By Dennis Byrne
PoliticalMavens.com
If we’re to have an intelligent and informed discussion about U.S. options in Iraq, House Speaker (D-Cal.) will need to speak more precise English.“There is complete chaos now,” she replied to CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer on Sunday’s “Face the Nation” when he tried to ask if she were worried about what might happen to Iraq if U.S. troops started moving out in four to six months, as she wants.
The point here isn’t so much her redundancy—the definition of chaos is “complete disorder,” so “chaos” should suffice. It’s like newscasters who are in the habit of saying they are bringing you the “very latest” news when putting “very” in front of latest, doesn’t make it any more recent. It’s either the latest or not. My point is larger: the habit of war opponents to engage in such hyperbole, if not distortions.
Iraq is far from chaos. If Iraq were in chaos, there would be anarchy. No one would have electricity or water. There would be no government. No one would be safe. Everyone would be shooting at everyone else.
Continue reading at PoliticalMavens
Subscribe To The Barbershop.
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Friday, January 05, 2007
Hate Mail
By Dennis Byrne
Human Events
How ironic that all the tributes to Gerald Ford, who may be, as we are now discovering, the nicest guy ever to be an American president, have stirred a few of the bottom feeders into action.
Specifically, they’re carping about no mail being delivered Tuesday as part of the national day of mourning for the former President, not so much because they miss their mail, but because they don’t believe that Ford is worthy of the honor. Or that it would only occur to the uberidiot, President Bush, to close the post office for the likes of Ford.
Thanks to the Internet, we can taste for ourselves, the sludge-like thoughts of folks who don’t like Bush because he’s “divisive,” but take the opportunity to spew a few of their own hateful thoughts about the man.
Continue reading at Human Events
Human Events
How ironic that all the tributes to Gerald Ford, who may be, as we are now discovering, the nicest guy ever to be an American president, have stirred a few of the bottom feeders into action.
Specifically, they’re carping about no mail being delivered Tuesday as part of the national day of mourning for the former President, not so much because they miss their mail, but because they don’t believe that Ford is worthy of the honor. Or that it would only occur to the uberidiot, President Bush, to close the post office for the likes of Ford.
Thanks to the Internet, we can taste for ourselves, the sludge-like thoughts of folks who don’t like Bush because he’s “divisive,” but take the opportunity to spew a few of their own hateful thoughts about the man.
Continue reading at Human Events
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Barack Obama in Gerald Ford's Shadow
By Dennis Byrne
RealClearPolitics
Is it possible to explain the mystifying public enchantment with putative presidential candidate Barack Obama in light of the virtues so lovingly and lyrically attributed to President Gerald R. Ford?
America, exhausted from bitter partisan battles, extremist politics, consuming power-lust and all around nastiness, now hungers--we're told--for a government graced with the decency, honesty, compassion, moderation and neighborliness of a Gerald Ford. A politician's political philosophy and policy positions are not as important as his personal qualities. Nobility transcends all. Give us quietude, give us a break.
Everyone, it seems, is looking for a "boy scout"--for the moment no longer a pejorative term applied to a politician who seems too naïve, too goody-goody, but someone, as the name has been repeatedly applied to Ford, of sterling character.
Possibly this explains the peculiar lack of interest by an adoring public and media in Obama's political beliefs and voting record. Obama has established himself with an uplifting convention speech, a pair of books self-describing his down-to-earth values and his sincerity. And media that either choose to, or is afraid to, tarnish this image with anything approaching a skin-deep analysis of what he would actually do as president. Standing alone is the assumption that he would somehow "bring us together."
How, exactly, would Obama do that, other than flash his attractive smile? What is there in his past that would indicate superb unifying powers? No answers have come from the Washington and political press corps, whose labors have become arid of serious political analysis.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
RealClearPolitics
Is it possible to explain the mystifying public enchantment with putative presidential candidate Barack Obama in light of the virtues so lovingly and lyrically attributed to President Gerald R. Ford?
America, exhausted from bitter partisan battles, extremist politics, consuming power-lust and all around nastiness, now hungers--we're told--for a government graced with the decency, honesty, compassion, moderation and neighborliness of a Gerald Ford. A politician's political philosophy and policy positions are not as important as his personal qualities. Nobility transcends all. Give us quietude, give us a break.
Everyone, it seems, is looking for a "boy scout"--for the moment no longer a pejorative term applied to a politician who seems too naïve, too goody-goody, but someone, as the name has been repeatedly applied to Ford, of sterling character.
Possibly this explains the peculiar lack of interest by an adoring public and media in Obama's political beliefs and voting record. Obama has established himself with an uplifting convention speech, a pair of books self-describing his down-to-earth values and his sincerity. And media that either choose to, or is afraid to, tarnish this image with anything approaching a skin-deep analysis of what he would actually do as president. Standing alone is the assumption that he would somehow "bring us together."
How, exactly, would Obama do that, other than flash his attractive smile? What is there in his past that would indicate superb unifying powers? No answers have come from the Washington and political press corps, whose labors have become arid of serious political analysis.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
Monday, January 01, 2007
Hey, did you hear the story about ...
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Hey, where did all those hurricanes go? You know, the ones that were supposed to be proof that the human race is to blame for global warming?
We were warned by the media--actually it was ground into our consciousness--that in comparison to the devastating 2005 hurricane season, the worst was yet to come. The 2006 season was to be "distressingly like" 2005 (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) and "another tempestuous one" (San Francisco Chronicle), which would produce more Katrinas (CBS' "The Early Show.") Turns out that there were fewer and less damaging hurricanes.
Of course, one year of reduced hurricane activity doesn't prove anything, just as one year of heightened activity didn't either, but that didn't stop a media panic attack. It was so wrong that it earned second place on the new Top 10 Dubious Data Awards list, issued annually by the Statistical Assessment Service, which describes itself as a non-profit, non-partisan think tank. The organization seeks to correct media misinformation resulting from bad science, politics or a simple lack of information or knowledge. STATS concluded that the "hurricane blowhards" who engaged in "media doom-mongering" have appropriately "gone with the wind."
I would have given them first prize, until I saw the lunacy that got STATS' top award: The Dec. 13 issue of Time magazine that warned parents to throw out all pacifiers, teethers, sippy cups and vinyl toys to avoid poisoning their children with phthalates, a family of chemicals that makes plastics flexible. "This Grinch-like recommendation came despite the fact that phthalates in toys have been cleared for children's use by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the European Union's Institute for Health and Consumer Protection," STATS said. Never let facts stand in the way of a "good" story.
The rest of the Top 10:
Girls not as wild as I hoped I: The media gushed over an AP report that "all but confirm[ed] what goes on in those `Girls Gone Wild' spring-break videos:" young women blacking out from drinking, having sex with more than one partner and so forth. Actually, the American Medical Association study was a non-random Internet poll of volunteers, of which only 27 percent had been on spring break.
Girls not as wild as I hoped II: The Wall Street Journal misreported that teenage girls increased alcohol consumption more than 30 percent from 1999 to 2004. The study's mistake was that it treated, for example, a 6-ounce glass of alcohol the same as an ounce of alcohol mixed with 5 ounces of orange juice. U.S. government studies show that binge drinking by college-age women has remained steady since 1980 and daily drinking has been declining since 2002.
More crocked booze news: Forbes and The New York Times bit on a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, which claimed that the alcohol industry reaped almost $50 billion, or half its revenue, from underage drinkers. To buy that, you have to believe that teen drinkers consume as much as all adult drinkers combined, and that half of all teens consume more than 1,000 drinks a year, or almost three daily.
Fishy new car smell: The Los Angles Times reported that the interior smell consisted of "dangerous" chemicals "outgassed" from polyvinylchlorides. The report was based on the claims of an environmental group that hadn't even bothered to measure how much of the chemicals had actually been outgassed in the cars it tested.
Miami vs. Baghdad: The Miami Herald and other American media went wild with filmmaker George Gittoes' statement that life is "much worse in Miami than Baghdad." Just a short glance at murder and crime statistics makes Gittoes and those who gave him credence look foolish.
An overly convenient poll: The AP announced that "the nation's top climate scientists are giving `An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy." Please. Of the "more than 100" climate researchers the AP contacted, only 19 had seen the movie or read the book.
The kids are all right: NBC's "Today" show claimed the number of missing American children had risen 44 percent since 1982. Justice Department data, however, showed no increase during that period.
This is your brain on porn: To support its claim that pornography causes physical harm, ABC's main expert was an automobile executive.
As stupefying as these mistakes were, don't expect to see the corrections get as much media attention as did the original stories. Even though the corrections make for more interesting reading, and demonstrate why the public has such low opinion of those of us in the media.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune
Hey, where did all those hurricanes go? You know, the ones that were supposed to be proof that the human race is to blame for global warming?
We were warned by the media--actually it was ground into our consciousness--that in comparison to the devastating 2005 hurricane season, the worst was yet to come. The 2006 season was to be "distressingly like" 2005 (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) and "another tempestuous one" (San Francisco Chronicle), which would produce more Katrinas (CBS' "The Early Show.") Turns out that there were fewer and less damaging hurricanes.
Of course, one year of reduced hurricane activity doesn't prove anything, just as one year of heightened activity didn't either, but that didn't stop a media panic attack. It was so wrong that it earned second place on the new Top 10 Dubious Data Awards list, issued annually by the Statistical Assessment Service, which describes itself as a non-profit, non-partisan think tank. The organization seeks to correct media misinformation resulting from bad science, politics or a simple lack of information or knowledge. STATS concluded that the "hurricane blowhards" who engaged in "media doom-mongering" have appropriately "gone with the wind."
I would have given them first prize, until I saw the lunacy that got STATS' top award: The Dec. 13 issue of Time magazine that warned parents to throw out all pacifiers, teethers, sippy cups and vinyl toys to avoid poisoning their children with phthalates, a family of chemicals that makes plastics flexible. "This Grinch-like recommendation came despite the fact that phthalates in toys have been cleared for children's use by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the European Union's Institute for Health and Consumer Protection," STATS said. Never let facts stand in the way of a "good" story.
The rest of the Top 10:
Girls not as wild as I hoped I: The media gushed over an AP report that "all but confirm[ed] what goes on in those `Girls Gone Wild' spring-break videos:" young women blacking out from drinking, having sex with more than one partner and so forth. Actually, the American Medical Association study was a non-random Internet poll of volunteers, of which only 27 percent had been on spring break.
Girls not as wild as I hoped II: The Wall Street Journal misreported that teenage girls increased alcohol consumption more than 30 percent from 1999 to 2004. The study's mistake was that it treated, for example, a 6-ounce glass of alcohol the same as an ounce of alcohol mixed with 5 ounces of orange juice. U.S. government studies show that binge drinking by college-age women has remained steady since 1980 and daily drinking has been declining since 2002.
More crocked booze news: Forbes and The New York Times bit on a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, which claimed that the alcohol industry reaped almost $50 billion, or half its revenue, from underage drinkers. To buy that, you have to believe that teen drinkers consume as much as all adult drinkers combined, and that half of all teens consume more than 1,000 drinks a year, or almost three daily.
Fishy new car smell: The Los Angles Times reported that the interior smell consisted of "dangerous" chemicals "outgassed" from polyvinylchlorides. The report was based on the claims of an environmental group that hadn't even bothered to measure how much of the chemicals had actually been outgassed in the cars it tested.
Miami vs. Baghdad: The Miami Herald and other American media went wild with filmmaker George Gittoes' statement that life is "much worse in Miami than Baghdad." Just a short glance at murder and crime statistics makes Gittoes and those who gave him credence look foolish.
An overly convenient poll: The AP announced that "the nation's top climate scientists are giving `An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy." Please. Of the "more than 100" climate researchers the AP contacted, only 19 had seen the movie or read the book.
The kids are all right: NBC's "Today" show claimed the number of missing American children had risen 44 percent since 1982. Justice Department data, however, showed no increase during that period.
This is your brain on porn: To support its claim that pornography causes physical harm, ABC's main expert was an automobile executive.
As stupefying as these mistakes were, don't expect to see the corrections get as much media attention as did the original stories. Even though the corrections make for more interesting reading, and demonstrate why the public has such low opinion of those of us in the media.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Monday, December 25, 2006
`Childize' a merry Christmas
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
It's Christmas morning and time to hit the pause button, thank God.
Why does a holiday celebrated for peace and goodwill to all mankind create such anxiety, exhaustion, discord and anger?
Some secularists despise how it constantly creeps back into the public view, as if it were a bug that couldn't be stomped. Some Christians loathe what they believe it has become today in America, a profane bacchanal of greed and avarice. Some parents wear themselves down to a nub, trying to make things perfect for their children. Some children think they don't--a smaller number of whom actually don't--get their share. Some folks are offended that the Christians usurped a pagan holiday dedicated to the return of the sun for a celebration of the appearance of the Son.
Peace? Don't count on it. This afternoon, you have to clean up the dinner plates and a few days later take down the tree. Goodwill? Well, at least for the lawyers who make a mint, serving opposing sides of the Christmas wars who regard their antagonists with anything but goodwill.
Every year we bemoan Christmas. Every year we say it gets worse. Every year we try to remind ourselves what it's all about.
So, let's do it again. Do not read this standing up. Sit. Let normal respiration reassert itself, tight muscles unknot and the heart rate descend.
Now what?
Jeez, I don't know; whaddya expect? It's hard enough for me to relax without doing it for you too. But, here's what I do:
Childize (pronounced child eyes). Ize is a suffix, meaning to make or become. For children, Christmas is the whole package. At once, without contradiction, it is a religious holiday and a secular holiday. Days to flood the senses with things new, mystifying, warm, compassionate, hopeful and fun. Children don't segment Christmas into secular and religious, giving and receiving.
It's all one vast, amazing, deeply remembered sequence of events that fills heads with special memories, very private memories.
I've been blessed with three generations to childize Christmas: mine, my children's and now my granddaughters'. When I childize, I'm back on North Maplewood Avenue , trying to figure out how Santa Claus on Christmas Eve could make it down a fake, chimney-less fireplace in our two-flat with a big load of toys, while my brother and sister were holed up in the kitchen, speculating about wonders to come. And I'm wondering later why Santa would give me a tricycle whose front wheel would fall off. (I eventually learned about World War II shortages and grew to appreciate how my folks must have looked high and low to find a second-hand trike in any kind of shape). Or years later, in Northfield, walking home after serving midnight mass, through a foot of fluffy, unplowed snow, the night so quiet you could almost hear the snow falling, so snug and comforting it almost felt warm. As I turned into our driveway, I felt a tug of regret, as if I could keep walking forever, but knowing that it would become one of the most peaceful and enduring memories of my life. One that, until now, I've shared with no one.
At my brother Bill's annual Rotary children's Christmas party, it was Leia, 4 and the second oldest, who ratted out Santa. "Grandpa, that's not really Santa," she whispered after the party. How do you know? She looked at me as if no one could believe that beard. I pulled out that old fallback about Santa's helpers. Lisa, 5, knew better: "It was too Santa." I can imagine their later conversations on the matter.
Ava, dealing with a bout of the terrible twos, fussed her way through lunch until the wonderful Glenbrook North High School Express choir caught her eyes and ears. Moving closer to Uncle Bill, she soon was placidly resting her head on and then climbing onto his lap, a spontaneous and tranquil moment that touched us all, one that she was too young to remember. Sadly, we won't be out east this year to see our newest granddaughter, Julia, but when we were there on Thanksgiving, we saw her excitement at new sights.
Now we'll be picturing her bolting and bobbing in surprise at every new color and shape she sees. She's too young to remember; too bad none of us does, either.
And so, why are you sitting there reading a newspaper on Christmas?
Go find someone to childize; go see someone creating life's most precious memories. Oh, and Merry Christmas.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune
It's Christmas morning and time to hit the pause button, thank God.
Why does a holiday celebrated for peace and goodwill to all mankind create such anxiety, exhaustion, discord and anger?
Some secularists despise how it constantly creeps back into the public view, as if it were a bug that couldn't be stomped. Some Christians loathe what they believe it has become today in America, a profane bacchanal of greed and avarice. Some parents wear themselves down to a nub, trying to make things perfect for their children. Some children think they don't--a smaller number of whom actually don't--get their share. Some folks are offended that the Christians usurped a pagan holiday dedicated to the return of the sun for a celebration of the appearance of the Son.
Peace? Don't count on it. This afternoon, you have to clean up the dinner plates and a few days later take down the tree. Goodwill? Well, at least for the lawyers who make a mint, serving opposing sides of the Christmas wars who regard their antagonists with anything but goodwill.
Every year we bemoan Christmas. Every year we say it gets worse. Every year we try to remind ourselves what it's all about.
So, let's do it again. Do not read this standing up. Sit. Let normal respiration reassert itself, tight muscles unknot and the heart rate descend.
Now what?
Jeez, I don't know; whaddya expect? It's hard enough for me to relax without doing it for you too. But, here's what I do:
Childize (pronounced child eyes). Ize is a suffix, meaning to make or become. For children, Christmas is the whole package. At once, without contradiction, it is a religious holiday and a secular holiday. Days to flood the senses with things new, mystifying, warm, compassionate, hopeful and fun. Children don't segment Christmas into secular and religious, giving and receiving.
It's all one vast, amazing, deeply remembered sequence of events that fills heads with special memories, very private memories.
I've been blessed with three generations to childize Christmas: mine, my children's and now my granddaughters'. When I childize, I'm back on North Maplewood Avenue , trying to figure out how Santa Claus on Christmas Eve could make it down a fake, chimney-less fireplace in our two-flat with a big load of toys, while my brother and sister were holed up in the kitchen, speculating about wonders to come. And I'm wondering later why Santa would give me a tricycle whose front wheel would fall off. (I eventually learned about World War II shortages and grew to appreciate how my folks must have looked high and low to find a second-hand trike in any kind of shape). Or years later, in Northfield, walking home after serving midnight mass, through a foot of fluffy, unplowed snow, the night so quiet you could almost hear the snow falling, so snug and comforting it almost felt warm. As I turned into our driveway, I felt a tug of regret, as if I could keep walking forever, but knowing that it would become one of the most peaceful and enduring memories of my life. One that, until now, I've shared with no one.
At my brother Bill's annual Rotary children's Christmas party, it was Leia, 4 and the second oldest, who ratted out Santa. "Grandpa, that's not really Santa," she whispered after the party. How do you know? She looked at me as if no one could believe that beard. I pulled out that old fallback about Santa's helpers. Lisa, 5, knew better: "It was too Santa." I can imagine their later conversations on the matter.
Ava, dealing with a bout of the terrible twos, fussed her way through lunch until the wonderful Glenbrook North High School Express choir caught her eyes and ears. Moving closer to Uncle Bill, she soon was placidly resting her head on and then climbing onto his lap, a spontaneous and tranquil moment that touched us all, one that she was too young to remember. Sadly, we won't be out east this year to see our newest granddaughter, Julia, but when we were there on Thanksgiving, we saw her excitement at new sights.
Now we'll be picturing her bolting and bobbing in surprise at every new color and shape she sees. She's too young to remember; too bad none of us does, either.
And so, why are you sitting there reading a newspaper on Christmas?
Go find someone to childize; go see someone creating life's most precious memories. Oh, and Merry Christmas.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Monday, December 18, 2006
Cents or sensibility on detector law?
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
You've only got a couple of weeks left before you must--by order of the state of Illinois--install a carbon monoxide detector within 15 feet of every bedroom in your home.
You have a right to ask why, when your chance of dying of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning is about as slim as getting struck by lightning.
Especially when no one can tell you with certainty exactly how many people die from the poisoning in Illinois, or nationally, for that matter. The Illinois Department of Public Health includes the accidental monoxide deaths with other poison fatalities, such as sulfur dioxide inhalation. In 2004, the latest year that figures were available, there were 21 such deaths. The Illinois Poison Center, whose figures are admittedly incomplete, has recorded only two carbon monoxide deaths since 2003.
Let's do the math: There are about 4.5 million households in Illinois; we can safely estimate that there are at least that many bedrooms in the state that require a detector. Figuring a detector costs anywhere from $20 to $60, that means that Illinois residents have to lay out $90 million to $270 million by Jan. 1 for the detectors. Assuming that Illinois has four accidental carbon monoxide deaths annually (which probably errs on the high side), the residents of Illinois are spending somewhere between $22.5million and $67.5 million for each life saved. No one wants to place a price on the value of a life, but that goes way beyond what is reasonable in the public or private sector at any level.
Some experts will concede that it's not a cost-effective way to prevent deaths, but they argue that the detectors have other important benefits. Dr. Michael Wahl, medical director of the Illinois Poison Center, said the health effects of carbon monoxide poisoning could be serious over the long run. He pointed to a study that found that exposure can increase the risk of a heart attack later in life. Dr. Jerrold B. Leikin, medical toxicologist with Evanston Northwestern Healthcare-Omega, said focusing only on fatalities overlooks the magnitude of serious illnesses associated with carbon monoxide poisoning, many of them indistinguishable from flu, food poisoning and neurological damage.
Others point out that the alarms will sound before anyone shows symptoms of poisoning, which could prevent serious harm. A study based on media accounts shows that cities, like Chicago, with mandatory detectors tend to have fewer carbon monoxide deaths.
Then there's the anecdotal evidence. "Oftentimes, when I diagnose a patient with accidental CO poisoning, the patient expresses how lucky he or she is," Leikin said in testimony to the Illinois House several years ago. "With general usage of these electronic detectors, luck can be taken out of the equation."
All right, all right already.
Here's where the libertarian rant is supposed to come about government not only prescribing what you can't do (eating trans fat), but also what you must do (wear a seat belt, buy carbon monoxide detectors). About the legislature, with hardly any notice, finally passing such a law after failing for years to do so. About doing the detector industry a big favor by passing the mandate. About actually making it a criminal violation, with time in jail, for ignoring the law.
But I can't rant. I'm worn out. It has just become too much. Who can be against a device that could save some lives and secure health?
Besides, how bad would I feel about my family--anyone's family--getting harmed or even dying, because I refused to shell out $20? Especially if the reason I refuse to buy one is because I don't want government telling me what to do.
After all is said and done, a carbon monoxide detector now adorns my bedroom.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune
You've only got a couple of weeks left before you must--by order of the state of Illinois--install a carbon monoxide detector within 15 feet of every bedroom in your home.
You have a right to ask why, when your chance of dying of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning is about as slim as getting struck by lightning.
Especially when no one can tell you with certainty exactly how many people die from the poisoning in Illinois, or nationally, for that matter. The Illinois Department of Public Health includes the accidental monoxide deaths with other poison fatalities, such as sulfur dioxide inhalation. In 2004, the latest year that figures were available, there were 21 such deaths. The Illinois Poison Center, whose figures are admittedly incomplete, has recorded only two carbon monoxide deaths since 2003.
Let's do the math: There are about 4.5 million households in Illinois; we can safely estimate that there are at least that many bedrooms in the state that require a detector. Figuring a detector costs anywhere from $20 to $60, that means that Illinois residents have to lay out $90 million to $270 million by Jan. 1 for the detectors. Assuming that Illinois has four accidental carbon monoxide deaths annually (which probably errs on the high side), the residents of Illinois are spending somewhere between $22.5million and $67.5 million for each life saved. No one wants to place a price on the value of a life, but that goes way beyond what is reasonable in the public or private sector at any level.
Some experts will concede that it's not a cost-effective way to prevent deaths, but they argue that the detectors have other important benefits. Dr. Michael Wahl, medical director of the Illinois Poison Center, said the health effects of carbon monoxide poisoning could be serious over the long run. He pointed to a study that found that exposure can increase the risk of a heart attack later in life. Dr. Jerrold B. Leikin, medical toxicologist with Evanston Northwestern Healthcare-Omega, said focusing only on fatalities overlooks the magnitude of serious illnesses associated with carbon monoxide poisoning, many of them indistinguishable from flu, food poisoning and neurological damage.
Others point out that the alarms will sound before anyone shows symptoms of poisoning, which could prevent serious harm. A study based on media accounts shows that cities, like Chicago, with mandatory detectors tend to have fewer carbon monoxide deaths.
Then there's the anecdotal evidence. "Oftentimes, when I diagnose a patient with accidental CO poisoning, the patient expresses how lucky he or she is," Leikin said in testimony to the Illinois House several years ago. "With general usage of these electronic detectors, luck can be taken out of the equation."
All right, all right already.
Here's where the libertarian rant is supposed to come about government not only prescribing what you can't do (eating trans fat), but also what you must do (wear a seat belt, buy carbon monoxide detectors). About the legislature, with hardly any notice, finally passing such a law after failing for years to do so. About doing the detector industry a big favor by passing the mandate. About actually making it a criminal violation, with time in jail, for ignoring the law.
But I can't rant. I'm worn out. It has just become too much. Who can be against a device that could save some lives and secure health?
Besides, how bad would I feel about my family--anyone's family--getting harmed or even dying, because I refused to shell out $20? Especially if the reason I refuse to buy one is because I don't want government telling me what to do.
After all is said and done, a carbon monoxide detector now adorns my bedroom.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Monday, December 11, 2006
Iraq report beyond naive; it's dangerous
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
For as smart and high-powered as it is, the Iraq Study Group's hope, if not confidence, that the U.S. can successfully negotiate with Iran is stunningly naive. Despite all the hype, it doesn't bring us one inch closer to ending the Iraq war.
The group's suggestion that our national interest can be served by trying to bargain our way out of Iraq with Iran has no basis in history, fact or reason. It's more than stupid; it's also dangerous, for the U.S., Iraq, the Middle East, Europe and anyone else within flying distance of Tehran.
Just read the complete report and you can't avoid asking yourself: What in the world can we offer Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he would want in exchange for bargaining with us? What can we give Ahmadinejad, other than our utter betrayal of our commitment to Iraq, and to freedom and democracy in the Middle East? What can Iran possibly gain by pulling our chestnuts out of the fire?
The answer is, nothing. But the group doesn't bother answering such questions. Not rationally, anyway. The one answer we get is that Iran is so anxious for "stability" in the region that it would be glad to help us calm things down in Iraq. And the reason Iran wants stability? The group's answer is breathtakingly simple-minded and wrongheaded: to avoid its own internal turmoil if Iraq collapses into chaos.
"Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy in Iraq that led to chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state," the group's report said. "Worst-case scenarios in Iraq could inflame sectarian tensions with Iran, with serious consequences of Iranian national security interests." Why? Because, the report reasons, Iran has minorities of Shiites, Christians and Jews.
I had to read this several times, because I didn't believe what I was reading. Did I somehow miss that Ahmadinejad's highest (or even lowest) goal in the current Middle Eastern turmoil is to create stability in Iraq and Iran? Is there even a hint in anything that Ahmadinejad has said about his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the world and so forth that signals that he'd give up his bloodlust if, well, Iraq would just settle down? Would Ahmadinejad stop helping terrorists kill infidels if ... what?
Fundamentally, the report asserts that Ahmadinejad can and would use his influence to help get Sunni insurgents, rogue Shiite militias and Al Qaeda in Iraq to cool it, because he doesn't want minority Sunnis, Christians and Jews in Iran to upset his government. As if he's had any trouble keeping the lid on the Sunnis, Christians and Jews, not to mention the majority Shiites, in the first place.
And what if Iran decides not to participate in diplomacy and negotiations? What if Ahmadinejad decides Iran has more to gain by letting the U.S. suffer a humiliating defeat, and that an Iraq in turmoil (which is partially his doing in the first place) ultimately serves his greater purpose: making Iran the Middle East's top dog?
The study group never really gets into that possibility.
It's as if the purity of the process is an end in itself (as it is with a number of American critics of the war). There is no thought about what the negotiations should achieve in our national interest, or what should happen if diplomacy fails. It's nearly impossible to carry the group's arguments to their logical conclusion, because they are devoid of logic. I think the group implicitly realized that itself when it fell back on the following as the ultimate reason why Iran should (would?) participate in the "Support Group" of Iraqi neighbors:
"An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation. Further, Iran's refusal to cooperate on this matter would diminish its prospects of engaging with the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks." As if the "world" isn't already aware of Ahmadinejad's "rejectionist," as well as his belligerent and bloodthirsty, policies. Jeez.
You'd expect more from former secretaries of state and defense, top White House aides and a Supreme Court justice. Maybe we flatlanders are such simpletons that we don't understand (Washington cliche warning) the "nuances" of foreign policy.
But we know idiotic when we see it.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune
For as smart and high-powered as it is, the Iraq Study Group's hope, if not confidence, that the U.S. can successfully negotiate with Iran is stunningly naive. Despite all the hype, it doesn't bring us one inch closer to ending the Iraq war.
The group's suggestion that our national interest can be served by trying to bargain our way out of Iraq with Iran has no basis in history, fact or reason. It's more than stupid; it's also dangerous, for the U.S., Iraq, the Middle East, Europe and anyone else within flying distance of Tehran.
Just read the complete report and you can't avoid asking yourself: What in the world can we offer Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he would want in exchange for bargaining with us? What can we give Ahmadinejad, other than our utter betrayal of our commitment to Iraq, and to freedom and democracy in the Middle East? What can Iran possibly gain by pulling our chestnuts out of the fire?
The answer is, nothing. But the group doesn't bother answering such questions. Not rationally, anyway. The one answer we get is that Iran is so anxious for "stability" in the region that it would be glad to help us calm things down in Iraq. And the reason Iran wants stability? The group's answer is breathtakingly simple-minded and wrongheaded: to avoid its own internal turmoil if Iraq collapses into chaos.
"Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy in Iraq that led to chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state," the group's report said. "Worst-case scenarios in Iraq could inflame sectarian tensions with Iran, with serious consequences of Iranian national security interests." Why? Because, the report reasons, Iran has minorities of Shiites, Christians and Jews.
I had to read this several times, because I didn't believe what I was reading. Did I somehow miss that Ahmadinejad's highest (or even lowest) goal in the current Middle Eastern turmoil is to create stability in Iraq and Iran? Is there even a hint in anything that Ahmadinejad has said about his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the world and so forth that signals that he'd give up his bloodlust if, well, Iraq would just settle down? Would Ahmadinejad stop helping terrorists kill infidels if ... what?
Fundamentally, the report asserts that Ahmadinejad can and would use his influence to help get Sunni insurgents, rogue Shiite militias and Al Qaeda in Iraq to cool it, because he doesn't want minority Sunnis, Christians and Jews in Iran to upset his government. As if he's had any trouble keeping the lid on the Sunnis, Christians and Jews, not to mention the majority Shiites, in the first place.
And what if Iran decides not to participate in diplomacy and negotiations? What if Ahmadinejad decides Iran has more to gain by letting the U.S. suffer a humiliating defeat, and that an Iraq in turmoil (which is partially his doing in the first place) ultimately serves his greater purpose: making Iran the Middle East's top dog?
The study group never really gets into that possibility.
It's as if the purity of the process is an end in itself (as it is with a number of American critics of the war). There is no thought about what the negotiations should achieve in our national interest, or what should happen if diplomacy fails. It's nearly impossible to carry the group's arguments to their logical conclusion, because they are devoid of logic. I think the group implicitly realized that itself when it fell back on the following as the ultimate reason why Iran should (would?) participate in the "Support Group" of Iraqi neighbors:
"An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation. Further, Iran's refusal to cooperate on this matter would diminish its prospects of engaging with the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks." As if the "world" isn't already aware of Ahmadinejad's "rejectionist," as well as his belligerent and bloodthirsty, policies. Jeez.
You'd expect more from former secretaries of state and defense, top White House aides and a Supreme Court justice. Maybe we flatlanders are such simpletons that we don't understand (Washington cliche warning) the "nuances" of foreign policy.
But we know idiotic when we see it.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Saturday, December 09, 2006
ISG Prescribes Vietnam All Over Again
By Dennis Byrne
RealClearPolitics
"...[Y]ou have my assurance of continued assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam."
That was a pledge by President Richard M. Nixon to Republic of South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu that the United States would not abandon his nation, if he would only cooperate in negotiations with North Vietnam to end the war.
Nixon's word wasn't worth crap.
Nor, obviously, is our word to the Iraqi people, if the Iraqi Study Group has its way. We betrayed millions of people by abandoning our principles and trashing our promises when we stood by--willingly and intentionally--as South Vietnam fell to the tyranny of North Vietnam. Now, as the ISG provides us with intellectual cover for weaseling our way out of Iraq, we're about to do the same to the Iraqi people.
Let us review history, which we appear condemned to repeat:
Continue reading at RealClearPolitics
RealClearPolitics
"...[Y]ou have my assurance of continued assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam."
That was a pledge by President Richard M. Nixon to Republic of South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu that the United States would not abandon his nation, if he would only cooperate in negotiations with North Vietnam to end the war.
Nixon's word wasn't worth crap.
Nor, obviously, is our word to the Iraqi people, if the Iraqi Study Group has its way. We betrayed millions of people by abandoning our principles and trashing our promises when we stood by--willingly and intentionally--as South Vietnam fell to the tyranny of North Vietnam. Now, as the ISG provides us with intellectual cover for weaseling our way out of Iraq, we're about to do the same to the Iraqi people.
Let us review history, which we appear condemned to repeat:
Continue reading at RealClearPolitics
Monday, December 04, 2006
City saves us from ... ?
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Good thing that they're keeping a film about Christmas out of a Christmas festival on Daley Plaza.
Christians, Jews and Muslims already have elbowed their way onto the plaza with a creche, menorah and crescent and, worst of all, a huge Christmas tree, symbols of their religions. Shouldn't that be enough? If Chicago were to allow showings of "The Nativity Story" film clips during Christkindlmarket, what would be next?
Nature-worshiping Druids? Allow them onto the plaza and they might want to poison us with the sight of an oak tree, one of nature's creations that they venerate. The Falun Gong also might show up, with their offensive meditating. Who knows, they might even try to cash in by selling books on the benefits of reflection. As we all know, no one should be able to use the government or its property to profit personally. In Chicago, we have strictly enforced rules against that kind of behavior.
Covens of Wicca also might invade the plaza, wanting to practice their magical powers by stirring boiling pots of eels and frogs. Or we might have to step around unsightly piles of dead chickens left scattered about by careless adherents of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye.
If we're not careful, the Inquisition might demand use of the plaza for a few autos-da-fe, to weed out the heretics. The plaza could become another Piazza della Signoria, always available for hanging and burning a Savonarola or two.
Chicago Bulls center Ben Wallace might show up in a headband.
You might think that this is an exaggeration, but if the city gave an inch now, all sorts of oddballs, cranks, crackpots and fanatics soon would be invading the plaza. Oh sure, for standing up to the horror of a Christmas scene on the plaza, the city got scalded by those right-wing religious zealots for its so-called attack on Christmas. Under this unfair onslaught, no wonder the city said it had been misunderstood. As it said later, its intent was only to keep "blatant commercial messages" off the plaza.
Well, that's as good as any excuse, and if you want to believe it, that's fine by me, because the effect was the same: shielding the public from the vulgar scenes of a mother and child.
Actually, I think that the city might be on to something. Christmas has become so commercialized with its retail sales frenzies that any Christmas message is, indeed, a commercial message. So maybe it all should be banned from the plaza--Christmas trees, creches, the "festive" trappings. Even Macy's Christmas lights that are visible from the plaza should be extinguished. It's all designed to make someone a buck anyway.
Of course, the summer farmers market also would have to be banned from the plaza, because folks are making money off that too. While we're at it, we might as well take away the flowers, benches and the Picasso Thing. Make the plaza the lifeless, sterile place that it was intended to be in the first place. Suitable only for celebratory gatherings of all the payrollers, insiders, grafters and other serpents who feed off the taxpayers. If the plaza can hold them all.
I'm just grateful--I won't offend you by saying to Whom--that the city's exclusionary actions on the plaza have provided more evidence that we've all come to appreciate the true meaning of diversity. To foster our diverse society, we must not allow anything that reminds us of our differences, especially if that reminder comes in a public place, and most especially if it is about religion. Exposing people to different religions, let alone religion in general, will give them the wrong idea; they might end up thinking that we're different. How can we be a diverse society with folks walking around thinking they're different?
Let us pause for a moment, in the silent night of a new winter, as we are comforted by a blanket of new-fallen snow, to use this joyous and hopeful season to renew our commitment to diversity. And what better way to do it than by stomping out any public recognition of our differences?
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune
Good thing that they're keeping a film about Christmas out of a Christmas festival on Daley Plaza.
Christians, Jews and Muslims already have elbowed their way onto the plaza with a creche, menorah and crescent and, worst of all, a huge Christmas tree, symbols of their religions. Shouldn't that be enough? If Chicago were to allow showings of "The Nativity Story" film clips during Christkindlmarket, what would be next?
Nature-worshiping Druids? Allow them onto the plaza and they might want to poison us with the sight of an oak tree, one of nature's creations that they venerate. The Falun Gong also might show up, with their offensive meditating. Who knows, they might even try to cash in by selling books on the benefits of reflection. As we all know, no one should be able to use the government or its property to profit personally. In Chicago, we have strictly enforced rules against that kind of behavior.
Covens of Wicca also might invade the plaza, wanting to practice their magical powers by stirring boiling pots of eels and frogs. Or we might have to step around unsightly piles of dead chickens left scattered about by careless adherents of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye.
If we're not careful, the Inquisition might demand use of the plaza for a few autos-da-fe, to weed out the heretics. The plaza could become another Piazza della Signoria, always available for hanging and burning a Savonarola or two.
Chicago Bulls center Ben Wallace might show up in a headband.
You might think that this is an exaggeration, but if the city gave an inch now, all sorts of oddballs, cranks, crackpots and fanatics soon would be invading the plaza. Oh sure, for standing up to the horror of a Christmas scene on the plaza, the city got scalded by those right-wing religious zealots for its so-called attack on Christmas. Under this unfair onslaught, no wonder the city said it had been misunderstood. As it said later, its intent was only to keep "blatant commercial messages" off the plaza.
Well, that's as good as any excuse, and if you want to believe it, that's fine by me, because the effect was the same: shielding the public from the vulgar scenes of a mother and child.
Actually, I think that the city might be on to something. Christmas has become so commercialized with its retail sales frenzies that any Christmas message is, indeed, a commercial message. So maybe it all should be banned from the plaza--Christmas trees, creches, the "festive" trappings. Even Macy's Christmas lights that are visible from the plaza should be extinguished. It's all designed to make someone a buck anyway.
Of course, the summer farmers market also would have to be banned from the plaza, because folks are making money off that too. While we're at it, we might as well take away the flowers, benches and the Picasso Thing. Make the plaza the lifeless, sterile place that it was intended to be in the first place. Suitable only for celebratory gatherings of all the payrollers, insiders, grafters and other serpents who feed off the taxpayers. If the plaza can hold them all.
I'm just grateful--I won't offend you by saying to Whom--that the city's exclusionary actions on the plaza have provided more evidence that we've all come to appreciate the true meaning of diversity. To foster our diverse society, we must not allow anything that reminds us of our differences, especially if that reminder comes in a public place, and most especially if it is about religion. Exposing people to different religions, let alone religion in general, will give them the wrong idea; they might end up thinking that we're different. How can we be a diverse society with folks walking around thinking they're different?
Let us pause for a moment, in the silent night of a new winter, as we are comforted by a blanket of new-fallen snow, to use this joyous and hopeful season to renew our commitment to diversity. And what better way to do it than by stomping out any public recognition of our differences?
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Saturday, December 02, 2006
More Harrumphing From Jesse Jackson
By Dennis Byrne
The opportunistic Rev. Jesse Jackson is at it again, using comedian Michael Richard's use of the "n-word" to flog white Americans for a supposed streak of racism that we stubbornly refuse to recognize or let go of.
Speaking in Little Rock on Thursday, Jackson said Richard's outburst directed at comedy club hecklers was not an aberration, but symptomatic of a deep racism throughout the land, of an "anti-black mania," as he put it. "Don't just stop with the comedian," he said, pointing to other incidents that he would have us believe indict the entire country.
Aw jeez, not again.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
The opportunistic Rev. Jesse Jackson is at it again, using comedian Michael Richard's use of the "n-word" to flog white Americans for a supposed streak of racism that we stubbornly refuse to recognize or let go of.
Speaking in Little Rock on Thursday, Jackson said Richard's outburst directed at comedy club hecklers was not an aberration, but symptomatic of a deep racism throughout the land, of an "anti-black mania," as he put it. "Don't just stop with the comedian," he said, pointing to other incidents that he would have us believe indict the entire country.
Aw jeez, not again.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
Friday, December 01, 2006
Apologies Don't Mean Anything Anymore
By Dennis Byrne
Human Events
Enough already with the apologies.
We’ve turned ourselves into a nation of apologizers. Or, more precisely, a nation of people demanding apologies.
We’re up to our eyeballs in apology ultimatums. Actor Michael Richards was barraged with demands to apologize for hurling racial slurs at hecklers during a comedy club appearance, but when he did, it wasn’t enough. His career is ruined, supposedly. Likewise, a professional basketball player, Damon Jones of Cleveland, called a press conference to apologize for getting booted out of a game, but for some it was “too late.” In a recent call for public groveling, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) needed to apologize to soldiers in Iraq for implying that they’re dropouts and losers.
Rush Limbaugh had to apologize to Michael J. Fox for doubting his afflictions. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.-N.Y.) for calling Vice President Dick Cheney a "son of a bitch."
Ted Haggard, an evangelical Christian leader, for paying for gay sex and hypocritically violating his preachments. Republicans for having anything to do with evangelicals. Idaho Gov. Jim Risch for ordering an emergency hunt of 160 elk that had escaped from a hunting preserve. The sponsors of a TV ad about a Florida constitutional amendment for demeaning Italian-Americans. President Bush for … well, everything.
Continue reading at Human Events
Human Events
Enough already with the apologies.
We’ve turned ourselves into a nation of apologizers. Or, more precisely, a nation of people demanding apologies.
We’re up to our eyeballs in apology ultimatums. Actor Michael Richards was barraged with demands to apologize for hurling racial slurs at hecklers during a comedy club appearance, but when he did, it wasn’t enough. His career is ruined, supposedly. Likewise, a professional basketball player, Damon Jones of Cleveland, called a press conference to apologize for getting booted out of a game, but for some it was “too late.” In a recent call for public groveling, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) needed to apologize to soldiers in Iraq for implying that they’re dropouts and losers.
Rush Limbaugh had to apologize to Michael J. Fox for doubting his afflictions. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.-N.Y.) for calling Vice President Dick Cheney a "son of a bitch."
Ted Haggard, an evangelical Christian leader, for paying for gay sex and hypocritically violating his preachments. Republicans for having anything to do with evangelicals. Idaho Gov. Jim Risch for ordering an emergency hunt of 160 elk that had escaped from a hunting preserve. The sponsors of a TV ad about a Florida constitutional amendment for demeaning Italian-Americans. President Bush for … well, everything.
Continue reading at Human Events
Thursday, November 30, 2006
No Room for Nativity Story in Chicago Plaza
By Dennis Byrne
Right on schedule, just before Christmas, a new movie about Christ--the Nativity Story--already has offended, before it's shown.
And for the offense it is expected to cause non-Christians to suffer, the city of Chicago has driven it out of a public plaza in the heart of downtown.
Actually, it's not even the film itself; it's just some video clips promoting the movie, being played during Christkindlmarket, a festival celebrating the birth of the Christ Child that's been held on the Daley Plaza in the city-county government plaza for 10 years.
At first, a city official explained it didn't want the clips shown because it would be "insensitive to the many people of different faiths" who attend the festival or walk through the popular plaza, which is known for its enigmatic Picasso sculpture.
Continue reading at RealClearPolitics
Right on schedule, just before Christmas, a new movie about Christ--the Nativity Story--already has offended, before it's shown.
And for the offense it is expected to cause non-Christians to suffer, the city of Chicago has driven it out of a public plaza in the heart of downtown.
Actually, it's not even the film itself; it's just some video clips promoting the movie, being played during Christkindlmarket, a festival celebrating the birth of the Christ Child that's been held on the Daley Plaza in the city-county government plaza for 10 years.
At first, a city official explained it didn't want the clips shown because it would be "insensitive to the many people of different faiths" who attend the festival or walk through the popular plaza, which is known for its enigmatic Picasso sculpture.
Continue reading at RealClearPolitics
Monday, November 27, 2006
Living high on the D.C. hog
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
While perusing my latest colorful and delightful mailing from the Chicago Botanic Garden, I noticed a message from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), prominently displayed.
He said some nice things about all the unseen volunteers, and then got to the heart of the matter: congratulating himself for lagging some federal funding the garden's way. "I am proud that I was able to assist in securing funding to support the Joseph Regenstein Jr. School of the Chicago Botanic Garden."
Even at the Chicago Botanic Garden, congressional earmarks blossom.
The garden's $1.5 million federal harvest was tucked away in the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which provides billions for highways, bridges and so forth. At the garden, it goes for "infrastructure additions, with repairs and upgrades to sidewalks, bridges and parking lots," as well as upgraded accessibility for the disabled.
Great for the garden, one of my favorite places. No so great if you're from New York or Wyoming. Taxpayers there can reasonably ask why they should have to pay for parking improvements in Glencoe.
Welcome to the wonderful world of earmarks, the secretive process lawmakers use to plant pet vote-producing projects in the federal budget. The most notorious example was a couple of $450 million bridges in Alaska that the state's two senators unsuccessfully tried to corral. A Wall Street Journal-NBC poll last spring found that 39 percent of voters thought earmark reform was the single most important thing for Congress to do, which it didn't, which is one reason that Republicans lost control of both houses.
Now voters have called the Democrats to show their cards, and several proposals are knocking around. Generally, the proposals are designed to require more transparency, but each contains some flaws, such as the House proposal that would apply only to "district-oriented earmarks" that directly benefit constituents, thus leaving out contractors and campaign contributors outside of the district.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) is co-sponsoring a bill designed to block a lawmaker from requesting an earmark that would benefit a company, group or lobbying firm that employed a member of the lawmaker's family or a former member of the lawmaker's staff.
It's an obvious, although limited, start, but I'm wondering whether the problem lies in Congress, or with us. In strictly economic terms, the lawmakers are doing a service for their clients--the Chicago Botanic Gardens and other worthies of the kind that Durbin proudly announces in his press releases. Who, for example, could argue against $300,000 for a library and technology center at Cristo Rey High School, a model preparatory school serving Pilsen and Little Village?
Durbin credits himself for securing $84 million worth of military projects (some call it pork) for Illinois, including: $12 million for lightweight armor production and other programs at the Rock Island Arsenal; $4.45 million for a titanium processing project in Lockport; $3.25 million for acoustic ballistic detection technology in Barrington; $1.8 million to help small businesses develop high-performance infrared detection materials in Bolingbrook; $1.3 million for airburst ammunition research in Marion; $3 million for a program to help small businesses supply goods and services to the Defense Department in DeKalb; $1.3 million for fuel cell development in Des Plaines; $2 million for improvements to maintenance data systems in Peoria; $1 million for accelerated research into nanotechnology to better detect chemical and biological weapons, Evanston; $2 million for improvements in the Navy supply chain system, Vernon Hills; $2.5 million for an infrared targeting and surveillance system for the Navy, Barrington ... you get the idea.
Can you argue with the need for any of these programs? Even when the specifications for each project may have been written so that only one or a limited number of companies or institutions--which just happen to be in Illinois--can meet them?
Earmarks create jobs and profits, and in the case of universities and military installations, expand empires. Can we expect the beneficiaries to join the outcry against earmarks?
One solution is to give the president line-item veto power, allowing him to kill earmarked projects that he believes don't belong in the budget. But even that has its limitations. Would he risk losing support of a lawmaker in an important vote by striking his pet project?
We like to think that we can solve such problems by passing another law or tightening another regulation. But none of that will work as long as some of us just love that Washington money.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune
While perusing my latest colorful and delightful mailing from the Chicago Botanic Garden, I noticed a message from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), prominently displayed.
He said some nice things about all the unseen volunteers, and then got to the heart of the matter: congratulating himself for lagging some federal funding the garden's way. "I am proud that I was able to assist in securing funding to support the Joseph Regenstein Jr. School of the Chicago Botanic Garden."
Even at the Chicago Botanic Garden, congressional earmarks blossom.
The garden's $1.5 million federal harvest was tucked away in the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which provides billions for highways, bridges and so forth. At the garden, it goes for "infrastructure additions, with repairs and upgrades to sidewalks, bridges and parking lots," as well as upgraded accessibility for the disabled.
Great for the garden, one of my favorite places. No so great if you're from New York or Wyoming. Taxpayers there can reasonably ask why they should have to pay for parking improvements in Glencoe.
Welcome to the wonderful world of earmarks, the secretive process lawmakers use to plant pet vote-producing projects in the federal budget. The most notorious example was a couple of $450 million bridges in Alaska that the state's two senators unsuccessfully tried to corral. A Wall Street Journal-NBC poll last spring found that 39 percent of voters thought earmark reform was the single most important thing for Congress to do, which it didn't, which is one reason that Republicans lost control of both houses.
Now voters have called the Democrats to show their cards, and several proposals are knocking around. Generally, the proposals are designed to require more transparency, but each contains some flaws, such as the House proposal that would apply only to "district-oriented earmarks" that directly benefit constituents, thus leaving out contractors and campaign contributors outside of the district.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) is co-sponsoring a bill designed to block a lawmaker from requesting an earmark that would benefit a company, group or lobbying firm that employed a member of the lawmaker's family or a former member of the lawmaker's staff.
It's an obvious, although limited, start, but I'm wondering whether the problem lies in Congress, or with us. In strictly economic terms, the lawmakers are doing a service for their clients--the Chicago Botanic Gardens and other worthies of the kind that Durbin proudly announces in his press releases. Who, for example, could argue against $300,000 for a library and technology center at Cristo Rey High School, a model preparatory school serving Pilsen and Little Village?
Durbin credits himself for securing $84 million worth of military projects (some call it pork) for Illinois, including: $12 million for lightweight armor production and other programs at the Rock Island Arsenal; $4.45 million for a titanium processing project in Lockport; $3.25 million for acoustic ballistic detection technology in Barrington; $1.8 million to help small businesses develop high-performance infrared detection materials in Bolingbrook; $1.3 million for airburst ammunition research in Marion; $3 million for a program to help small businesses supply goods and services to the Defense Department in DeKalb; $1.3 million for fuel cell development in Des Plaines; $2 million for improvements to maintenance data systems in Peoria; $1 million for accelerated research into nanotechnology to better detect chemical and biological weapons, Evanston; $2 million for improvements in the Navy supply chain system, Vernon Hills; $2.5 million for an infrared targeting and surveillance system for the Navy, Barrington ... you get the idea.
Can you argue with the need for any of these programs? Even when the specifications for each project may have been written so that only one or a limited number of companies or institutions--which just happen to be in Illinois--can meet them?
Earmarks create jobs and profits, and in the case of universities and military installations, expand empires. Can we expect the beneficiaries to join the outcry against earmarks?
One solution is to give the president line-item veto power, allowing him to kill earmarked projects that he believes don't belong in the budget. But even that has its limitations. Would he risk losing support of a lawmaker in an important vote by striking his pet project?
We like to think that we can solve such problems by passing another law or tightening another regulation. But none of that will work as long as some of us just love that Washington money.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Monday, November 20, 2006
Flee Iraq, relive shame of Vietnam
Hasty exit would stir chaos, not freedom
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
The folks who believe the Iraq war looks increasingly like the Vietnam War are right.
At least the part where the United States pulls out and leaves millions of people hanging out to dry. That part where the war comes to a dishonorable, murderous end. Like on the day, April 30, 1975, that America broke its promises to millions of South Vietnamese and jumped ship. The day on which hysterical Vietnamese civilians and officials were crowding a ladder to the top of the U.S. Embassy, pleading for a seat on the last American helicopter out. The day that crowds of Vietnamese swarmed the embassy gate, crying for escape or protection, as North Vietnamese tanks approached. The day that uncounted thousands turned into freedom-seeking boat people.
We abandoned millions of people to be stripped of their freedoms, imprisoned for their beliefs or slaughtered by a monstrous, tyrannical regime. It was one of the most shameful days in American history. It was our own day of infamy.
Blame public opinion for bringing shame on ourselves. Public opinion demanded a Congress that simply decided to choke the life out of the South Vietnamese. Yes, the Iraq war is beginning to look a whole lot like the Vietnam War.
Only this time, we're supposed to quit after sacrificing a lot less. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and others recently had the gall to equate the Iraq war with World War II because it had surpassed the length of European combat. Tragic, indeed, but comparable, no.
This is not to minimize the sacrifice of those who have fought or died in Iraq, but in World War II, almost 300,000 American military personnel died in combat, as compared to nearly 3,000 in the Iraq war. (More than 47,000 died in Vietnam and nearly 34,000 in the Korean War.) Civilian deaths in World War II amounted to at least 38 million, compared with the 30,000 to 60,000 by UN and other reliable estimates in Iraq. (The recent, ridiculous 600,000 estimate by researchers from John Hopkins is not included among the reliable.)
This is not to diminish the importance of any life; its value is not set by the number of people who die with you.
But it is to make the point that the cost of defending the freedom of millions in the Middle East has been somewhat less than Pelosi and crew would have it.
Of course, no one would admit to abandoning the Iraqis. So, the critics take a different, more fashionable tact: argue for the partition of Iraq along religious and ethnic lines. One of its leading exponents is Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who will be committee chairman next year. So, we'll hear a lot more about how Iraq should be divided into "autonomous" Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions.
But it is just another, perhaps worse, form of abandonment.
First, the Iraqis don't want it. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found wide support among Iraqis for a strong central government. "Majorities of all groups do not favor a movement toward a looser confederation and believe that five years from now Iraq will still be a single state. A large majority sees the current government as the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people," the survey concluded.
Second, as Lakhdar Brahimi, former UN envoy to Iraq, told the Financial Times, the alternative to a united Iraq is "not three independent entities, but chaos that will expand to all the region." For one, it will increase Shiite Iran's influence in Iraq, further destabilizing the region. "No one is talking about Iraq anymore, but about how the British and the U.S. will get out," he warned.
Polls consistently show that the American public is unhappy with the way things are going in Iraq and wants us to depart. And Democrats, lead by the likes of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) who wants an "immediate redeployment," claim they represent American public opinion demanding a speedy withdrawal.
But here's a word of encouragement as we slide toward a Vietnam-style ending: A Newsweek poll finds 51 percent of respondents are very worried and 27 percent somewhat worried that a Democratic Congress would push for a too-hasty withdrawal.
With 78 percent worried about what a Democratic Congress might do, perhaps the American public learned something from Vietnam after all. Will the Democratic Congress?
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
The folks who believe the Iraq war looks increasingly like the Vietnam War are right.
At least the part where the United States pulls out and leaves millions of people hanging out to dry. That part where the war comes to a dishonorable, murderous end. Like on the day, April 30, 1975, that America broke its promises to millions of South Vietnamese and jumped ship. The day on which hysterical Vietnamese civilians and officials were crowding a ladder to the top of the U.S. Embassy, pleading for a seat on the last American helicopter out. The day that crowds of Vietnamese swarmed the embassy gate, crying for escape or protection, as North Vietnamese tanks approached. The day that uncounted thousands turned into freedom-seeking boat people.
We abandoned millions of people to be stripped of their freedoms, imprisoned for their beliefs or slaughtered by a monstrous, tyrannical regime. It was one of the most shameful days in American history. It was our own day of infamy.
Blame public opinion for bringing shame on ourselves. Public opinion demanded a Congress that simply decided to choke the life out of the South Vietnamese. Yes, the Iraq war is beginning to look a whole lot like the Vietnam War.
Only this time, we're supposed to quit after sacrificing a lot less. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and others recently had the gall to equate the Iraq war with World War II because it had surpassed the length of European combat. Tragic, indeed, but comparable, no.
This is not to minimize the sacrifice of those who have fought or died in Iraq, but in World War II, almost 300,000 American military personnel died in combat, as compared to nearly 3,000 in the Iraq war. (More than 47,000 died in Vietnam and nearly 34,000 in the Korean War.) Civilian deaths in World War II amounted to at least 38 million, compared with the 30,000 to 60,000 by UN and other reliable estimates in Iraq. (The recent, ridiculous 600,000 estimate by researchers from John Hopkins is not included among the reliable.)
This is not to diminish the importance of any life; its value is not set by the number of people who die with you.
But it is to make the point that the cost of defending the freedom of millions in the Middle East has been somewhat less than Pelosi and crew would have it.
Of course, no one would admit to abandoning the Iraqis. So, the critics take a different, more fashionable tact: argue for the partition of Iraq along religious and ethnic lines. One of its leading exponents is Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who will be committee chairman next year. So, we'll hear a lot more about how Iraq should be divided into "autonomous" Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions.
But it is just another, perhaps worse, form of abandonment.
First, the Iraqis don't want it. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found wide support among Iraqis for a strong central government. "Majorities of all groups do not favor a movement toward a looser confederation and believe that five years from now Iraq will still be a single state. A large majority sees the current government as the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people," the survey concluded.
Second, as Lakhdar Brahimi, former UN envoy to Iraq, told the Financial Times, the alternative to a united Iraq is "not three independent entities, but chaos that will expand to all the region." For one, it will increase Shiite Iran's influence in Iraq, further destabilizing the region. "No one is talking about Iraq anymore, but about how the British and the U.S. will get out," he warned.
Polls consistently show that the American public is unhappy with the way things are going in Iraq and wants us to depart. And Democrats, lead by the likes of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) who wants an "immediate redeployment," claim they represent American public opinion demanding a speedy withdrawal.
But here's a word of encouragement as we slide toward a Vietnam-style ending: A Newsweek poll finds 51 percent of respondents are very worried and 27 percent somewhat worried that a Democratic Congress would push for a too-hasty withdrawal.
With 78 percent worried about what a Democratic Congress might do, perhaps the American public learned something from Vietnam after all. Will the Democratic Congress?
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Thursday, November 16, 2006
The New York Times, again
How it gives only one side of the story, again.
When U.S. Army Gen. John Abizaid, appeared as the star witness in the first congressional hearings on the war in Iraq since the Democrats won control of both houses, he was asked how the U.S. could get the Iraqis to take on more responsibility in the fight against the insurgents, the New York Times reported this:
But it left out Abizaid’s superb reply. I had to read one of those mid-country newspapers—the Chicago Tribune—to find it.
When U.S. Army Gen. John Abizaid, appeared as the star witness in the first congressional hearings on the war in Iraq since the Democrats won control of both houses, he was asked how the U.S. could get the Iraqis to take on more responsibility in the fight against the insurgents, the New York Times reported this:
Mrs. Clinton pressed the Democrats’ case that a change in military strategy was necessary to prod the Iraqis into taking responsibility for their own country. “Hope is not a strategy,” she told the generals. “Hortatory talk about what the Iraqi government must do is getting old. I have heard over and over again, ‘The government must do this, the Iraqi Army must do that.’ Nobody disagrees with that. The brutal fact is, it’s not happening.”
But it left out Abizaid’s superb reply. I had to read one of those mid-country newspapers—the Chicago Tribune—to find it.
Abizaid replied that, "I would also say that despair is not a method. And when I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing. They believe that they can move the country toward stability with our help. And I believe that
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
We're just wild about the ethically challenged Nancy Pelosi
Why didn't we hear much about this before election
Follow the links to some remarkable stuff that makes interesting reading about the woman who is going to make this the "most ethical" Congress ever.
Nancy Pelosi: One of Mikhail Gorbachev’s most useful idiots
Will Nancy Pelosi, riding a wave of voter anger about insider dealing and political corruption to the position of Speaker of the House, turn herself in? When the House kicks off its expected wave of hearings into corruption, which committee will take its whacks at Nancy? We anxiously await to see if this is true.
And another
Follow the links to some remarkable stuff that makes interesting reading about the woman who is going to make this the "most ethical" Congress ever.
Nancy Pelosi: One of Mikhail Gorbachev’s most useful idiots
Will Nancy Pelosi, riding a wave of voter anger about insider dealing and political corruption to the position of Speaker of the House, turn herself in? When the House kicks off its expected wave of hearings into corruption, which committee will take its whacks at Nancy? We anxiously await to see if this is true.
And another
Monday, November 13, 2006
Stroger victory proves it: Weak voters elect weak leaders
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
What if U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald had run for Cook County Board president against Todd Stroger? My money says that Fitzgerald, the most successful reformer to hit town since Ft. Dearborn was erected, would have lost. Just like Tony Peraica lost to Stroger. Maybe even worse.
Last week, Cook County voters demonstrated that they would tolerate anything short of a sharp stick in the eye. Some of us had hoped that voters this time, at last, for once in our lives, would opt for honest, efficient, clean and open government. That was in the mistaken belief that voters would not put up with Stroger's stunning lack of qualifications and the secretive and presumptuous way he was selected to run by party bosses. We were wrong.
In the commenting business, it is bad form to question voters' judgments. Post-election is the time to be gracious, to wish the winner luck, to issue calls for cooperation, to nod affirmatively that the "people have spoken" and that we should give the winner, no matter how much of a mope, a "chance." To do otherwise is considered sour grapes, the sign of an arrogant, poor loser.
But sometimes voters need to be told when they screwed up. Such as when they selected two disciples of quackmeister Lyndon LaRouche in the 1986 Illinois Democratic primary for lieutenant governor and secretary of state.
In a way, Stroger's election is worse. Unlike the ignorant voters who marked their ballots for the two LaRouchies without having the slightest idea who they were, Stroger voters knew exactly what they were getting: a county government so poorly run and moth-eaten by political opportunists that its two-year budget deficit approaches a staggering $600 million.
And they knew exactly what they were voting against: honest, efficient government.
The bulk of those self-interested voters was obviously committed to the old way. They ask "not what you can do for your county, but what your county can do for you."
They were joined by single-issue social liberals who could not put aside their blinders, even once, to vote for the better candidate. Add to that African-American voters who, as stubbornly as the Deep South racists of Jim Crow, refuse to put aside racial identities.
Nowhere does it say that democracy is infallible; that voters don't make mistakes. We've been constantly reminded of that by Democrats who say that President Bush was the biggest mistake voters ever made.
"OK, OK," you say. "You've made your point. Why not just let it rest?" Because the values, standards and mind-set of the electorate are important. An electorate that tolerates corruption will get corruption. One that puts up with incompetence, in pursuit of narrow self-interest, will get government that swims in muck. To bash public officials without criticizing the people who installed them is hypocrisy.
Next up is the Chicago mayoral campaign. I use the word "campaign" lightly.
Now with U.S. Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Luis Gutierrez overnight deciding not to run against Mayor Richard Daley, the heat is off. Apparently they figured they could do more about Chicago's waste, fraud and abuse from the heights of Capitol Hill. Two lesser-known candidates remain, but one can only assume they'll carve up what little opposition will remain against the mayor.
Some independents may have taken hope that organized labor was stepping up to support anti-Daley aldermen, but they're going to need a lot of extra help, now that the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce brazenly has decided to take the side of waste, fraud and abuse by assembling big bucks to defeat anyone who strays from the drove.
After countless indictments and convictions by Fitzgerald, a majority of the electorate appears, with the election of Todd Stroger (and the re-election of Gov. Rod Blagojevich), ready to countenance more of the same.
One would have hoped that Fitzgerald's exposure of the depth of the graft would have convinced more voters of the need for change.
With a majority of voters not persuaded, Fitzgerald's value narrows but remains no less important: taking on the organization, one grafter at a time, putting away or scaring enough of them to at least reduce their inventory.
Without Fitzgerald, absolutely nothing would stand in the way of waste, fraud and abuse. Certainly not the electorate.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune
What if U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald had run for Cook County Board president against Todd Stroger? My money says that Fitzgerald, the most successful reformer to hit town since Ft. Dearborn was erected, would have lost. Just like Tony Peraica lost to Stroger. Maybe even worse.
Last week, Cook County voters demonstrated that they would tolerate anything short of a sharp stick in the eye. Some of us had hoped that voters this time, at last, for once in our lives, would opt for honest, efficient, clean and open government. That was in the mistaken belief that voters would not put up with Stroger's stunning lack of qualifications and the secretive and presumptuous way he was selected to run by party bosses. We were wrong.
In the commenting business, it is bad form to question voters' judgments. Post-election is the time to be gracious, to wish the winner luck, to issue calls for cooperation, to nod affirmatively that the "people have spoken" and that we should give the winner, no matter how much of a mope, a "chance." To do otherwise is considered sour grapes, the sign of an arrogant, poor loser.
But sometimes voters need to be told when they screwed up. Such as when they selected two disciples of quackmeister Lyndon LaRouche in the 1986 Illinois Democratic primary for lieutenant governor and secretary of state.
In a way, Stroger's election is worse. Unlike the ignorant voters who marked their ballots for the two LaRouchies without having the slightest idea who they were, Stroger voters knew exactly what they were getting: a county government so poorly run and moth-eaten by political opportunists that its two-year budget deficit approaches a staggering $600 million.
And they knew exactly what they were voting against: honest, efficient government.
The bulk of those self-interested voters was obviously committed to the old way. They ask "not what you can do for your county, but what your county can do for you."
They were joined by single-issue social liberals who could not put aside their blinders, even once, to vote for the better candidate. Add to that African-American voters who, as stubbornly as the Deep South racists of Jim Crow, refuse to put aside racial identities.
Nowhere does it say that democracy is infallible; that voters don't make mistakes. We've been constantly reminded of that by Democrats who say that President Bush was the biggest mistake voters ever made.
"OK, OK," you say. "You've made your point. Why not just let it rest?" Because the values, standards and mind-set of the electorate are important. An electorate that tolerates corruption will get corruption. One that puts up with incompetence, in pursuit of narrow self-interest, will get government that swims in muck. To bash public officials without criticizing the people who installed them is hypocrisy.
Next up is the Chicago mayoral campaign. I use the word "campaign" lightly.
Now with U.S. Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Luis Gutierrez overnight deciding not to run against Mayor Richard Daley, the heat is off. Apparently they figured they could do more about Chicago's waste, fraud and abuse from the heights of Capitol Hill. Two lesser-known candidates remain, but one can only assume they'll carve up what little opposition will remain against the mayor.
Some independents may have taken hope that organized labor was stepping up to support anti-Daley aldermen, but they're going to need a lot of extra help, now that the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce brazenly has decided to take the side of waste, fraud and abuse by assembling big bucks to defeat anyone who strays from the drove.
After countless indictments and convictions by Fitzgerald, a majority of the electorate appears, with the election of Todd Stroger (and the re-election of Gov. Rod Blagojevich), ready to countenance more of the same.
One would have hoped that Fitzgerald's exposure of the depth of the graft would have convinced more voters of the need for change.
With a majority of voters not persuaded, Fitzgerald's value narrows but remains no less important: taking on the organization, one grafter at a time, putting away or scaring enough of them to at least reduce their inventory.
Without Fitzgerald, absolutely nothing would stand in the way of waste, fraud and abuse. Certainly not the electorate.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
For Obama, Problems at Home?
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago--By popular acclaim, the winner of the mid-term elections is Barack Obama. If the number of studio appearances he made election night means anything, the Illinois Democratic Senator is a shoo-in for President, commissioner of baseball and the papacy.
Funny thing, though, in Illinois, where he was a minor player in the state Senate before national media adulation propelled him into the presidential spotlight, his glow might have begun to dim.
At question is a newly disclosed suspicious deal he made with an indicted political fundraiser to improve their adjoining properties in a pricey neighborhood on Chicago' South Side. The "neighbor" in the deal is Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who indicted for plotting to squeeze millions of dollars in kickbacks out of firms seeking state business. He has pleaded not guilty, but allegations muddied the campaign of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who nonetheless was re-elected Tuesday by ever-forgiving Illinois voters.
Continue reading at RealClearPolitics
Chicago--By popular acclaim, the winner of the mid-term elections is Barack Obama. If the number of studio appearances he made election night means anything, the Illinois Democratic Senator is a shoo-in for President, commissioner of baseball and the papacy.
Funny thing, though, in Illinois, where he was a minor player in the state Senate before national media adulation propelled him into the presidential spotlight, his glow might have begun to dim.
At question is a newly disclosed suspicious deal he made with an indicted political fundraiser to improve their adjoining properties in a pricey neighborhood on Chicago' South Side. The "neighbor" in the deal is Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who indicted for plotting to squeeze millions of dollars in kickbacks out of firms seeking state business. He has pleaded not guilty, but allegations muddied the campaign of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who nonetheless was re-elected Tuesday by ever-forgiving Illinois voters.
Continue reading at RealClearPolitics
Monday, November 06, 2006
Candidates, stop hiding behind push-poll curtain
By Dennis Byrne
Happily, Election Day will end not just those maddening campaign commercials but also a more intrusive annoyance: the push poll.
It starts out as a typical poll. "Would you care to answer a few questions about the elections," the voice on your phone asks. "Whom do you plan to vote for?"
Then it gets weird. As in: "Candidate A beats his wife; does that make you think of him more or less favorably?" Or as my daughter Kati heard when she was called: "Does the fact that Congressman Mark Kirk accepts special-interest money make you think of him more favorably or less favorably?"
So, if you are a supporter of Kirk--the Republican from the north suburban 10th Congressional District who is seeking re-election against Democrat Dan Seals--how are you supposed to answer? Oh, sure, I want my congressman to take special-interest money, so it makes me think more favorably of him.
Which is exactly how Kati, being Kati, answered. Then came four more questions of the same nature, each trying to make Kirk look like he was doing something wrong. And each time, Kati answered that she thinks more favorably of him. She even had the interviewer chuckling. But actually, it wasn't so funny.
"It's like Mark Kirk went out and shot 100 people," she said. "What kind of poll is this anyway?"
The answer is: dirty, low-down and negative.
Kati later told me the caller ID number was 509-765-4321, which turned out to be "disconnected." But she did get the company's name, Communications Center Inc. in Spokane, Wash., which had a real number and a real person answering. She was Judy Goodrich, director of operations, who explained that they don't make up the questions, they just make the calls. She said she could only identify the client if the person agreed, which the person apparently didn't because Goodrich didn't call me back as I asked.
Considering the nastiness of the questions, slinking around is to be expected. I couldn't find anyone who filed a report indicating that the push poll about Kirk was a campaign expense, which probably means that no one is fessing up. The Mellman Group, a well-known Democratic polling firm representing such political clients as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, recently completed a poll showing Kirk's "favorability and job performance rating have [sic] deteriorated significantly," but that was taken before Kati's phone call. Besides, who would be stupid enough to actually use those fabricated push-poll "results," especially since push polls are condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.
Still, it would be nice if the origins of these scummy attacks were as "transparent" as, say, sponsors of those repulsive televised campaign ads. Take Communications Center, which often is mentioned by visitors to the whocalled.us Web site, which accepts complaints about perceived violations of the National Do Not Call Registry. One from Illinois described how "the questions turned to negative statements about a Republican senator in our state up for re-election. After the third negative statement ... I finally asked why the questions seemed more like Democratic talking points and the caller confirmed that the Democrats had sanctioned the survey. I then hung up as this was just a cheap ploy to get their agenda out."
(Here, I'll stipulate that both parties probably use such polls.)
Said another: "I received a call from this [number] asking for my 92-year-old mother by first name only. They would not say who they were! ... I tried the number back also and got the same message that it had been disconnected." Some reported receiving calls at 2 a.m., or "up to 20 a day." Almost all said they were on the "do-not-call" list prohibiting solicitations by telemarketers.
Goodrich said Communications Center is acting legally because "market research" is exempt from the list. She referred me to donotcall.gov, which backed her up. The Web site also explains that calls "on behalf of political organizations" are permitted.
As always, politicians have themselves covered. The laws don't apply equally to them, or to their friends in the survey business. Ask the politicians why, and they'll say political speech can't be constitutionally prohibited, even when it's an intrusive call into your home.
Blah, blah. At least they should have the courage to require that when they commission a push poll, they must crawl out from under their rocks so we can see their disgusting selves in the full light of day.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Happily, Election Day will end not just those maddening campaign commercials but also a more intrusive annoyance: the push poll.
It starts out as a typical poll. "Would you care to answer a few questions about the elections," the voice on your phone asks. "Whom do you plan to vote for?"
Then it gets weird. As in: "Candidate A beats his wife; does that make you think of him more or less favorably?" Or as my daughter Kati heard when she was called: "Does the fact that Congressman Mark Kirk accepts special-interest money make you think of him more favorably or less favorably?"
So, if you are a supporter of Kirk--the Republican from the north suburban 10th Congressional District who is seeking re-election against Democrat Dan Seals--how are you supposed to answer? Oh, sure, I want my congressman to take special-interest money, so it makes me think more favorably of him.
Which is exactly how Kati, being Kati, answered. Then came four more questions of the same nature, each trying to make Kirk look like he was doing something wrong. And each time, Kati answered that she thinks more favorably of him. She even had the interviewer chuckling. But actually, it wasn't so funny.
"It's like Mark Kirk went out and shot 100 people," she said. "What kind of poll is this anyway?"
The answer is: dirty, low-down and negative.
Kati later told me the caller ID number was 509-765-4321, which turned out to be "disconnected." But she did get the company's name, Communications Center Inc. in Spokane, Wash., which had a real number and a real person answering. She was Judy Goodrich, director of operations, who explained that they don't make up the questions, they just make the calls. She said she could only identify the client if the person agreed, which the person apparently didn't because Goodrich didn't call me back as I asked.
Considering the nastiness of the questions, slinking around is to be expected. I couldn't find anyone who filed a report indicating that the push poll about Kirk was a campaign expense, which probably means that no one is fessing up. The Mellman Group, a well-known Democratic polling firm representing such political clients as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, recently completed a poll showing Kirk's "favorability and job performance rating have [sic] deteriorated significantly," but that was taken before Kati's phone call. Besides, who would be stupid enough to actually use those fabricated push-poll "results," especially since push polls are condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.
Still, it would be nice if the origins of these scummy attacks were as "transparent" as, say, sponsors of those repulsive televised campaign ads. Take Communications Center, which often is mentioned by visitors to the whocalled.us Web site, which accepts complaints about perceived violations of the National Do Not Call Registry. One from Illinois described how "the questions turned to negative statements about a Republican senator in our state up for re-election. After the third negative statement ... I finally asked why the questions seemed more like Democratic talking points and the caller confirmed that the Democrats had sanctioned the survey. I then hung up as this was just a cheap ploy to get their agenda out."
(Here, I'll stipulate that both parties probably use such polls.)
Said another: "I received a call from this [number] asking for my 92-year-old mother by first name only. They would not say who they were! ... I tried the number back also and got the same message that it had been disconnected." Some reported receiving calls at 2 a.m., or "up to 20 a day." Almost all said they were on the "do-not-call" list prohibiting solicitations by telemarketers.
Goodrich said Communications Center is acting legally because "market research" is exempt from the list. She referred me to donotcall.gov, which backed her up. The Web site also explains that calls "on behalf of political organizations" are permitted.
As always, politicians have themselves covered. The laws don't apply equally to them, or to their friends in the survey business. Ask the politicians why, and they'll say political speech can't be constitutionally prohibited, even when it's an intrusive call into your home.
Blah, blah. At least they should have the courage to require that when they commission a push poll, they must crawl out from under their rocks so we can see their disgusting selves in the full light of day.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Monday, October 30, 2006
Suburbs to Chicago: Butt out of our congressional elections
By Dennis Byrne
If you're a suburban voter and someone knocks on your door asking you how you plan to vote in the congressional election, you might want to ask for some ID.
Chances are the ID would have a Chicago address. That's because Chicago Democrats are being recruited to work against Republican candidates throughout Cook County and collar counties.
The Illinois Democratic Network, or IllinoisDemNet as it calls itself on its Web site, is proud to be transporting campaigners from Chicago (and Evanston) to work for Democrats in congressional races from the Wisconsin line to as far south as Joliet.
There, they are knocking on doors and making calls for Democratic candidates Dan Seals (against incumbent Republican Mark Kirk in the north suburban 10th District), incumbent Melissa Bean (against Republican challenger David McSweeney in the northwest suburban 8th District), Democrat Tammy Duckworth (against Republican Peter Roskam for Henry Hyde's seat in the west suburban 6th District) and John Laesch (against House Speaker Dennis Hastert in the west and southwest suburban 14th District).
This may not sound like much of a deal to some Chicagoans who have no use for the suburbs to start with, but suburbanites, such as myself, might not like it because we, after all, live out here in part to be away from the city's lousy schools, higher crime rates and politics as it is practiced in Chicago. Suburbs to Chicago: Butt out. Do we send in squads of suburban Republicans to work Democratic precincts? Haven't you screwed up Chicago and Cook County governments enough already? Do we need lakefront and limousine liberals to tell us how to vote?
IllinoisDemNet asserts that it has no connection with the Chicago organization or any other Democratic organization, that it's just a bunch of progressives, liberals and moderates who are passionate about their cause. Except that the volunteers are picked up at the 44th Ward Democratic Organization, in the district of Democratic U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (the guy who parachuted outsider Duckworth into the 6th District race) and the Democratic Party headquarters in Evanston, in Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky's district. After I inquired, the Web site deleted the fact that pick-up sites were connected to party offices. Not deleted were some destinations, such as the Duckworth and Bean field offices.
As of my deadline, IllinoisDemNet had ignored my e-mail asking such questions as the group's party affiliation and funding.
Such secrecy tells Ryan McLaughlin, Roskam's campaign manager, that the group has something to hide.
"The Chicago political machine's reputation for corruption goes back decades, and it's not surprising that in their efforts to expand their fiefdom, they are trying to implant their proxy in a suburban congressional seat," he said in an e-mail. "Duckworth has embraced the city's agenda, ahead of suburban families, and would merely be an extension of the Daley-Blagojevich-Emanuel machine with a different address."
McSweeney isn't so sure. In an interview, he said that his opponent, Bean, has virtually no organizational support, mainly because her support of the Central America Free Trade Agreement lost her the backing of large organized labor. McSweeney figures that liberal organizing support instead is going to the third candidate on the ballot, Bill Scheurer. The absence of a Bean organization shows she is "out of touch" with the district and her natural Democratic constituency, McSweeney said.
As suburban voting demographics trend in favor of Democrats, it only makes sense for the party to increase its organizing there, relying on the main source of party volunteers and patronage workers: Chicago. Importing outside help is not unprecedented or confined to Democrats. In this country, everyone has a right to speak for or against a candidate, no matter where.
Then why is IllinoisDemNet so chary of saying who it is?
There's good reason to ask about political groups that say they're independent. Consider: Last year, the Friends of Lane Evans (a congressman from western Illinois) paid a $185,000 civil penalty under a federal consent decree. The committee ran afoul of federal election law by creating an organization, the 17th District Victory Fund, that spent $330,000 on, among other things, a turn-out-the-vote campaign for Evans.
The Federal Elections Commission said it "found that these campaign-focused activities were so closely coordinated with the campaign that they represented contributions from the Victory Fund to Evans. The contributions exceeded federal limits and included funds from prohibited sources, in violation of [federal election law]."
IllinoisDemNet won't answer my questions. I wonder why.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
If you're a suburban voter and someone knocks on your door asking you how you plan to vote in the congressional election, you might want to ask for some ID.
Chances are the ID would have a Chicago address. That's because Chicago Democrats are being recruited to work against Republican candidates throughout Cook County and collar counties.
The Illinois Democratic Network, or IllinoisDemNet as it calls itself on its Web site, is proud to be transporting campaigners from Chicago (and Evanston) to work for Democrats in congressional races from the Wisconsin line to as far south as Joliet.
There, they are knocking on doors and making calls for Democratic candidates Dan Seals (against incumbent Republican Mark Kirk in the north suburban 10th District), incumbent Melissa Bean (against Republican challenger David McSweeney in the northwest suburban 8th District), Democrat Tammy Duckworth (against Republican Peter Roskam for Henry Hyde's seat in the west suburban 6th District) and John Laesch (against House Speaker Dennis Hastert in the west and southwest suburban 14th District).
This may not sound like much of a deal to some Chicagoans who have no use for the suburbs to start with, but suburbanites, such as myself, might not like it because we, after all, live out here in part to be away from the city's lousy schools, higher crime rates and politics as it is practiced in Chicago. Suburbs to Chicago: Butt out. Do we send in squads of suburban Republicans to work Democratic precincts? Haven't you screwed up Chicago and Cook County governments enough already? Do we need lakefront and limousine liberals to tell us how to vote?
IllinoisDemNet asserts that it has no connection with the Chicago organization or any other Democratic organization, that it's just a bunch of progressives, liberals and moderates who are passionate about their cause. Except that the volunteers are picked up at the 44th Ward Democratic Organization, in the district of Democratic U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (the guy who parachuted outsider Duckworth into the 6th District race) and the Democratic Party headquarters in Evanston, in Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky's district. After I inquired, the Web site deleted the fact that pick-up sites were connected to party offices. Not deleted were some destinations, such as the Duckworth and Bean field offices.
As of my deadline, IllinoisDemNet had ignored my e-mail asking such questions as the group's party affiliation and funding.
Such secrecy tells Ryan McLaughlin, Roskam's campaign manager, that the group has something to hide.
"The Chicago political machine's reputation for corruption goes back decades, and it's not surprising that in their efforts to expand their fiefdom, they are trying to implant their proxy in a suburban congressional seat," he said in an e-mail. "Duckworth has embraced the city's agenda, ahead of suburban families, and would merely be an extension of the Daley-Blagojevich-Emanuel machine with a different address."
McSweeney isn't so sure. In an interview, he said that his opponent, Bean, has virtually no organizational support, mainly because her support of the Central America Free Trade Agreement lost her the backing of large organized labor. McSweeney figures that liberal organizing support instead is going to the third candidate on the ballot, Bill Scheurer. The absence of a Bean organization shows she is "out of touch" with the district and her natural Democratic constituency, McSweeney said.
As suburban voting demographics trend in favor of Democrats, it only makes sense for the party to increase its organizing there, relying on the main source of party volunteers and patronage workers: Chicago. Importing outside help is not unprecedented or confined to Democrats. In this country, everyone has a right to speak for or against a candidate, no matter where.
Then why is IllinoisDemNet so chary of saying who it is?
There's good reason to ask about political groups that say they're independent. Consider: Last year, the Friends of Lane Evans (a congressman from western Illinois) paid a $185,000 civil penalty under a federal consent decree. The committee ran afoul of federal election law by creating an organization, the 17th District Victory Fund, that spent $330,000 on, among other things, a turn-out-the-vote campaign for Evans.
The Federal Elections Commission said it "found that these campaign-focused activities were so closely coordinated with the campaign that they represented contributions from the Victory Fund to Evans. The contributions exceeded federal limits and included funds from prohibited sources, in violation of [federal election law]."
IllinoisDemNet won't answer my questions. I wonder why.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)