maybe the NY Times Figured We Wouldn't Notice
OK, I admit that when I saw a lengthy and prominently played New York Times story this morning about a congressman who "used his powerful perch on the House Appropriations Committee to funnel $250 million into five nonprofit organizations that he had set up," I assumed that the paper was going after another Republican.
True, that assumption was my own bias against a paper whose liberal bias is reaching legendary heights.
As I read the story, I didn't even notice that the story failed to identify the political affiliation of the congressman, Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, in the first paragraph. Nor in the second. Nor in the third.
By now, I noticed this omission, because standard journalistic practice calls for a politician's party to be identified, if not in the first paragraph, at least pretty damn quick.
I read on. Fourth graph, still nothing. Fifth, sixth and seventh. Nothing. The New York Times must figure that everyone knows who Mollohan is. Only us rubes wouldn't.
Finally in the eighth graph I find this:
The case has led several Republican leaders to call for Mr. Mollohan's removal from the House ethics committee, where he is the senior Democrat. [Emphasis added]
That's 315 words into the story. Before the first mention that Mollohan's a Democrat. And, it turns out, an important one.
Maybe someone has a logical explanation for why it took so long. The choices are:
• Incompetent and careless writer and editors.
• Biased writer and editors.
Or maybe the Times figured that political affiliation--this time--was of no consequence.
Actually, it is of significant consequence, as you might gather from the straight news story, which broke in the Wall Street Journal on April 7:
Congressman's 'Earmarks' Spur Federal ProbeBy JOHN R. WILKE
April 7, 2006; Page A1FAIRMONT, W.Va. -- On a mountaintop above old coal seams that once fueled West Virginia's economy, a gleaming steel-and-glass research center is taking shape, its winged design and 120-foot data tower visible for miles.
The $136 million building is being built with taxpayers' money for the Institute for Scientific Research, a nonprofit group launched by the local congressman, Democrat Alan Mollohan, and funded almost entirely through provisions he put into annual spending bills.
A 12-term congressman, Mr. Mollohan sits on the House Appropriations Committee, a panel that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff dubbed the "favor factory." Working with fellow West Virginian Sen. Robert Byrd, Mr. Mollohan has steered at least $178 million to nonprofit groups in his district over the past five years using "earmarks" -- special-interest provisions that are slipped into spending bills to direct money to pet projects.
The money has brought more than jobs and building projects to his district. It has formed and financed a tight-knit network of nonprofit institutions in West Virginia that are run by people who contribute regularly to Mr. Mollohan's campaigns, political-action committee and a family foundation. One of these people also invests in real estate alongside Mr. Mollohan and his wife. The network of contributors also includes private companies that get contracts through these nonprofits.
Such a pattern raises questions about whether the donations or deals might be a way beneficiaries of earmarks could influence the legislator's actions. Now, federal prosecutors have opened an investigation of Mr. Mollohan's finances and whether they were properly disclosed, according to people contacted in the inquiry. Mr. Mollohan hasn't been accused of wrongdoing. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, whose public-corruption unit is conducting the inquiry, declined to comment....
Here' how the UPI reported the story:
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- A Democratic congressman has fueled five non-profit groups in his West Virginia district with $250 million in earmark funding, The New York Times reports.
This post also appears on RealClearPolitics.com
Monday, April 03, 2006
Let's have good news from Iraq, please: Criticisms of a liberal media bias seem valid
By Dennis Byrne
April 3, 2006
Is The New York Times going bi-polar, or what?
The nation's imperial paper recently said it wouldn't engage in off-the-record sit-downs with President Bush, an invitation that other papers have accepted with no twinges of conscience. Not so the Times. Explained a top executive to Editor & Publisher, a newspaper industry publication: "As a matter of policy and practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct on-the-record interviews with public officials."
Oh, come on.
The Times--like many newspapers--feeds off anonymous sources, especially if the leak trashes the Bush administration. A Times reporter spent months in jail for refusing to reveal an anonymous source, and the newspaper happily ran leaked, classified information about the wiretapping of international conversations with terrorists.
So, save us the baloney. The public knows that anonymous sources usually spill information that benefits the spiller or his interests. Yes, the public understands that an occasional unnamed source is useful in exposing wrongdoing. But it also understands that the many "high purposes" the media use to justify the unabashed spread of "spin" (it used to be called propaganda) under the cloak of secrecy is just bunk.
Yet, the Times and others continue to embarrass the business with this kind of transparent nonsense. It's one reason that newspaper circulation and the viewership of evening network news are declining. Like a gravely ill patient that refuses to listen to a glum diagnosis, too many of my colleagues greet criticisms of a liberal media bias with a closed-minded, "I'm sick of hearing it."
Just like they did after Bush recently joined in the criticism. "The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in places like Tal Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the evening news," he said. "Footage of children playing, or shops opening, and people resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of an IED explosion, or the destruction of a mosque, or soldiers and civilians being killed or injured."
Editor & Publisher followed up with a story, "Iraq reporters hit back at claims they are biased on war coverage." Taking the offensive, they replied that the administration itself fails to come up with enough good news stories, and when it does, reporters don't get enough protection to go out and safely cover the story.
Those of us who haven't been in a war zone criticize the work of war correspondents at our own peril. Yet, for all the assertions that little or no good news is to be found in Iraq, it is simple to find some on the Internet from, for example, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is helping rebuild Iraq. (Why is it called "rebuilding" Iraq, when it was a sorry state before the war? Shouldn't we be talking about "building" Iraq?)
Billions of dollars of highway and other public works projects; new safety nets for the poor and vulnerable, entrepreneurial opportunities, a free press, leadership training--all requisites for successful self-government. For all the stories about power shortages, for example, how many explain that they are partly the result of exploding demand, a good sign of economic progress?
Oddly, some journalists give little credence to such official, attributable reports. In today's upside-down world, official government reports don't carry the same weight as whispered, unattributed reports.
News often is defined as something that didn't happen before, or rarely happens. So, if indeed little good is happening in Iraq, every piece of (rare) good news ought to be reported with the same fervor as every act of violence--which we're to believe is an increasingly common occurrence. And, logically, less deserving of reporting. Or does the absence of reporting "good news" in a country the size of Iraq actually mean that reporters can find absolutely nothing good?
If all this is confusing, it's nothing compared to the confusion shared by the American public about what actually is happening in Iraq. The media's credibility has become so strained that partisans on both sides have to admit in good conscience that they're unsure of what's real. Obviously, this isn't good for a democracy.
So, the media might give more thought to being less defensive, and more objective, not just in covering the news, but also in evaluating their own performance. The public would appreciate that kind of good news.
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and consultant.
E-mail: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
April 3, 2006
Is The New York Times going bi-polar, or what?
The nation's imperial paper recently said it wouldn't engage in off-the-record sit-downs with President Bush, an invitation that other papers have accepted with no twinges of conscience. Not so the Times. Explained a top executive to Editor & Publisher, a newspaper industry publication: "As a matter of policy and practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct on-the-record interviews with public officials."
Oh, come on.
The Times--like many newspapers--feeds off anonymous sources, especially if the leak trashes the Bush administration. A Times reporter spent months in jail for refusing to reveal an anonymous source, and the newspaper happily ran leaked, classified information about the wiretapping of international conversations with terrorists.
So, save us the baloney. The public knows that anonymous sources usually spill information that benefits the spiller or his interests. Yes, the public understands that an occasional unnamed source is useful in exposing wrongdoing. But it also understands that the many "high purposes" the media use to justify the unabashed spread of "spin" (it used to be called propaganda) under the cloak of secrecy is just bunk.
Yet, the Times and others continue to embarrass the business with this kind of transparent nonsense. It's one reason that newspaper circulation and the viewership of evening network news are declining. Like a gravely ill patient that refuses to listen to a glum diagnosis, too many of my colleagues greet criticisms of a liberal media bias with a closed-minded, "I'm sick of hearing it."
Just like they did after Bush recently joined in the criticism. "The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in places like Tal Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the evening news," he said. "Footage of children playing, or shops opening, and people resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of an IED explosion, or the destruction of a mosque, or soldiers and civilians being killed or injured."
Editor & Publisher followed up with a story, "Iraq reporters hit back at claims they are biased on war coverage." Taking the offensive, they replied that the administration itself fails to come up with enough good news stories, and when it does, reporters don't get enough protection to go out and safely cover the story.
Those of us who haven't been in a war zone criticize the work of war correspondents at our own peril. Yet, for all the assertions that little or no good news is to be found in Iraq, it is simple to find some on the Internet from, for example, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is helping rebuild Iraq. (Why is it called "rebuilding" Iraq, when it was a sorry state before the war? Shouldn't we be talking about "building" Iraq?)
Billions of dollars of highway and other public works projects; new safety nets for the poor and vulnerable, entrepreneurial opportunities, a free press, leadership training--all requisites for successful self-government. For all the stories about power shortages, for example, how many explain that they are partly the result of exploding demand, a good sign of economic progress?
Oddly, some journalists give little credence to such official, attributable reports. In today's upside-down world, official government reports don't carry the same weight as whispered, unattributed reports.
News often is defined as something that didn't happen before, or rarely happens. So, if indeed little good is happening in Iraq, every piece of (rare) good news ought to be reported with the same fervor as every act of violence--which we're to believe is an increasingly common occurrence. And, logically, less deserving of reporting. Or does the absence of reporting "good news" in a country the size of Iraq actually mean that reporters can find absolutely nothing good?
If all this is confusing, it's nothing compared to the confusion shared by the American public about what actually is happening in Iraq. The media's credibility has become so strained that partisans on both sides have to admit in good conscience that they're unsure of what's real. Obviously, this isn't good for a democracy.
So, the media might give more thought to being less defensive, and more objective, not just in covering the news, but also in evaluating their own performance. The public would appreciate that kind of good news.
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and consultant.
E-mail: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Monday, March 27, 2006
Absence of moral authority: The clergy's failures are beyond the shame that they bring down on the church
By Dennis Byrne
March 27, 2006
For many Roman Catholics, the latest round of disclosures about pedophile priests in the Chicago archdiocese is the end of their patience with an institution that is incapable of or unwilling to change.
For other Catholics, it is further confirmation of a sad reality that has frustrated their attempts to wake up a hierarchy that is too deaf, smug or self-serving.
For non-Catholics, the failure to move against men who still victimize children, years after allegations against the clergy became widely known, is as much of a mystery as an outrage.
For Catholics who have tried to deny these sins of their fathers, it's time for them to examine their own consciences.
Here we are, years after church leaders promised reforms, and a new report surfaces accusing the archdiocese of, as the Chicago Tribune put it, "botching" the job of protecting children from clerical pedophiles. The independent and expert report, commissioned by the church (at least give it credit for that, as well as hanging its dirty linen out in public), enumerated shocking failure after failure:
Not watching suspected priests closely enough, not requiring them to report their activities daily, not imposing consequences on priests who fail to report, not adequately training monitors, not being alert to misconduct of seminarians before ordination, insufficiently following up on allegations of misconduct, and so on. Just one incredible example: One accused priest last year took three minors on a Labor Day weekend trip in the absence of another priest assigned to monitor him.
And this: failure to properly inform civil authorities, as the law requires, when the evidence is sufficient to believe a crime may have been committed. Normally, the practices of a religion are beyond fair game for secular columnists. But pedophilia is a criminal offense, and all of us are entitled to wonder why more of these perverts aren't behind bars.
For Catholics, these sins are a direct assault on the community of the faithful called the "mystical body of Christ." This violates Christ's injunction: Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.
Cardinal Francis George is showing proper remorse and seems now to be doing what is necessary. But why should he be believed? How many times does an institution get to say it is sorry before its words have no meaning? The clergy knows what I'm talking about, from administering the sacrament of reconciliation: How many times can a penitent ask for forgiveness for a constantly repeated sin before his sincerity becomes suspect and absolution is withheld?
The recommended reforms are precise, so there can be no more excuses. But they are procedural only; the abuses have been so persistent, it's reasonable to ask if they are the result of something systemic about the church. Here the church must be willing to look at fundamental questions that are empirical, not necessarily theological, in nature: Are clergy more prone to child abuse? Are they more prone to same-sex abuse? Do other denominations have this problem and to what extent? If they don't, is there something specific about the Roman Catholic priesthood that leads to greater incidence of child sexual abuse? Is the something related to the vow of celibacy? Does it have something to do with the priesthood's male-dominated environment? Is it an institutional problem, flowing from the authoritative, hierarchical structure of the church?
The church hierarchy has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that issues of celibacy and female priests have anything to do with these questions. (We're told that "church tradition," not theological certainty, already has provided answers.)
Maybe so, but the lay members of the mystical body of Christ--in the face of such resistance--have a moral obligation of their own to pursue these questions to their logical conclusions.
For the many of us who were born, raised and educated Roman Catholic, the failures of the clergy are beyond the shame they bring down on the church; beyond even the horrible damage they have inflicted on children.
For many of us, it is reminiscent of a church that may have ignored the evils of the Holocaust. This has gone far beyond whether the church effectively adopts some procedural changes recommended by a consultant. It is whether the church still has the moral authority to speak for Christ.
----------
Post comments: http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
March 27, 2006
For many Roman Catholics, the latest round of disclosures about pedophile priests in the Chicago archdiocese is the end of their patience with an institution that is incapable of or unwilling to change.
For other Catholics, it is further confirmation of a sad reality that has frustrated their attempts to wake up a hierarchy that is too deaf, smug or self-serving.
For non-Catholics, the failure to move against men who still victimize children, years after allegations against the clergy became widely known, is as much of a mystery as an outrage.
For Catholics who have tried to deny these sins of their fathers, it's time for them to examine their own consciences.
Here we are, years after church leaders promised reforms, and a new report surfaces accusing the archdiocese of, as the Chicago Tribune put it, "botching" the job of protecting children from clerical pedophiles. The independent and expert report, commissioned by the church (at least give it credit for that, as well as hanging its dirty linen out in public), enumerated shocking failure after failure:
Not watching suspected priests closely enough, not requiring them to report their activities daily, not imposing consequences on priests who fail to report, not adequately training monitors, not being alert to misconduct of seminarians before ordination, insufficiently following up on allegations of misconduct, and so on. Just one incredible example: One accused priest last year took three minors on a Labor Day weekend trip in the absence of another priest assigned to monitor him.
And this: failure to properly inform civil authorities, as the law requires, when the evidence is sufficient to believe a crime may have been committed. Normally, the practices of a religion are beyond fair game for secular columnists. But pedophilia is a criminal offense, and all of us are entitled to wonder why more of these perverts aren't behind bars.
For Catholics, these sins are a direct assault on the community of the faithful called the "mystical body of Christ." This violates Christ's injunction: Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.
Cardinal Francis George is showing proper remorse and seems now to be doing what is necessary. But why should he be believed? How many times does an institution get to say it is sorry before its words have no meaning? The clergy knows what I'm talking about, from administering the sacrament of reconciliation: How many times can a penitent ask for forgiveness for a constantly repeated sin before his sincerity becomes suspect and absolution is withheld?
The recommended reforms are precise, so there can be no more excuses. But they are procedural only; the abuses have been so persistent, it's reasonable to ask if they are the result of something systemic about the church. Here the church must be willing to look at fundamental questions that are empirical, not necessarily theological, in nature: Are clergy more prone to child abuse? Are they more prone to same-sex abuse? Do other denominations have this problem and to what extent? If they don't, is there something specific about the Roman Catholic priesthood that leads to greater incidence of child sexual abuse? Is the something related to the vow of celibacy? Does it have something to do with the priesthood's male-dominated environment? Is it an institutional problem, flowing from the authoritative, hierarchical structure of the church?
The church hierarchy has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that issues of celibacy and female priests have anything to do with these questions. (We're told that "church tradition," not theological certainty, already has provided answers.)
Maybe so, but the lay members of the mystical body of Christ--in the face of such resistance--have a moral obligation of their own to pursue these questions to their logical conclusions.
For the many of us who were born, raised and educated Roman Catholic, the failures of the clergy are beyond the shame they bring down on the church; beyond even the horrible damage they have inflicted on children.
For many of us, it is reminiscent of a church that may have ignored the evils of the Holocaust. This has gone far beyond whether the church effectively adopts some procedural changes recommended by a consultant. It is whether the church still has the moral authority to speak for Christ.
----------
Post comments: http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Campaign 2006: Is this all there is?
By Dennis Byrne a Chicago-area writer and consultant
March 20, 2006
If you want to discover how a perfectly healthy pink state turns into a lastingblue one, look no further than Illinois.
For years, Republicans often won statewide and federal elective offices. But thanks to a bungling party "leadership" way out of touch with its constituency, Tuesday's primary election to select a GOP nominee for governor presents voters with indecision, disappointment or disgust. Among the candidates, "I don't know" has made a strong showing.
We columnists have raked this field of candidates to the point of tedium, butwhy not? Why should Republicans be forced to choose among marginal, inexperienced, unqualified or downright deplorable candidates?
State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka is a nice lady, which is exactly what corrupt Illinois government doesn't need right now. I had expected more, but she has done nothing in the campaign to demonstrate that she won't be eaten alive by the greedy pals of both parties who constitute what Tribune columnist John Kass calls the "combine."
Ron Gidwitz, Mr. Inside/Mr. Outside, has been an insider for years, but now vows reform and independence. Judging by his low poll numbers, voters don't buy it, despite an expensive, lengthy TV ad campaign. Sad for him, OK for us.
Conservatives, of course, are engaged in their usual dance of death. They can't agree on a single candidate, so they're forced to choose between two and dilute their strength as a voting bloc. Jim Oberweis, as usual, is running second, but still has the best chance of beating Topinka. For me, he's also best on the issues. Bill Brady, a younger and attractive candidate, can wait
his turn.
Mention must be made of another candidate, the scary Andy Martin (a.k.a. Anthony R. Martin-Trigona), because if I don't he'll probably sue. So, I've mentioned him.
A certain number of dissatisfied Republicans will reject them all and pick up a Democratic primary ballot, motivated by the knowledge that they can get better government by voting for two challengers, Forrest Claypool for Cook County Board president and Edwin Eisendrath for governor. The Claypool vote is especially important because a comatose county Republican Party makes the election of a Democrat nearly certain.
And Republicans in the west suburban 6th Congressional District can do a service by crossing into the Democratic primary to vote for Christine Cegelis, the more likely of two candidates to beat a shameless interloper, Tammy Duckworth. In an incredible act of arrogance, she was imposed on the district by Democratic money man Rahm Emanuel and outsiders who think they know better than the voters who should represent them.
But why should Republicans be forced to play in someone else's sandbox? Why do loyal Republicans have to choose among second stringers? Where are the candidates who stand out because of their superb leadership, integrity, experience and wisdom?
The answer is to be found in a party establishment that is more interested in feathering its nest. The GOP leadership would rather see a Democratic ("someone we can work with") win than an independent Republican.
It wasn't Republican Peter Fitzgerald's conservatism that caused his party's establishment to nix his second term as a U.S. senator. It was his determined independence. He represented his constituents and their interests, and not the interwoven and lucrative interests of Illinois' unitary establishment party. It's why the party opposed him in his 1998 primary race against Loleta Didrickson and tried to undermine his nomination of the fiercely independent Patrick Fitzgerald as U.S. attorney. Peter Fitzgerald, of course, enjoys lasting revenge as Patrick Fitzgerald tracks corruption all the way to the offices of the governor and mayor.
The GOP "leadership" (the ones with the money and power) wants us to believe that they back "moderates" on principle. Hogwash. They don't care about principles, only about keeping power. They'd back Larry, Curly and Moe if they thought they'd win. They need to be reminded that our last Republican senator was a conservative. They'll respond that Fitzgerald "lucked out" because his Democratic opponent was the underqualified and ethically challenged incumbent, Carol Moseley Braun. The GOP establishment will say that the next candidate won't be so lucky in the run against incumbent Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin.
Oh, no? Independent and conservative Republicans will have a better chance of winning--if they start planning together now--against the most extreme and obnoxious senator of them all, Dick the Lip.
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and consultant
E-mail: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
March 20, 2006
If you want to discover how a perfectly healthy pink state turns into a lastingblue one, look no further than Illinois.
For years, Republicans often won statewide and federal elective offices. But thanks to a bungling party "leadership" way out of touch with its constituency, Tuesday's primary election to select a GOP nominee for governor presents voters with indecision, disappointment or disgust. Among the candidates, "I don't know" has made a strong showing.
We columnists have raked this field of candidates to the point of tedium, butwhy not? Why should Republicans be forced to choose among marginal, inexperienced, unqualified or downright deplorable candidates?
State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka is a nice lady, which is exactly what corrupt Illinois government doesn't need right now. I had expected more, but she has done nothing in the campaign to demonstrate that she won't be eaten alive by the greedy pals of both parties who constitute what Tribune columnist John Kass calls the "combine."
Ron Gidwitz, Mr. Inside/Mr. Outside, has been an insider for years, but now vows reform and independence. Judging by his low poll numbers, voters don't buy it, despite an expensive, lengthy TV ad campaign. Sad for him, OK for us.
Conservatives, of course, are engaged in their usual dance of death. They can't agree on a single candidate, so they're forced to choose between two and dilute their strength as a voting bloc. Jim Oberweis, as usual, is running second, but still has the best chance of beating Topinka. For me, he's also best on the issues. Bill Brady, a younger and attractive candidate, can wait
his turn.
Mention must be made of another candidate, the scary Andy Martin (a.k.a. Anthony R. Martin-Trigona), because if I don't he'll probably sue. So, I've mentioned him.
A certain number of dissatisfied Republicans will reject them all and pick up a Democratic primary ballot, motivated by the knowledge that they can get better government by voting for two challengers, Forrest Claypool for Cook County Board president and Edwin Eisendrath for governor. The Claypool vote is especially important because a comatose county Republican Party makes the election of a Democrat nearly certain.
And Republicans in the west suburban 6th Congressional District can do a service by crossing into the Democratic primary to vote for Christine Cegelis, the more likely of two candidates to beat a shameless interloper, Tammy Duckworth. In an incredible act of arrogance, she was imposed on the district by Democratic money man Rahm Emanuel and outsiders who think they know better than the voters who should represent them.
But why should Republicans be forced to play in someone else's sandbox? Why do loyal Republicans have to choose among second stringers? Where are the candidates who stand out because of their superb leadership, integrity, experience and wisdom?
The answer is to be found in a party establishment that is more interested in feathering its nest. The GOP leadership would rather see a Democratic ("someone we can work with") win than an independent Republican.
It wasn't Republican Peter Fitzgerald's conservatism that caused his party's establishment to nix his second term as a U.S. senator. It was his determined independence. He represented his constituents and their interests, and not the interwoven and lucrative interests of Illinois' unitary establishment party. It's why the party opposed him in his 1998 primary race against Loleta Didrickson and tried to undermine his nomination of the fiercely independent Patrick Fitzgerald as U.S. attorney. Peter Fitzgerald, of course, enjoys lasting revenge as Patrick Fitzgerald tracks corruption all the way to the offices of the governor and mayor.
The GOP "leadership" (the ones with the money and power) wants us to believe that they back "moderates" on principle. Hogwash. They don't care about principles, only about keeping power. They'd back Larry, Curly and Moe if they thought they'd win. They need to be reminded that our last Republican senator was a conservative. They'll respond that Fitzgerald "lucked out" because his Democratic opponent was the underqualified and ethically challenged incumbent, Carol Moseley Braun. The GOP establishment will say that the next candidate won't be so lucky in the run against incumbent Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin.
Oh, no? Independent and conservative Republicans will have a better chance of winning--if they start planning together now--against the most extreme and obnoxious senator of them all, Dick the Lip.
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and consultant
E-mail: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Washington Press Corps Don't Know Conspiracy
For us folks beyond the Beltway, the best comedy on TV is a live telecast of the White House press corps in action.
Like when the corps was (and continues to be) in an uproar over suspicions (theirs) that Vice President Dick Cheney engaged in some sort of political conspiracy to hide (from them) the accidental shooting of hunting partner Harry Whittington.
But take it from a Chicago writer, that’s no political conspiracy; here it’s just everyday affairs of state. If you want a real political conspiracy, check out a recent Chicago headline: A Cook County jail guard reportedly plotted to allow six inmates to escape in order to influence an election.
For everything that happened in Watergate, and everything that President Bush supposedly hides from the public, they never—to my knowledge—tried to stage a prison break to boost their election chances.
At the risk of confusing you, here’s what allegedly happened in the Chicago jailbreak: The six, including a convicted killer, recently made a break for it by supposedly overpowering a jail guard. Now, the guard reportedly is telling investigators that he conspired to help the six escape to embarrass the incumbent sheriff, Michael Sheahan, and his chief of staff, Tom Dart, who run the jail. The conspiracy’s beneficiary was supposedly Richard Remus, one of Dart’s opponents in next month’s race for sheriff.
Confused? Wait, there’s more: The guard once was part of Sheahan’s Special Operations Response Team, which Remus formerly headed. He no longer does because he and the team were accused by the sheriff’s office in 2003 of abusing inmates.
Remus denied abusing the inmates and, in turn, accused the sheriff of his own conspiracy to smear Remus. Why? Because, Remus said, the sheriff wanted to deflect criticism from his own scandal: three escapes in a year, and a triple shooting involving a gun that was smuggled into maximum security. Probably a result of another conspiracy.
Remus denies he had anything to do with any of it. He told the Chicago Tribune, “No way in hell did any of these guys do something this stupid for a [explicative] campaign. If he [the guard] did do it, put him in the electric chair.”
So, who to believe? Chicagoans can never be sure in such cases of campaign mischief. Here’s a typical example: a candidate for, say, alderman has a brick thrown through his campaign office’s window. He accuses his opponent of the throwing the brick. But, the opponent replies with equal credibility, the candidate himself threw the brick through his own window just to get attention. So, it’s a wash.
In the present case, the unnamed guard, Remus and Sheahan could all end up accusing each other of concocting the whole thing. By the way, there’s a third candidate in the race, who’s probably regretting that he can’t somehow get in on the accusing. Also, by the way, all escapees were quickly captured.
No isolated incident, this. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan is at this moment standing trial for conspiracy and fraud. In Chicago itself, conspiracy, fraud and corruption charges are flying all over the place, leading all the way up to the city clerk. Some speculate that investigation will even ensnarl Mayor Richard M. Daley. No one would be surprised here if everyone in City Hall were involved in a conspiracy to feed at the public trough. (A recent Tribune poll shows that a big majority of Chicagoans believes that Daley knows about the graft, but a majority also believes that Daley’s doing a good job.)
Shining the light on all these conspiracies is U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who—it seems to some partisans—is involved in a political conspiracy of his own to nail Cheney’s former chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby for outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
With all these conspiracies, I’m grateful to have the guidance of the White House press corps to turn up some more. The White House press grilled presidential press secretary Scott McClellan as if he, Cheney, Bush and lord knows who else conspired to hide the shooting from the public. I gather that a part of the evidence was someone’s decision to make the incident public by (gasp) notifying a Texas newspaper instead of the White House press corps. “What did the president know and when did they know it?” the assembled mob demanded in terms reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. Someone said it reminded her of the “levee story.” Someone else suggested the administration sat on the story to avoid the Sunday political talk shows. Someone else demanded to know if the vice president would resign.
Any group taking themselves this seriously obviously can’t imagine how hilarious and self-absorbed they look. Especially to those of us who engage in the writing racket in Chicago, where real political conspiracies grow like mushrooms after the rain. Yeah, the Bush administration made a PR mess of another “situation.” But I’m sure the eyes of the Washington press corps would have bugged even more if the administration had disclosed the shooting to them earlier, say at midnight, making them disturb their slumber or other Saturday night activities.
What would have been even more fun to watch is if someone had leaked the shooting to the Washington press corps before the administration announced it. Perceiving an even darker Bush conspiracy, the press corps would have really gone bug-eyed. And what fun that would have been for the rest of us.
Like when the corps was (and continues to be) in an uproar over suspicions (theirs) that Vice President Dick Cheney engaged in some sort of political conspiracy to hide (from them) the accidental shooting of hunting partner Harry Whittington.
But take it from a Chicago writer, that’s no political conspiracy; here it’s just everyday affairs of state. If you want a real political conspiracy, check out a recent Chicago headline: A Cook County jail guard reportedly plotted to allow six inmates to escape in order to influence an election.
For everything that happened in Watergate, and everything that President Bush supposedly hides from the public, they never—to my knowledge—tried to stage a prison break to boost their election chances.
At the risk of confusing you, here’s what allegedly happened in the Chicago jailbreak: The six, including a convicted killer, recently made a break for it by supposedly overpowering a jail guard. Now, the guard reportedly is telling investigators that he conspired to help the six escape to embarrass the incumbent sheriff, Michael Sheahan, and his chief of staff, Tom Dart, who run the jail. The conspiracy’s beneficiary was supposedly Richard Remus, one of Dart’s opponents in next month’s race for sheriff.
Confused? Wait, there’s more: The guard once was part of Sheahan’s Special Operations Response Team, which Remus formerly headed. He no longer does because he and the team were accused by the sheriff’s office in 2003 of abusing inmates.
Remus denied abusing the inmates and, in turn, accused the sheriff of his own conspiracy to smear Remus. Why? Because, Remus said, the sheriff wanted to deflect criticism from his own scandal: three escapes in a year, and a triple shooting involving a gun that was smuggled into maximum security. Probably a result of another conspiracy.
Remus denies he had anything to do with any of it. He told the Chicago Tribune, “No way in hell did any of these guys do something this stupid for a [explicative] campaign. If he [the guard] did do it, put him in the electric chair.”
So, who to believe? Chicagoans can never be sure in such cases of campaign mischief. Here’s a typical example: a candidate for, say, alderman has a brick thrown through his campaign office’s window. He accuses his opponent of the throwing the brick. But, the opponent replies with equal credibility, the candidate himself threw the brick through his own window just to get attention. So, it’s a wash.
In the present case, the unnamed guard, Remus and Sheahan could all end up accusing each other of concocting the whole thing. By the way, there’s a third candidate in the race, who’s probably regretting that he can’t somehow get in on the accusing. Also, by the way, all escapees were quickly captured.
No isolated incident, this. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan is at this moment standing trial for conspiracy and fraud. In Chicago itself, conspiracy, fraud and corruption charges are flying all over the place, leading all the way up to the city clerk. Some speculate that investigation will even ensnarl Mayor Richard M. Daley. No one would be surprised here if everyone in City Hall were involved in a conspiracy to feed at the public trough. (A recent Tribune poll shows that a big majority of Chicagoans believes that Daley knows about the graft, but a majority also believes that Daley’s doing a good job.)
Shining the light on all these conspiracies is U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who—it seems to some partisans—is involved in a political conspiracy of his own to nail Cheney’s former chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby for outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
With all these conspiracies, I’m grateful to have the guidance of the White House press corps to turn up some more. The White House press grilled presidential press secretary Scott McClellan as if he, Cheney, Bush and lord knows who else conspired to hide the shooting from the public. I gather that a part of the evidence was someone’s decision to make the incident public by (gasp) notifying a Texas newspaper instead of the White House press corps. “What did the president know and when did they know it?” the assembled mob demanded in terms reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. Someone said it reminded her of the “levee story.” Someone else suggested the administration sat on the story to avoid the Sunday political talk shows. Someone else demanded to know if the vice president would resign.
Any group taking themselves this seriously obviously can’t imagine how hilarious and self-absorbed they look. Especially to those of us who engage in the writing racket in Chicago, where real political conspiracies grow like mushrooms after the rain. Yeah, the Bush administration made a PR mess of another “situation.” But I’m sure the eyes of the Washington press corps would have bugged even more if the administration had disclosed the shooting to them earlier, say at midnight, making them disturb their slumber or other Saturday night activities.
What would have been even more fun to watch is if someone had leaked the shooting to the Washington press corps before the administration announced it. Perceiving an even darker Bush conspiracy, the press corps would have really gone bug-eyed. And what fun that would have been for the rest of us.
Domestic Stem Cells
No such thing, right? Language ought to be exact, right?
Then, why can’t professional communicators, once called journalists, continue to shortchange the language, and the public, in their “reporting” of two major issues: “domestic spying” and “opposition” to stem cell research?
Take “domestic spying,” which has become a standard media shortcut for describing the Bush administration’s program to gather intelligence about terrorists by listening to their conversations with folks in America, without a warrant. The repetitive use of “domestic spying” has successfully implanted in many minds the idea that the government is engaged in willy-nilly wiretapping of Americans talking with each other. Which it is not.
When you telephone someone in Paris, do you call that a “domestic” call, because you are calling from New York? Do you call the international operator and say, “I’d like to place a domestic call?” No, you call it an international call. Only a moron would call it an international call. By the same token, if reporters want to brand the program “spying,” then shouldn’t they more properly call it international spying?
Some reporters are guilty of the same mindless misuse of the language when they talk about the Bush administration’s (or conservatives’ or Republicans’) opposition to “stem cell research.” In fact, reporters would be hard pressed to find anyone, including the aforementioned troglodytes, who actually opposes all stem cell research. Their opposition is to one form of stem cell research, involving the use of embryonic cells. Their opposition is based on ethical, moral or religious principles, and the recognition that stem cells from other sources—such as “adult” stem cells harvested from bone marrow or umbilical cords—show greater promise.
Everyone should be capable of understanding the difference between “stem cell research” and “embryonic stem cell research.” So, you can only conclude that reporters who continue to misapply the terms “domestic spying” and “stem cell research” are either incredibly ignorant or biased. Or more terrifying, both.
Then, why can’t professional communicators, once called journalists, continue to shortchange the language, and the public, in their “reporting” of two major issues: “domestic spying” and “opposition” to stem cell research?
Take “domestic spying,” which has become a standard media shortcut for describing the Bush administration’s program to gather intelligence about terrorists by listening to their conversations with folks in America, without a warrant. The repetitive use of “domestic spying” has successfully implanted in many minds the idea that the government is engaged in willy-nilly wiretapping of Americans talking with each other. Which it is not.
When you telephone someone in Paris, do you call that a “domestic” call, because you are calling from New York? Do you call the international operator and say, “I’d like to place a domestic call?” No, you call it an international call. Only a moron would call it an international call. By the same token, if reporters want to brand the program “spying,” then shouldn’t they more properly call it international spying?
Some reporters are guilty of the same mindless misuse of the language when they talk about the Bush administration’s (or conservatives’ or Republicans’) opposition to “stem cell research.” In fact, reporters would be hard pressed to find anyone, including the aforementioned troglodytes, who actually opposes all stem cell research. Their opposition is to one form of stem cell research, involving the use of embryonic cells. Their opposition is based on ethical, moral or religious principles, and the recognition that stem cells from other sources—such as “adult” stem cells harvested from bone marrow or umbilical cords—show greater promise.
Everyone should be capable of understanding the difference between “stem cell research” and “embryonic stem cell research.” So, you can only conclude that reporters who continue to misapply the terms “domestic spying” and “stem cell research” are either incredibly ignorant or biased. Or more terrifying, both.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Ted Kennedy: The ghost of McCarthy past
Are you now or were you ever a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton? Are you now or were you ever a reader or subscriber of that group’s magazine, “Prospect?”
After watching today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, you can almost hear the ghost of the infamous Sen. Joe McCarthy pursing communists during the Red Scare paranoia of the 1950s.
McCarthy’s anti-communist hunts destroyed careers, friendship and lives. Those who had the courage to oppose him are celebrated even today.
“I have here in my hand a list of the names of …,” the demagogic McCarthy frequently declared, proclaiming that he had uncovered commies in the Army, State Department and in the shadowy niches and crannies of Washington.
For the majority of Americans who weren’t around for those horrible times, you can’t fully appreciate his loathsome behavior. Simply reading “suspect” materials or having them in your home was sufficient reason to be investigated. Any connection, however slight, with the “wrong” people or groups was enough to put you on someone’s blacklist.
I was around for the Army-McCarthy hearings, which was the senator’s vehicle for ruining lives under cover of the law. In honesty, I cannot recall since then any performance that has come anywhere close to this outrage—until witnessing the nauseating behavior today of Sen. Ted Kennedy and his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not since the 1950s, have I witnessed such a vile use of “guilt by association” for political advantage.
In the words of Joseph Welch, the Army’s counsel, after McCarthy had destroyed his latest victim: “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.”
McCarthy tried to interrupt, determined to continue on his destructive path: “Let’s, let’s…”
Welch, in words that entered political history cut him off: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
No, Kennedy and his crew don’t.
After watching today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, you can almost hear the ghost of the infamous Sen. Joe McCarthy pursing communists during the Red Scare paranoia of the 1950s.
McCarthy’s anti-communist hunts destroyed careers, friendship and lives. Those who had the courage to oppose him are celebrated even today.
“I have here in my hand a list of the names of …,” the demagogic McCarthy frequently declared, proclaiming that he had uncovered commies in the Army, State Department and in the shadowy niches and crannies of Washington.
For the majority of Americans who weren’t around for those horrible times, you can’t fully appreciate his loathsome behavior. Simply reading “suspect” materials or having them in your home was sufficient reason to be investigated. Any connection, however slight, with the “wrong” people or groups was enough to put you on someone’s blacklist.
I was around for the Army-McCarthy hearings, which was the senator’s vehicle for ruining lives under cover of the law. In honesty, I cannot recall since then any performance that has come anywhere close to this outrage—until witnessing the nauseating behavior today of Sen. Ted Kennedy and his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not since the 1950s, have I witnessed such a vile use of “guilt by association” for political advantage.
In the words of Joseph Welch, the Army’s counsel, after McCarthy had destroyed his latest victim: “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.”
McCarthy tried to interrupt, determined to continue on his destructive path: “Let’s, let’s…”
Welch, in words that entered political history cut him off: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
No, Kennedy and his crew don’t.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Losing our heads over bogus claims
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune, January 9, 2006
It might make a good horror movie: global avian flu meets global warming. Sort of like King Kong meets Godzilla.
We are warned that at least one of these global catastrophes surely will get us. Likely both. On this, we have the word of the infallible: scientists, journalists and activists whose jobs are to knock ignorance and complacency out of us. The only question is which threat will get us first: a worldwide influenza pandemic spread by birds, or Earth flambe brought on by America's greedy refusal to cut greenhouse gases.
Maybe the flu and global warming alarms are warranted. But notwithstanding claims of certitude by our minders, how is a public, made skeptical by so many false warnings and promises, to know if they are right? Can we trust every warning, or promise of a cure, that's made?
Let's ask the renowned South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, who created, with a hyperventilating media, a worldwide sensation by fabricating tailored embryonic stem cells that were supposed to cure, well, just about everything. Or maybe we shouldn't bother him; he's momentarily busy dodging convincing charges that his pioneering "successes" were fake.
This one is on science, because Hwang's work was "peer reviewed," giving it the scientific stamp of approval. But the media don't entirely escape blame; they went wild publishing the claims, as they have typically hyped every supposed "advance" in embryonic stem cell research. In fact, there are few of them and, worse, the media have more or less irresponsibly ignored the more tangible and substantial advances by less controversial "adult" stem cell therapy.
So whom can we trust?
Maybe this can help. It's time for 2005's "Biggest Science Reporting Flubs," awarded by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. STATS is a Washington-based think tank that tracks scientifically misleading myths and rumors and annually highlights the worst examples the media inflict on the public. They are:
1. Meth mania: The media's flipping out over "America's most dangerous drug" is challenged by research showing that methamphetamine use among high school students has declined 28 percent in the last five years, that meth users only slightly outnumber crack users and that meth addicts recover at the same rate as other drug addicts.
2. Poison popcorn: ABC's "Good Morning America" blew it with its "exclusive" investigation claiming that the Food and Drug Administration has opened a probe into the supposed cancer risks of a chemical whose presence is three times the recommended FDA levels in popcorn bags, fast-food boxes and candy wrappers. But there's no FDA investigation, the agency doesn't have recommended levels and such chemicals are not considered unsafe. Oops.
3. Gender-bending babies: USA Today reported a study that allegedly linked phthalates--a family of chemicals that make plastic flexible--to deformities in male infants. After the report panicked parents nationwide, an expert government panel was unable to validate the "findings." The media, of course, ignored the report.
4. Dazed and confused teens: A new "identity disorder" has descended on teens increasingly using drugs, booze and sex to escape reality, proclaimed The New York Times. Except that a University of Michigan long-term study found teens actually are doing less of the bad behaviors.
5. French fry fright: A California lawsuit demanding McDonald's and Frito-Lay warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, allegedly linked to cancer and birth defects, inspired a wave of media hysteria. Which overlooked a major study that found that acrylamide might lower, not raise, cancer rates.
6. Toothpaste terror: Supermarkets began pulling toothpaste off their shelves after panicky reports that an anti-bacterial ingredient in it could lead to depression, liver problems and cancer. The American Dental Society responded that the effect occurred experimentally only when the ingredient was placed in pure form in very hot and heavily chlorinated water.
7. Media gorge on obesity. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report suggesting that a little extra weight may not always be dangerous--which the media trumpeted as proof that the `food police' were dieting us to death. But some of the results were statistically insignificant, and even the CDC didn't claim they were conclusive."
It's not my contention that the number of misreported or overly hyped warnings outnumber the legitimate ones. But how many are too many?
----------
Email: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Chicago Tribune, January 9, 2006
It might make a good horror movie: global avian flu meets global warming. Sort of like King Kong meets Godzilla.
We are warned that at least one of these global catastrophes surely will get us. Likely both. On this, we have the word of the infallible: scientists, journalists and activists whose jobs are to knock ignorance and complacency out of us. The only question is which threat will get us first: a worldwide influenza pandemic spread by birds, or Earth flambe brought on by America's greedy refusal to cut greenhouse gases.
Maybe the flu and global warming alarms are warranted. But notwithstanding claims of certitude by our minders, how is a public, made skeptical by so many false warnings and promises, to know if they are right? Can we trust every warning, or promise of a cure, that's made?
Let's ask the renowned South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, who created, with a hyperventilating media, a worldwide sensation by fabricating tailored embryonic stem cells that were supposed to cure, well, just about everything. Or maybe we shouldn't bother him; he's momentarily busy dodging convincing charges that his pioneering "successes" were fake.
This one is on science, because Hwang's work was "peer reviewed," giving it the scientific stamp of approval. But the media don't entirely escape blame; they went wild publishing the claims, as they have typically hyped every supposed "advance" in embryonic stem cell research. In fact, there are few of them and, worse, the media have more or less irresponsibly ignored the more tangible and substantial advances by less controversial "adult" stem cell therapy.
So whom can we trust?
Maybe this can help. It's time for 2005's "Biggest Science Reporting Flubs," awarded by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. STATS is a Washington-based think tank that tracks scientifically misleading myths and rumors and annually highlights the worst examples the media inflict on the public. They are:
1. Meth mania: The media's flipping out over "America's most dangerous drug" is challenged by research showing that methamphetamine use among high school students has declined 28 percent in the last five years, that meth users only slightly outnumber crack users and that meth addicts recover at the same rate as other drug addicts.
2. Poison popcorn: ABC's "Good Morning America" blew it with its "exclusive" investigation claiming that the Food and Drug Administration has opened a probe into the supposed cancer risks of a chemical whose presence is three times the recommended FDA levels in popcorn bags, fast-food boxes and candy wrappers. But there's no FDA investigation, the agency doesn't have recommended levels and such chemicals are not considered unsafe. Oops.
3. Gender-bending babies: USA Today reported a study that allegedly linked phthalates--a family of chemicals that make plastic flexible--to deformities in male infants. After the report panicked parents nationwide, an expert government panel was unable to validate the "findings." The media, of course, ignored the report.
4. Dazed and confused teens: A new "identity disorder" has descended on teens increasingly using drugs, booze and sex to escape reality, proclaimed The New York Times. Except that a University of Michigan long-term study found teens actually are doing less of the bad behaviors.
5. French fry fright: A California lawsuit demanding McDonald's and Frito-Lay warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, allegedly linked to cancer and birth defects, inspired a wave of media hysteria. Which overlooked a major study that found that acrylamide might lower, not raise, cancer rates.
6. Toothpaste terror: Supermarkets began pulling toothpaste off their shelves after panicky reports that an anti-bacterial ingredient in it could lead to depression, liver problems and cancer. The American Dental Society responded that the effect occurred experimentally only when the ingredient was placed in pure form in very hot and heavily chlorinated water.
7. Media gorge on obesity. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report suggesting that a little extra weight may not always be dangerous--which the media trumpeted as proof that the `food police' were dieting us to death. But some of the results were statistically insignificant, and even the CDC didn't claim they were conclusive."
It's not my contention that the number of misreported or overly hyped warnings outnumber the legitimate ones. But how many are too many?
----------
Email: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Thursday, January 05, 2006
It's dark in here.
Can anyone explain why the investigators on CSI never turn on the lights when they're at an in-door crime scene? Are they stupid, or do they just like to stumble around in the dark?
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Liberal hypocrisy
Hard lesson about endangering lives
For all of those hypocrites intent on ferreting out traitors
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune, January 2, 2006
"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I've seen in all my years of government." --Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), regarding an intelligence leak that has endangered national security.
The leak, Schumer said, has "undermined our national security," and if the facts are true, "it is clear that a crime has been committed."
Schumer was not alone. Other senators, including Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), lined up to demand that the Bush administration, Congress and Dick Tracy's crime stoppers ferret out the traitor and hand him over for caning. Because of this kind of leak, they warned, someone could die.
But the leak that drew their foregoing ire wasn't the one about the warrantless wiretapping of people in America who chat with Al Qaeda. It was directed at whoever disclosed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, in an alleged White House conspiracy to damage the reputations of the opponents of the Iraq war. Among the many things this might tell us is that Schumer doesn't regard preventing another terrorist
attack to be as important as a Plame outing.
This kind of hypocrisy and selective outrage isn't new to either party: Republicans didn't like special prosecutors, independent counsels and the like when they were probing Republican scandals, such as Watergate and Iran-contra. Some decided they liked them after all when they went after President Bill Clinton. Now they don't like them again. And vice versa for Democrats.
But one party's hypocrisy doesn't cancel another's. Any leak that breaks the law and endangers national security is grievously wrong. I said so in an October 2003 column criticizing the Bush administration for stalling an investigation of the Plame leak. But now a strange silence has overcome Democrats and much of the media. From them there are no more, as far as I can tell, passionate denunciations of this leak. No more letters to the U.S. attorney general urging an investigation; no more calls for congressional hearings; no more berating journalists for being stooges of leakers; no more allegations of criminality. The only calls to be heard from Democrats are for congressional hearings on the surveillance program, hearings that our enemies will find useful.
From this, we must assume that they are more worried about risking the life of one CIA agent than of a couple of hundred million Americans.
Among them is Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who put on one whale of an arm-waving portrayal of Foghorn Leghorn on the Senate floor. In a statement later, Byrd slipped out of his comic role by irresponsibly accusing President Bush of assuming "unchecked power" that is "reserved only for kings and potentates."
Other Democrats routinely refer to the surveillance as if it were randomly directed at "Americans," without mentioning that the surveillance, as far as we know, is of people who are confabbing with Al Qaeda. This crucial omission is the result of either ignorance or demagoguery. Some in the media, in turn, routinely allow Democrats to get away with this. Or grotesquely compare wiretapping with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Or praise the New York Times for its wonderful "scoop," forgetting all about the thousands of stories they did casting a dark shadow on Bush for the Plame leak.
The hysteria generated by partisans and media has overcome reason, facts and the law. Never mind that John Schmidt, associate attorney general under Clinton, explained in an informative Chicago Tribune op-ed piece why Bush has the legal and constitutional authority to approve the taps. That "every president since FISA's [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] passage has asserted that he retained the power to go beyond the act's terms." Never mind that other legal scholars, on a non-partisan basis, have said that whatever FISA says, the president retains that power under the Constitution. That four federal appeals courts have upheld the president's power to wiretap to gain foreign intelligence--which the present case is about--without warrant.
Reputable scholars, lawyers and judges all agree that this issue is complex, with finely tuned arguments and complicated precedents on both sides. None of them is so reckless as the Byrds and media commentators who state, without reflection and with partisan purpose, that such wiretaps are illegal and unconstitutional.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
For all of those hypocrites intent on ferreting out traitors
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune, January 2, 2006
"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I've seen in all my years of government." --Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), regarding an intelligence leak that has endangered national security.
The leak, Schumer said, has "undermined our national security," and if the facts are true, "it is clear that a crime has been committed."
Schumer was not alone. Other senators, including Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), lined up to demand that the Bush administration, Congress and Dick Tracy's crime stoppers ferret out the traitor and hand him over for caning. Because of this kind of leak, they warned, someone could die.
But the leak that drew their foregoing ire wasn't the one about the warrantless wiretapping of people in America who chat with Al Qaeda. It was directed at whoever disclosed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, in an alleged White House conspiracy to damage the reputations of the opponents of the Iraq war. Among the many things this might tell us is that Schumer doesn't regard preventing another terrorist
attack to be as important as a Plame outing.
This kind of hypocrisy and selective outrage isn't new to either party: Republicans didn't like special prosecutors, independent counsels and the like when they were probing Republican scandals, such as Watergate and Iran-contra. Some decided they liked them after all when they went after President Bill Clinton. Now they don't like them again. And vice versa for Democrats.
But one party's hypocrisy doesn't cancel another's. Any leak that breaks the law and endangers national security is grievously wrong. I said so in an October 2003 column criticizing the Bush administration for stalling an investigation of the Plame leak. But now a strange silence has overcome Democrats and much of the media. From them there are no more, as far as I can tell, passionate denunciations of this leak. No more letters to the U.S. attorney general urging an investigation; no more calls for congressional hearings; no more berating journalists for being stooges of leakers; no more allegations of criminality. The only calls to be heard from Democrats are for congressional hearings on the surveillance program, hearings that our enemies will find useful.
From this, we must assume that they are more worried about risking the life of one CIA agent than of a couple of hundred million Americans.
Among them is Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who put on one whale of an arm-waving portrayal of Foghorn Leghorn on the Senate floor. In a statement later, Byrd slipped out of his comic role by irresponsibly accusing President Bush of assuming "unchecked power" that is "reserved only for kings and potentates."
Other Democrats routinely refer to the surveillance as if it were randomly directed at "Americans," without mentioning that the surveillance, as far as we know, is of people who are confabbing with Al Qaeda. This crucial omission is the result of either ignorance or demagoguery. Some in the media, in turn, routinely allow Democrats to get away with this. Or grotesquely compare wiretapping with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Or praise the New York Times for its wonderful "scoop," forgetting all about the thousands of stories they did casting a dark shadow on Bush for the Plame leak.
The hysteria generated by partisans and media has overcome reason, facts and the law. Never mind that John Schmidt, associate attorney general under Clinton, explained in an informative Chicago Tribune op-ed piece why Bush has the legal and constitutional authority to approve the taps. That "every president since FISA's [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] passage has asserted that he retained the power to go beyond the act's terms." Never mind that other legal scholars, on a non-partisan basis, have said that whatever FISA says, the president retains that power under the Constitution. That four federal appeals courts have upheld the president's power to wiretap to gain foreign intelligence--which the present case is about--without warrant.
Reputable scholars, lawyers and judges all agree that this issue is complex, with finely tuned arguments and complicated precedents on both sides. None of them is so reckless as the Byrds and media commentators who state, without reflection and with partisan purpose, that such wiretaps are illegal and unconstitutional.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Intelligent Design and Science
What's so scary about intelligent design?
By Dennis Byrne,
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 2005
Here is a question for scientists who ridicule intelligent design, yet say they believe in God: When you pray, is it to a God who just sat around and watched the universe spring into existence all by itself?
Or did God give himself something to do, and thus, here we are?
It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us. Scientists, of course, would vehemently deny that they are in any way trying to tell people of faith what kind of God they should believe in. But they need to honestly admit that this battle between evolution and intelligent design is a two-way street:
People of faith should not be directing scientists how to do their work and scientists ought to be more thoughtful and respectful about how their work complicates or complements the world of belief. Science as well as theology, philosophy and religion have legitimate claims to exploring and discovering answers to the Big Question: How did we get here, and why?
Some things science just can't explain. Such as the mystery of how a perfect creator turned himself into one of his less-than perfect creations--a man--but still remained perfect. Based on faith alone, millions of people celebrate that inexplicable miracle on Christmas.
Scientists, in fact, can't explain a lot of things, and that's no knock on scientists. It's because a lot of answers cannot meet the scientific standards of observation, experimentation, replication and verification. But it's also no reason that any subject of scientific interest cannot also be explored by theology, philosophy and religion. Yet the fight between intelligent design and evolution is popularly framed as an effort by theologians, philosophers and the faithful to impose their unscientific conclusions on science. Perhaps a few dominators do, but most of us do feel the need to reconcile what science and faith tell us--about our world and us.
The reality today is that when theology, philosophy or religion dares to examine the Big Question, its practitioners find themselves increasingly bumping heads with scientific claims of exclusive competence. This is wrong. Neither science nor theology has the right to tell the other to butt out of this quest. In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.
Centuries ago, science on one hand and philosophy, theology and religion on the other were separated--to the relief of those who correctly believed that the church had gone too far in using dogma to block scientific advances. Exploring reality through the prism of science requires one form of knowledge, while discovering and refining our understanding of God and his presence in the world require another. Now that pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point that science and philosophy, and
theology and religion are regarded, by some, as mortal enemies. The idea of unified knowledge has come on hard times. Few people are exploring how the two approaches can help each other. That science is rushing toward a unified theory that "explains everything" is not a reason to abandon non-scientific ways to approach a comprehensive understanding of everything.
This requires an admission that there is a higher level of knowledge beyond science alone or theology alone. Vast areas of knowledge are open to those who realize that just as a branch of physics examines the "first principle of everything," so does metaphysics. Or that cosmology and theology are on the same coin,
just on different sides.
We should approach the Big Question with awe and humility, not ridicule and self-certainty. With excitement and optimism, instead of division and the kind of cynicism that rejects the possibility of parallel or complementary explanations.
To leave students without a perspective of how philosophy, theology and religion help bring us to an understanding of "all things," is as wrong as denying students the understanding that science brings.
Philosophers and theologians may--must, actually--rigorously examine the scientific theory that random chance explains everything. A denial of that right and responsibility rises from the same spirit of arrogant certitude that haunted Galileo.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
By Dennis Byrne,
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 2005
Here is a question for scientists who ridicule intelligent design, yet say they believe in God: When you pray, is it to a God who just sat around and watched the universe spring into existence all by itself?
Or did God give himself something to do, and thus, here we are?
It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us. Scientists, of course, would vehemently deny that they are in any way trying to tell people of faith what kind of God they should believe in. But they need to honestly admit that this battle between evolution and intelligent design is a two-way street:
People of faith should not be directing scientists how to do their work and scientists ought to be more thoughtful and respectful about how their work complicates or complements the world of belief. Science as well as theology, philosophy and religion have legitimate claims to exploring and discovering answers to the Big Question: How did we get here, and why?
Some things science just can't explain. Such as the mystery of how a perfect creator turned himself into one of his less-than perfect creations--a man--but still remained perfect. Based on faith alone, millions of people celebrate that inexplicable miracle on Christmas.
Scientists, in fact, can't explain a lot of things, and that's no knock on scientists. It's because a lot of answers cannot meet the scientific standards of observation, experimentation, replication and verification. But it's also no reason that any subject of scientific interest cannot also be explored by theology, philosophy and religion. Yet the fight between intelligent design and evolution is popularly framed as an effort by theologians, philosophers and the faithful to impose their unscientific conclusions on science. Perhaps a few dominators do, but most of us do feel the need to reconcile what science and faith tell us--about our world and us.
The reality today is that when theology, philosophy or religion dares to examine the Big Question, its practitioners find themselves increasingly bumping heads with scientific claims of exclusive competence. This is wrong. Neither science nor theology has the right to tell the other to butt out of this quest. In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.
Centuries ago, science on one hand and philosophy, theology and religion on the other were separated--to the relief of those who correctly believed that the church had gone too far in using dogma to block scientific advances. Exploring reality through the prism of science requires one form of knowledge, while discovering and refining our understanding of God and his presence in the world require another. Now that pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point that science and philosophy, and
theology and religion are regarded, by some, as mortal enemies. The idea of unified knowledge has come on hard times. Few people are exploring how the two approaches can help each other. That science is rushing toward a unified theory that "explains everything" is not a reason to abandon non-scientific ways to approach a comprehensive understanding of everything.
This requires an admission that there is a higher level of knowledge beyond science alone or theology alone. Vast areas of knowledge are open to those who realize that just as a branch of physics examines the "first principle of everything," so does metaphysics. Or that cosmology and theology are on the same coin,
just on different sides.
We should approach the Big Question with awe and humility, not ridicule and self-certainty. With excitement and optimism, instead of division and the kind of cynicism that rejects the possibility of parallel or complementary explanations.
To leave students without a perspective of how philosophy, theology and religion help bring us to an understanding of "all things," is as wrong as denying students the understanding that science brings.
Philosophers and theologians may--must, actually--rigorously examine the scientific theory that random chance explains everything. A denial of that right and responsibility rises from the same spirit of arrogant certitude that haunted Galileo.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Take a bow.
Just saw a Green Bay Packer defensive back flex his muscles for the crowd after knocking the stuffing out of a Seattle receiver. The only problem: the receiver caught a pass for the first down. This has gotten out of hand: A defender strutting his stuff like he had just done something great, when the other team advanced the ball. What is it with these jamokes?
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Profiling the Texas Barbarian
Paul Berman, writing in the Nov. 28 & Dec. 5 New Republic (“The Anti-Anti-Americans”) puts his finger on why the mention of President George W. Bush sends his haters here and in Europe rushing to the vomitorium.
“…[E]verything about the new president, each strange tic and motion—the street thug’s swagger, the inability to compose his face into a civil expression, the problem with alcohol, the apparent lack of formal education, and so forth—conjured in Europe the worst of clichés about Texas barbarism.”
“…[E]verything about the new president, each strange tic and motion—the street thug’s swagger, the inability to compose his face into a civil expression, the problem with alcohol, the apparent lack of formal education, and so forth—conjured in Europe the worst of clichés about Texas barbarism.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)