The Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed to pay $660 million to 508 alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse. Considering how the church allowed this outrage to continue for decades, the amount isn't unreasonable.
But wait, the victims won't be getting a lot of that money. The plaintiffs' attorneys can expect to receive as much as 40 percent of the $660 million settlement money for their work.
No doubt that some of that money will go to Democratic candidates who have financed their campaigns with lush contributions from trial lawyers. Just how indebted the Democrats are to the trial lawyers was demonstrated again yesterday as five of the Democratic presidential candidates came to Chicago to personally vie for the attorneys' support. The kiss-ups at the assembly of trial lawyers were Senators Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Barack Obama (Ill.), Joseph Biden (Del.), former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Richardson was the only non-lawyer among the candidates.
None of the candidates had to say it, but the trial lawyers can continue to count on the Democrats to kill real tort reform, as long as the lawyers keep the money flowing.
Subscribe To The Barbershop.
Posts
All Comments
Monday, July 16, 2007
It's the ideology, stupid
There continue to be reports of wide-spread amazement that the Liverpool bombers turned out to be doctors. This wonderment usually is expressed by folks who look to the old standbys--poverty and education denied--to explain harmful, illegal and, dare I say it, evil acts.
"How do physicians who have taken an oath to do no harm commit such acts?" is how it usually is asked. The question is dangerously naive. We've known for years that the terrorists, the leadership most certainly, have risen from a well-educated, middle and sometimes upper class.
Yet, whenever President George W. Bush reminds us that we are engaged in a world-wide war against an ideology, he's portrayed as a lunatic. Now that everyone can no longer deny that's the case, perhaps we can get some realistic ideas from Democrats about how they would fight this war.
"How do physicians who have taken an oath to do no harm commit such acts?" is how it usually is asked. The question is dangerously naive. We've known for years that the terrorists, the leadership most certainly, have risen from a well-educated, middle and sometimes upper class.
Yet, whenever President George W. Bush reminds us that we are engaged in a world-wide war against an ideology, he's portrayed as a lunatic. Now that everyone can no longer deny that's the case, perhaps we can get some realistic ideas from Democrats about how they would fight this war.
Divisive diversity
You can have diversity as long as it is not divisive. That's apparently the operating rule in Kansas City, Mo., where the appointment of a member of the anti-illegal immigration group, the Minutemen, to the city's Parks and Recreation board has angered the diversity guardians.
The Wall Street Journal today reported (subscription required) that the clash erupted after the Kansas City Star outed Frances Semler, 73, who believes "...very strongly in obeying the law," as a Minutemen member. It didn't take long, the Journal reported, for the ruckus to start:
Beth Gottstein, a board member who voted for the removal, said, quite predictably, "This is about racism and divisiveness--everything we are not supposed to be about."
In case you're confused, as I was, Gottstein wasn't talking about her vote to oust someone from the board because of her views and associations ("Are you or have you ever been a member of the Minutemen?). Bouncing someone off a public body because of her views and affiliations smacks of the old Communist witchhunts and feels like the kind of divisiveness that violates the First Amendment. No, Gottstein was talking about Semler's views and affiliations, which are not illegal and, to many Americans, not even offensive.
Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser, who appointed Semler, is standing by her woman, refusing to remove her. "Diversity," he said succinctly , "is also about the diversity of views."
The Wall Street Journal today reported (subscription required) that the clash erupted after the Kansas City Star outed Frances Semler, 73, who believes "...very strongly in obeying the law," as a Minutemen member. It didn't take long, the Journal reported, for the ruckus to start:
The city's National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Jewish Community Relations Bureau held a new conference on June 14 to9 condemn the appointment. Later that day, the city council, voting 9 to 3 adopted a resolution calling for Mrs. Semler's removal from the parks board.
Beth Gottstein, a board member who voted for the removal, said, quite predictably, "This is about racism and divisiveness--everything we are not supposed to be about."
In case you're confused, as I was, Gottstein wasn't talking about her vote to oust someone from the board because of her views and associations ("Are you or have you ever been a member of the Minutemen?). Bouncing someone off a public body because of her views and affiliations smacks of the old Communist witchhunts and feels like the kind of divisiveness that violates the First Amendment. No, Gottstein was talking about Semler's views and affiliations, which are not illegal and, to many Americans, not even offensive.
Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser, who appointed Semler, is standing by her woman, refusing to remove her. "Diversity," he said succinctly , "is also about the diversity of views."
Sunday, July 15, 2007
The South Side Sun-Times?
Here's wishing the best of success to Cheryl L. Reed, the new Chicago Sun-Times editorial page editor. I have something of an interest in the fate the paper's commentary section, having served under four editorial page editors at the Sun-Times over a 12-year-span. I also wish her the best in taking the commentary section into a new direction, one that she says will be passionate liberal. Reclaiming its historic, liberal past is a suggestion I made with another editorial board member more than a decade ago. It didn't fly. It wasn't my first suggestion that didn't.
Some folks will doubt that I ever made the suggestion because of my conservative views, and that's fine. When I joined the board in 1986, I was a liberal, but for reasons to tedious to go into here I switched sides. It had nothing to do with who owned the paper, and--this needs to be said loudly--nor did much of the newspaper's day-to-day editorial policy.
It has become standard wisdom to say that the paper's owners, after its sale to Rupert Murdoch in 1984, was turned into a conservative newspaper. The assumption is made mostly by people who don't know what they're talking about. Whatever the perceived shift , it was the function of who was serving on the board. And while a number of board members were conservatives, many also were liberal. Indeed, some of them would be insulted to be called conservative
Board members always prided themselves on approaching each issue separately and taking a position based on its merits. It put us somewhere in the political middle and to the right of the board headed by well-respected Lois Wille in the day's before the Field brothers betrayed their heritage by selling the paper. On some issues, we took conservative positions; on others liberal. So, I still grate when I hear the paper's editorial page routinely called conservative.
The point here? I'm asking for fairness for all those editors, deputy editors and editorial writers who did their jobs conscientiously and honestly; they don't deserved to be labeled, or to be defamed with the conservative tag. And I sincerely hope that Reed extends to the new board members, who she says will be more reflective of the city's population, the same respect and freedom that I and my co-workers were granted by our editors. Among them was Steve Huntley, one of the most decent persons I know, who has moved along from editorial page editor to be a featured columnist. I know that Steve will bring distinction to the paper.
I have just one nit to pick: In a piece on the direction of the newspaper, Reed said:
Some folks will doubt that I ever made the suggestion because of my conservative views, and that's fine. When I joined the board in 1986, I was a liberal, but for reasons to tedious to go into here I switched sides. It had nothing to do with who owned the paper, and--this needs to be said loudly--nor did much of the newspaper's day-to-day editorial policy.
It has become standard wisdom to say that the paper's owners, after its sale to Rupert Murdoch in 1984, was turned into a conservative newspaper. The assumption is made mostly by people who don't know what they're talking about. Whatever the perceived shift , it was the function of who was serving on the board. And while a number of board members were conservatives, many also were liberal. Indeed, some of them would be insulted to be called conservative
Board members always prided themselves on approaching each issue separately and taking a position based on its merits. It put us somewhere in the political middle and to the right of the board headed by well-respected Lois Wille in the day's before the Field brothers betrayed their heritage by selling the paper. On some issues, we took conservative positions; on others liberal. So, I still grate when I hear the paper's editorial page routinely called conservative.
The point here? I'm asking for fairness for all those editors, deputy editors and editorial writers who did their jobs conscientiously and honestly; they don't deserved to be labeled, or to be defamed with the conservative tag. And I sincerely hope that Reed extends to the new board members, who she says will be more reflective of the city's population, the same respect and freedom that I and my co-workers were granted by our editors. Among them was Steve Huntley, one of the most decent persons I know, who has moved along from editorial page editor to be a featured columnist. I know that Steve will bring distinction to the paper.
I have just one nit to pick: In a piece on the direction of the newspaper, Reed said:
Chicagoans, whether they drive a Mercedes or a rust heap, identify with hard work and hard workers. Many have risen from Chicago's middle class bungalows to lake-view condos but still root for the underdog Cubs or the South Side Sox. Being in the Midwest -- that whole Second City thing -- makes us all underdogs. [Emphasis added.]I believe it wasn't an intentional slight. But if she was looking for descriptive for the Sox, she could have referred to them as the city's last World Champions. She needs to know that it's the Chicago White Sox, if she wishes her section to be viewed by the city's blue collar, working-class folks as one of them, or as their spokesman. After all, it's not the North Side Cubs or the South Side Museum of Science and Industry, the South Side Soldier Field or the University of South Side Chicago.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The Farm Bill Cometh
By Dennis Byrne
RealClearPolitics
It's hard to imagine Bill Gates, that high-tech icon, as a farmer. Yet, he has bought up hundreds of acres of Illinois farmland, putting the world's richest man in line for federal agriculture aid, just like any other American farmer.
Agribusiness; perhaps no other endeavor reaps as government aid. But all that aid will disappear on Sept. 30, when the 2002 farm authorization act expires--unless, of course, Congress passes a new one. And considering the powerful special interests at work, it's a safe bet that Congress will pass the 2007, on time and with as much or more largesse.
Gates, the good businessman that he is, can't be blamed for making a small--for him--investment in farmland, which is in high demand right now, and consequently, quite pricey. Crain's Chicago Business reported July 2 that Gates has spent $14 million buying Illinois farmland since 2006. Gates also owns 20 percent of California-based Pacific Ethanol Inc., the holder of almost $65 million worth of American farmland. Gates, the publication said, was positioning himself to benefit from the boom in ethanol, which is made from corn, soybeans and other biomass generated down on the farm.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
RealClearPolitics
It's hard to imagine Bill Gates, that high-tech icon, as a farmer. Yet, he has bought up hundreds of acres of Illinois farmland, putting the world's richest man in line for federal agriculture aid, just like any other American farmer.
Agribusiness; perhaps no other endeavor reaps as government aid. But all that aid will disappear on Sept. 30, when the 2002 farm authorization act expires--unless, of course, Congress passes a new one. And considering the powerful special interests at work, it's a safe bet that Congress will pass the 2007, on time and with as much or more largesse.
Gates, the good businessman that he is, can't be blamed for making a small--for him--investment in farmland, which is in high demand right now, and consequently, quite pricey. Crain's Chicago Business reported July 2 that Gates has spent $14 million buying Illinois farmland since 2006. Gates also owns 20 percent of California-based Pacific Ethanol Inc., the holder of almost $65 million worth of American farmland. Gates, the publication said, was positioning himself to benefit from the boom in ethanol, which is made from corn, soybeans and other biomass generated down on the farm.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
Friday, July 13, 2007
Chicago jury convicts a British lord
Chicago juries are in the habit of sending their own politicians to prison for a startling variety of corrupt acts, but none that I know of has had the pleasure of sending an esteemed member of the British House of Lords to the jug.
This will be a shock to their lordships, but Chicago juries recognize a fraud when they see one, even though the British peerage doesn't. It also will be a great shock to conservatives, especially in Canada, who insisted that Black was a victim of a politically motivated trial. Black was esteemed by certain conservatives, and managed to dupe some of them, such notables as Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle, to serve on his board.
But this is one conservative who is not lamenting his conviction. I leave to others to comment on whether the jury was right or wrong; I believe I shouldn't because I wasn't in the courtroom to hear all the evidence nor in the jury room to listen to all the arguments. I followed that practice and kept my mouth shut about the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. So, without saying the jury was right or wrong, I can t say I don't feel sorry for a man who made my life, and that of so many others who had worked for him, miserable.
Black took a struggling, but fine newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, and worsened its struggles. Cutting budgets, demeaning the staff and imposing his sense of what a newspaper should be on a publication in the nation's best newspaper town, brought the Sun-Times to new lows. Well, at least we presume so, because under his proprietorship the paper's official circulation figures were jiggered to make things look better than they were. Black also subjected the paper to the nastiest man I ever knew in this business by appointing David Radler as the Sun-Times publisher. Only the dedication of a determined and talented staff kept the paper afloat while it was being torpedoed by Black and Radler.
Radler turned on Black and got a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony against his former boss. What now would be sweet is if the two had to share the same cell. They deserve each other.
This will be a shock to their lordships, but Chicago juries recognize a fraud when they see one, even though the British peerage doesn't. It also will be a great shock to conservatives, especially in Canada, who insisted that Black was a victim of a politically motivated trial. Black was esteemed by certain conservatives, and managed to dupe some of them, such notables as Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle, to serve on his board.
But this is one conservative who is not lamenting his conviction. I leave to others to comment on whether the jury was right or wrong; I believe I shouldn't because I wasn't in the courtroom to hear all the evidence nor in the jury room to listen to all the arguments. I followed that practice and kept my mouth shut about the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. So, without saying the jury was right or wrong, I can t say I don't feel sorry for a man who made my life, and that of so many others who had worked for him, miserable.
Black took a struggling, but fine newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, and worsened its struggles. Cutting budgets, demeaning the staff and imposing his sense of what a newspaper should be on a publication in the nation's best newspaper town, brought the Sun-Times to new lows. Well, at least we presume so, because under his proprietorship the paper's official circulation figures were jiggered to make things look better than they were. Black also subjected the paper to the nastiest man I ever knew in this business by appointing David Radler as the Sun-Times publisher. Only the dedication of a determined and talented staff kept the paper afloat while it was being torpedoed by Black and Radler.
Radler turned on Black and got a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony against his former boss. What now would be sweet is if the two had to share the same cell. They deserve each other.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Judging Amy
In a perfect example of contemplating their own navels, the Chicago media have gone wild with the story about WMAQ-Ch. 5 reporter Amy Jacobson getting axed because she attended a pool party hosted by the subject of a news story that she had been covering.
A friend called the excessive coverage foofaraw, and perhaps it is. But it raises a larger question: Just how close should reporters get to their sources. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, writing on his blog, thinks it’s not a big deal. Responding to a comment, he said:
Leaving aside the bit about the kids, I’d like readers to know that not everyone in this business thinks it’s a good idea to “just hang out” or otherwise socialize with people they are covering. It’s called “getting too close to your sources,” and it can lead to big trouble. By that, I don’t necessarily mean trouble for the reporter; it’s just bad journalism. Getting too close to the people you are covering raises serious questions about your objectivity. It skews your perspective and sets you up to be used.
Does any but the most naive reporter seriously think that he’s being entertained and befriended because he’s such a swell guy? Early in my career 30-plus years ago, I found myself being invited to some nice parties thrown by people on my beat. I accepted some of the invitations, but it soon dawned on me that it’s harder to write a balanced and fair story when you’re palling around with the very people you’re writing about.
Of course, some journalism educators no longer teach that objectivity is a myth, and therefore it’s not just all right, but recommended, to buddy around with the mayor, governor, alderman, county president, congressman, senator and whoever your little heart desires. But don’t ask your readers to trust you. Because you’ve betrayed them.
A friend called the excessive coverage foofaraw, and perhaps it is. But it raises a larger question: Just how close should reporters get to their sources. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, writing on his blog, thinks it’s not a big deal. Responding to a comment, he said:
And you misunderstand the reporter/source relationship if you think it's all about having the notepad out and the voice recorder on all the time. Reporters and sources go to ballgames, play golf, dine and just hang out from time to time to build rapport, familiarity, trust and so on. The presence of kids might have even facilitated that, though I'd hate to think any journalist would deliberately use his or her kids as professional props.
Leaving aside the bit about the kids, I’d like readers to know that not everyone in this business thinks it’s a good idea to “just hang out” or otherwise socialize with people they are covering. It’s called “getting too close to your sources,” and it can lead to big trouble. By that, I don’t necessarily mean trouble for the reporter; it’s just bad journalism. Getting too close to the people you are covering raises serious questions about your objectivity. It skews your perspective and sets you up to be used.
Does any but the most naive reporter seriously think that he’s being entertained and befriended because he’s such a swell guy? Early in my career 30-plus years ago, I found myself being invited to some nice parties thrown by people on my beat. I accepted some of the invitations, but it soon dawned on me that it’s harder to write a balanced and fair story when you’re palling around with the very people you’re writing about.
Of course, some journalism educators no longer teach that objectivity is a myth, and therefore it’s not just all right, but recommended, to buddy around with the mayor, governor, alderman, county president, congressman, senator and whoever your little heart desires. But don’t ask your readers to trust you. Because you’ve betrayed them.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Middle America doing us proud
Their Cities Lead U.S. in Volunteering
When it comes to giving of the most personal kind—volunteering—the Heartland is a standout compared to the coasts. A new report has found that the cities with the highest levels ofr volunteering are largely focused in Middle America.
I guess the liberal-leaning New York, Los Angeles and other liberal-dominated coastal cities are simply too busy demanding that someone else—the federal government and taxpayers—do the good works for them.
This post also appears on Political Mavens
When it comes to giving of the most personal kind—volunteering—the Heartland is a standout compared to the coasts. A new report has found that the cities with the highest levels ofr volunteering are largely focused in Middle America.
Volunteer rates in America’s largest cities range from a high of 40.5 percent in Minneapolis-St. Paul to a low of 14.4 percent in Las Vegas. After Minneapolis-St. Paul, the cities with the highest volunteer rates are Salt Lake City, Austin, Texas; Omaha, Neb.; Seattle; Portland, Ore.; Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Charlotte, N.C.; and Tulsa, Okla. The cities with the lowest volunteer rate are Las Vegas; Miami; New York; Virginia Beach, Va.; and Riverside, Calif.
I guess the liberal-leaning New York, Los Angeles and other liberal-dominated coastal cities are simply too busy demanding that someone else—the federal government and taxpayers—do the good works for them.
This post also appears on Political Mavens
Very latest round of cliches places thinking at risk
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Ever evolving, language sometimes brings forth an ugly mutant. Words or phrases that at first sound clever, inventive or insightful soon enter the vocabulary of every dullard, stocking the ever-expanding universe of cliches. Sadly, there are no black holes to suck them into oblivion. We can't pass a law against language abuse -- nor should we -- so our only weapon against this onslaught is scorn. So, let's get to it:
Very latest. TV news operations think that by putting "very" in front of "latest" we'll think that we're getting something later than merely the latest. As in: "Now we go to Frank Frake, who's on the scene for the very latest." As if we'd turn to another station if Frank were going to give us only the latest, without the very. Likewise, the 10 p.m. news tells us to tune in at 5 a.m. tomorrow for the very latest when the latest hasn't happened yet. Is there a lesser degree of latest, short of the very latest, such as kind-of-the-latest, or the penultimate latest? In truth, there's no very latest. It's either the latest or it's not. It's like saying, "very unique" or "very pregnant." It's very aggravating.
Place at risk. Or "put at risk," as if there's a spot for risk on the bureau or kitchen counter. Risk is not an object that has a location. Yet, the placing of risk has become a scourge. What is the compulsion to use a clumsy, refried phrase in place of efficient, sharper words? Endanger. Jeopardize. Threaten. As in, "this constant use of placing at risk threatens my sanity." It has been embraced by an entire generation of journalists who apparently were never taught anything about an economy of words or read the venerable "Elements of Style." Or who want to sound like superior academic types, whence the risk placing came.
Nuanced. This headache-starter could have been created by political and media elitists who want to impress us with their understanding of complex issues -- stuff that the rest of us couldn't begin to get. Notice that the use of "nuance" is rarely followed by an elucidation of the subtleties, suggesting that the speaker himself may not really understand. Or perhaps that it's all just a bunch of gobbledygook anyway. Used in a sentence: "Al Gore's explanation for global warming is more nuanced than that of that idiot, Bush." Bush, who is credited with being as nuanced as an unpainted canvas, turned the tables on his 2004 presidential opponent U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by saying the Democrat's position on Iraq was "nuanced." Bush was cleverly mocking Kerry for not having a position, but, of course, Democrats didn't get it.
Snarky. Thank the Internet for this one, which often is deployed by dullards to feel like they've come up with a clever insult. Gag.
Grace note. Usually meant as a compliment, such as: "He ended his speech on a grace note," suggesting that the closing remarks were "gracious." It doesn't. It's a musical note that is added as lilting embellishment or ornament, played quickly, "printed in small type, and not counted in the rhythm." Would it be ungracious to suggest that the constant misuse of "grace note" reveals ignorance?
Within 3. Or 2, 1 or whatever. As when the TV announcer says the Bulls, having made a basket, have made the score 75-72 and now "have pulled to within" 3 points. No, "within 3" would be something less than 3, such as 2.95. I guess it's too difficult to simply say, "The Bulls have pulled to 3 points behind."
Change. Not the stuff that slips out of your pocket and between the cushions on the couch. This is the stuff, any stuff, that you're for if you are progressive. Here's U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently on the subject: "We are [cliche warning] striking a chord and I think people have confidence that maybe we can [cliche warning] bridge some of those divides in this country. That's what it's going to take to bring about [cliche warning] significant, real change. Change can't [cliche warning] just be a slogan. Change has to be something that is demonstrated day-to-day on an [cliche warning] ongoing basis." Barack, either change your speechwriters or tell us what change you have in mind.
It's (all) about. My lambasting this most hackneyed phrase a decade ago was about useless.
The election is still a year away, but already the candidates are boasting that their campaigns are "about" honesty or some other virtue and that their legislation is "about the children."
It's about enough already.
Chicago Tribune
Ever evolving, language sometimes brings forth an ugly mutant. Words or phrases that at first sound clever, inventive or insightful soon enter the vocabulary of every dullard, stocking the ever-expanding universe of cliches. Sadly, there are no black holes to suck them into oblivion. We can't pass a law against language abuse -- nor should we -- so our only weapon against this onslaught is scorn. So, let's get to it:
Very latest. TV news operations think that by putting "very" in front of "latest" we'll think that we're getting something later than merely the latest. As in: "Now we go to Frank Frake, who's on the scene for the very latest." As if we'd turn to another station if Frank were going to give us only the latest, without the very. Likewise, the 10 p.m. news tells us to tune in at 5 a.m. tomorrow for the very latest when the latest hasn't happened yet. Is there a lesser degree of latest, short of the very latest, such as kind-of-the-latest, or the penultimate latest? In truth, there's no very latest. It's either the latest or it's not. It's like saying, "very unique" or "very pregnant." It's very aggravating.
Place at risk. Or "put at risk," as if there's a spot for risk on the bureau or kitchen counter. Risk is not an object that has a location. Yet, the placing of risk has become a scourge. What is the compulsion to use a clumsy, refried phrase in place of efficient, sharper words? Endanger. Jeopardize. Threaten. As in, "this constant use of placing at risk threatens my sanity." It has been embraced by an entire generation of journalists who apparently were never taught anything about an economy of words or read the venerable "Elements of Style." Or who want to sound like superior academic types, whence the risk placing came.
Nuanced. This headache-starter could have been created by political and media elitists who want to impress us with their understanding of complex issues -- stuff that the rest of us couldn't begin to get. Notice that the use of "nuance" is rarely followed by an elucidation of the subtleties, suggesting that the speaker himself may not really understand. Or perhaps that it's all just a bunch of gobbledygook anyway. Used in a sentence: "Al Gore's explanation for global warming is more nuanced than that of that idiot, Bush." Bush, who is credited with being as nuanced as an unpainted canvas, turned the tables on his 2004 presidential opponent U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by saying the Democrat's position on Iraq was "nuanced." Bush was cleverly mocking Kerry for not having a position, but, of course, Democrats didn't get it.
Snarky. Thank the Internet for this one, which often is deployed by dullards to feel like they've come up with a clever insult. Gag.
Grace note. Usually meant as a compliment, such as: "He ended his speech on a grace note," suggesting that the closing remarks were "gracious." It doesn't. It's a musical note that is added as lilting embellishment or ornament, played quickly, "printed in small type, and not counted in the rhythm." Would it be ungracious to suggest that the constant misuse of "grace note" reveals ignorance?
Within 3. Or 2, 1 or whatever. As when the TV announcer says the Bulls, having made a basket, have made the score 75-72 and now "have pulled to within" 3 points. No, "within 3" would be something less than 3, such as 2.95. I guess it's too difficult to simply say, "The Bulls have pulled to 3 points behind."
Change. Not the stuff that slips out of your pocket and between the cushions on the couch. This is the stuff, any stuff, that you're for if you are progressive. Here's U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently on the subject: "We are [cliche warning] striking a chord and I think people have confidence that maybe we can [cliche warning] bridge some of those divides in this country. That's what it's going to take to bring about [cliche warning] significant, real change. Change can't [cliche warning] just be a slogan. Change has to be something that is demonstrated day-to-day on an [cliche warning] ongoing basis." Barack, either change your speechwriters or tell us what change you have in mind.
It's (all) about. My lambasting this most hackneyed phrase a decade ago was about useless.
The election is still a year away, but already the candidates are boasting that their campaigns are "about" honesty or some other virtue and that their legislation is "about the children."
It's about enough already.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Excuse me?
By Dennis Byrne
Political Mavens
Though wild-eyed and hysterical, President George W. Bush’s critics seemed most pleased that he had given an excuse for another scolding by commuting the prison sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Read the rest at Political Mavens
Political Mavens
Though wild-eyed and hysterical, President George W. Bush’s critics seemed most pleased that he had given an excuse for another scolding by commuting the prison sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Read the rest at Political Mavens
Monday, July 02, 2007
Brain drain of prosecutors in Cook County
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
From any reasonable point of view, there should be some balance between how much the public pays to prosecute criminals and free the indigent innocent.
That's not the case in Cook County, where assistant state's attorneys are paid less than public defenders. It's not because public defenders are paid too much; they earn every penny they make for the important job of representing defendants who cannot afford counsel. Rather it's because when compared with prosecutors in the nation's other large counties, assistant state's attorneys here are underpaid and overworked.
Cook County assistant state's attorneys have disproportionately heavier caseloads than in other large counties. Here they close more cases and have more statutory duties.
The disparities are causing more assistant state's attorneys, including some "first chairs" or lead prosecutors, to leave for better paying jobs, while making the recruitment of new prosecutors more difficult, Cook County State's Atty. Richard Devine said in an interview. "The balance in the criminal justice system is vital. When you tilt it and higher pay goes for defense than for prosecution, then we've got problems. We're seeing an accelerated rate of resignations; it isn't dramatic yet, but I anticipate that we'll see a brain drain."
How it got this way is clouded in the arcane politics of the Cook County Board, where political preservation and advancement seem to trump the public interest at nearly every turn.
*When the board passed the budget in February, the state's attorney's office lost 100 people (out of a staff of about 800), including 44 prosecutors and 10 investigators. With about 540 lawyers, the public defender's office is smaller, but it lost proportionately fewer lawyers than the state's attorney's office.
*The typical prosecutor's annual pay before then was about $63,000, compared with $73,000 for public defenders. Since then, prosecutors received a raise that would bring them closer to "parity" with the public defenders, but they still lag about 8 percent behind. This while the total number of active felony cases per attorney is 50 in the public defender's office and 109 in the state's attorney's office.
*In Cook County, the prosecutor's office costs each citizen $23.07, which is in the low-end among big-county annual costs and compares with Manhattan's $48.97 and San Diego County's $43.62. The average caseload each prosecutor carries in Cook County is 600.17, among the nation's highest, which compares with San Diego's 88.32. The average number of filings per prosecutor here is 533, also among the highest, compared with San Diego's 150. The average number of cases closed per prosecutor here is 434 misdemeanor cases and 73 felony cases, also among the nation's highest, compared with San Diego's 32 misdemeanors and 46 felonies.
With the defections, declining staff, large workload and static salary, morale in the office is "horrible," said state's attorney spokesman John Gorman. But morale could improve if the County Board, at one of its two July meetings, approves a cost-of-living increase that would help catch them up. The $8.7 million needed, Gorman said, could come from the county's "814 account," which is money set aside for raises for county employees. Apparently how much is in the account is somewhat foggy, as Gorman said, "we've heard figures from $37 million to $16 million." There may be enough votes to pass the raise, but a veto by County Board President Todd Stroger would require a four-fifths vote of commissioners to override, a virtual impossibility. The county's budget is heavy with red ink and opponents of a raise for prosecutors easily could depict achieving parity between assistant state's attorneys and public defenders as just another special interest pleading. Indeed, striking a balance between all the needs competing for county money is a challenge for even the most dedicated County Board and skillful County Board president, let alone for Stroger.
Yet, Devine sees salary parity as a high priority compared with other needs because an effective criminal justice system requires balance between resources for the prosecution and the defense. "Prosecutors can vote with their feet," he said, "and unless the County Board acts, we will have a loss of talent that will seriously impact the prosecution of criminals in this county."
Chicago Tribune
From any reasonable point of view, there should be some balance between how much the public pays to prosecute criminals and free the indigent innocent.
That's not the case in Cook County, where assistant state's attorneys are paid less than public defenders. It's not because public defenders are paid too much; they earn every penny they make for the important job of representing defendants who cannot afford counsel. Rather it's because when compared with prosecutors in the nation's other large counties, assistant state's attorneys here are underpaid and overworked.
Cook County assistant state's attorneys have disproportionately heavier caseloads than in other large counties. Here they close more cases and have more statutory duties.
The disparities are causing more assistant state's attorneys, including some "first chairs" or lead prosecutors, to leave for better paying jobs, while making the recruitment of new prosecutors more difficult, Cook County State's Atty. Richard Devine said in an interview. "The balance in the criminal justice system is vital. When you tilt it and higher pay goes for defense than for prosecution, then we've got problems. We're seeing an accelerated rate of resignations; it isn't dramatic yet, but I anticipate that we'll see a brain drain."
How it got this way is clouded in the arcane politics of the Cook County Board, where political preservation and advancement seem to trump the public interest at nearly every turn.
*When the board passed the budget in February, the state's attorney's office lost 100 people (out of a staff of about 800), including 44 prosecutors and 10 investigators. With about 540 lawyers, the public defender's office is smaller, but it lost proportionately fewer lawyers than the state's attorney's office.
*The typical prosecutor's annual pay before then was about $63,000, compared with $73,000 for public defenders. Since then, prosecutors received a raise that would bring them closer to "parity" with the public defenders, but they still lag about 8 percent behind. This while the total number of active felony cases per attorney is 50 in the public defender's office and 109 in the state's attorney's office.
*In Cook County, the prosecutor's office costs each citizen $23.07, which is in the low-end among big-county annual costs and compares with Manhattan's $48.97 and San Diego County's $43.62. The average caseload each prosecutor carries in Cook County is 600.17, among the nation's highest, which compares with San Diego's 88.32. The average number of filings per prosecutor here is 533, also among the highest, compared with San Diego's 150. The average number of cases closed per prosecutor here is 434 misdemeanor cases and 73 felony cases, also among the nation's highest, compared with San Diego's 32 misdemeanors and 46 felonies.
With the defections, declining staff, large workload and static salary, morale in the office is "horrible," said state's attorney spokesman John Gorman. But morale could improve if the County Board, at one of its two July meetings, approves a cost-of-living increase that would help catch them up. The $8.7 million needed, Gorman said, could come from the county's "814 account," which is money set aside for raises for county employees. Apparently how much is in the account is somewhat foggy, as Gorman said, "we've heard figures from $37 million to $16 million." There may be enough votes to pass the raise, but a veto by County Board President Todd Stroger would require a four-fifths vote of commissioners to override, a virtual impossibility. The county's budget is heavy with red ink and opponents of a raise for prosecutors easily could depict achieving parity between assistant state's attorneys and public defenders as just another special interest pleading. Indeed, striking a balance between all the needs competing for county money is a challenge for even the most dedicated County Board and skillful County Board president, let alone for Stroger.
Yet, Devine sees salary parity as a high priority compared with other needs because an effective criminal justice system requires balance between resources for the prosecution and the defense. "Prosecutors can vote with their feet," he said, "and unless the County Board acts, we will have a loss of talent that will seriously impact the prosecution of criminals in this county."
Friday, June 29, 2007
Revisiting Brown Using Common Sense
By Dennis Byrne
RealClearPolitics
"The premise is laid for the resegregation of America and the denial of opportunity. ... Inheritance and access will not be counterbalanced by equal protection." - the Rev. Jesse Jackson on the Supreme Court decision that race alone cannot be used to assign students to schools.
Oh, baloney. It does nothing of the sort, and Jackson knows it. So do the ideologues that are piling on the court's 5-to-4 majority with veiled predictions of a return to the days of Jim Crow and the intentional legal discrimination against African-Americans. According to these doomsayers, the landmark case, Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which banned racial segregation in schools, has been knifed. Hooded cross-burners to follow.
If anything, the Court's decision voiding racial assignment plans in Louisville and Seattle affirms and polishes Brown by extending the equal protection provisions of the Constitution's 14th Amendment beyond minorities, to everyone, including white students. The clarification was long in coming.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
RealClearPolitics
"The premise is laid for the resegregation of America and the denial of opportunity. ... Inheritance and access will not be counterbalanced by equal protection." - the Rev. Jesse Jackson on the Supreme Court decision that race alone cannot be used to assign students to schools.
Oh, baloney. It does nothing of the sort, and Jackson knows it. So do the ideologues that are piling on the court's 5-to-4 majority with veiled predictions of a return to the days of Jim Crow and the intentional legal discrimination against African-Americans. According to these doomsayers, the landmark case, Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which banned racial segregation in schools, has been knifed. Hooded cross-burners to follow.
If anything, the Court's decision voiding racial assignment plans in Louisville and Seattle affirms and polishes Brown by extending the equal protection provisions of the Constitution's 14th Amendment beyond minorities, to everyone, including white students. The clarification was long in coming.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Waxman’s truth
By Dennis Byrne
Political Mavens
Yes sir, you can depend on Rep. Henry Waxman to get to the bottom of things. The California Democrat has his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sniffing around Vice President Richard Chaney’s office for proof that liberal hatred of the man is warranted.
So, appearing Wednesday night on the PBS Newshour, Waxman was discoursing on Chaney’s supposed disregarded of the law, when he dropped this on the viewers:
Now, the truth of the matter is that we've had leaks from this vice president's office, including most recently the leak of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, by Scooter Libby [Cheney’s former chief of staff].
Actually, “the truth of the matter” is that the original leak came—as every news report in the country noted—not from Libby, but from Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Libby was convicted, someone needs to remind Waxman, of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators—all serious enough.
Read more at Political Mavens
Political Mavens
Yes sir, you can depend on Rep. Henry Waxman to get to the bottom of things. The California Democrat has his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sniffing around Vice President Richard Chaney’s office for proof that liberal hatred of the man is warranted.
So, appearing Wednesday night on the PBS Newshour, Waxman was discoursing on Chaney’s supposed disregarded of the law, when he dropped this on the viewers:
Now, the truth of the matter is that we've had leaks from this vice president's office, including most recently the leak of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, by Scooter Libby [Cheney’s former chief of staff].
Actually, “the truth of the matter” is that the original leak came—as every news report in the country noted—not from Libby, but from Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Libby was convicted, someone needs to remind Waxman, of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators—all serious enough.
Read more at Political Mavens
Monday, June 25, 2007
Children at glorious play
Planning, organizing doesn't leave much room for fun exploration
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
The music freed the children to dance.
Scores happily spun into freewheeling exhilaration -- twirling, jumping, somersaulting, cartwheeling, silly stepping and rolling about in the grass. Others were zooming in and out under the tall oaks, back where the adults sat, reserved, listening to the music of the County Sky Band. Among them, a few toes tapped out the beat.
The scene -- a live music concert in a suburban village green -- was of children in the throes of spontaneous play. Unplanned. Unscripted. Unrehearsed. They were toddlers, preschoolers and preadolescents, but none older. If you wanted to know when we lose our inhibitions, you had only to ask the age of the oldest frolicking child on the village green that pleasant evening last week.
The scene is repeated here, and elsewhere I'm sure, for weeks during the summer. Last week it was the music of Shirley King, daughter of famed blues singer B.B. King, that set the children dancing. And in the following weeks, it will be '50s, big band and more. The children don't care; they'll frolic to it all. They danced for an hour and a half, stopping only when parents decided "it's time to go," or, finally, when the concert ended. They were as inexhaustible as they were inspiring and comforting -- by showing that children still could be children.
How glad I was that children still could discover spontaneity. On their own. Without a "program" carefully tended by staff or volunteers. Without some Institute for Fostering Impulses in Childhood showing up and instructing the children. They instinctively knew what to do and how to do it.
My only fear, sitting there, listening and watching, was that some adult, well-meaning of course, would rise from his chair and go over to try to organize the children. "OK, you guys over here will twirl," he'd say, separating them into groups, "and the rest of you will whirl." No one, to my knowledge, came by to check if it was "quality play."
This is not a knock on the countless classes and organized activities that enrich the lives of millions of children. I grew up when and where there were none, and it would have been nice to have a few around. There are valuable things to learn in an organized setting: how to cooperate and how to compete, how to get along and how to stick up for yourself.
This, rather, is for the benefit of children who have no room for spontaneity in their lives; whose every waking moment is scheduled; who have no idea what unstructured play is; and whose constant companions are electronic gizmos or the playmates in a shared, organized activity.
Psychologist David Elkind, author of "The Hurried Child" and "The Power of Play," sticks up for those deprived children by lamenting the absence in their lives of self-initiated play. Elkind blames not a lack of imagination on the part of the children, but "parent angst" about preparing their children for, well, everything.
For some parents, self-guided childhood exploration can be a scary thing. For children, too. But it's part of growing up. It fosters creativity, as anyone whose mother berated him for being a "stick-in-the-mud" and sent him out to play knows. When we were growing up in the city, that meant finding something to do out back in the alley or deploying to the empty corner lot to play war in the remnants of the victory garden. Later in the suburbs, it meant finding something to do down by the creek or getting lost in one of the disappearing fields of tall corn. By today's standards, a lot of what we found to do would be considered illegal or -- worse -- "inappropriate." That's sad.
It also fosters independence, as in "figure it out for yourself." It fosters imagination and courage, as in creating heroic scenarios in which you, say, come to the rescue of (can I say it?) settlers surrounded by Geronimo's braves in war paint. It fosters what today would be called "negotiating skills," by learning to make and keep friends on your own and playing together without supervision. It fosters a sense of consequences, by taking dumb risks and figuring out how to extricate yourself from their results. Or getting stung for them.
It fosters separation from parents, and for some, that might be the scariest thing of all. It shouldn't be. It's the best way to grow up.
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
The music freed the children to dance.
Scores happily spun into freewheeling exhilaration -- twirling, jumping, somersaulting, cartwheeling, silly stepping and rolling about in the grass. Others were zooming in and out under the tall oaks, back where the adults sat, reserved, listening to the music of the County Sky Band. Among them, a few toes tapped out the beat.
The scene -- a live music concert in a suburban village green -- was of children in the throes of spontaneous play. Unplanned. Unscripted. Unrehearsed. They were toddlers, preschoolers and preadolescents, but none older. If you wanted to know when we lose our inhibitions, you had only to ask the age of the oldest frolicking child on the village green that pleasant evening last week.
The scene is repeated here, and elsewhere I'm sure, for weeks during the summer. Last week it was the music of Shirley King, daughter of famed blues singer B.B. King, that set the children dancing. And in the following weeks, it will be '50s, big band and more. The children don't care; they'll frolic to it all. They danced for an hour and a half, stopping only when parents decided "it's time to go," or, finally, when the concert ended. They were as inexhaustible as they were inspiring and comforting -- by showing that children still could be children.
How glad I was that children still could discover spontaneity. On their own. Without a "program" carefully tended by staff or volunteers. Without some Institute for Fostering Impulses in Childhood showing up and instructing the children. They instinctively knew what to do and how to do it.
My only fear, sitting there, listening and watching, was that some adult, well-meaning of course, would rise from his chair and go over to try to organize the children. "OK, you guys over here will twirl," he'd say, separating them into groups, "and the rest of you will whirl." No one, to my knowledge, came by to check if it was "quality play."
This is not a knock on the countless classes and organized activities that enrich the lives of millions of children. I grew up when and where there were none, and it would have been nice to have a few around. There are valuable things to learn in an organized setting: how to cooperate and how to compete, how to get along and how to stick up for yourself.
This, rather, is for the benefit of children who have no room for spontaneity in their lives; whose every waking moment is scheduled; who have no idea what unstructured play is; and whose constant companions are electronic gizmos or the playmates in a shared, organized activity.
Psychologist David Elkind, author of "The Hurried Child" and "The Power of Play," sticks up for those deprived children by lamenting the absence in their lives of self-initiated play. Elkind blames not a lack of imagination on the part of the children, but "parent angst" about preparing their children for, well, everything.
For some parents, self-guided childhood exploration can be a scary thing. For children, too. But it's part of growing up. It fosters creativity, as anyone whose mother berated him for being a "stick-in-the-mud" and sent him out to play knows. When we were growing up in the city, that meant finding something to do out back in the alley or deploying to the empty corner lot to play war in the remnants of the victory garden. Later in the suburbs, it meant finding something to do down by the creek or getting lost in one of the disappearing fields of tall corn. By today's standards, a lot of what we found to do would be considered illegal or -- worse -- "inappropriate." That's sad.
It also fosters independence, as in "figure it out for yourself." It fosters imagination and courage, as in creating heroic scenarios in which you, say, come to the rescue of (can I say it?) settlers surrounded by Geronimo's braves in war paint. It fosters what today would be called "negotiating skills," by learning to make and keep friends on your own and playing together without supervision. It fosters a sense of consequences, by taking dumb risks and figuring out how to extricate yourself from their results. Or getting stung for them.
It fosters separation from parents, and for some, that might be the scariest thing of all. It shouldn't be. It's the best way to grow up.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Who's the meanest of them all?
By Dennis Byrne
Political Mavens
It didn’t take Rob Rogers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial cartoonist, much imagination to create this cruel slander:
It depicts President George W. Bush as a beach lifeguard, peering through binoculars from his “embryo guard” stand. Out in the surf are three drowning people, one calling out, “I have cancer!” another, “Help, I have Alzheimer’s!” and the third, “Help, I have Parkinson’s!” Bush is on his cell phone telling someone, “All quiet here.”
It’s a mediocre effort as far as editorial cartoons go, something that you can expect when it’s based on the kind of ignorance that Rogers puts on display. But what really stands out is the cartoon’s “mean-spiritedness,” a vice the political left often ascribes to Republicans and Conservatives, because they supposedly hate such concepts as civil rights and equality and such people as immigrants, minorities, and impoverish. The people who hate Bush are, we’re supposed to believe, noble, caring and compassionate, never uttering a mean word.
Read more at Political Mavens.Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Who's Todd Stroger?
What's that you say? Cook County Board President Todd Stroger snuck out of his office for prostate cancer surgery without telling the public?
It has created quite a tempest in Chicago, about whether the head of a multi-billion-dollar agency governing one of largest counties in the nation owes it to the public to disclose his illness. My only question:
Why does it matter?
Todd Stroger's alleged guardianship of Cook County government has been a joke. A public health care system "in crisis," a huge budget deficit, a bloated payroll openly larded with his relatives in high-paying jobs and with party loyalists. Pathetically, the doctors at his own county hospital--the one named after his father, John--said he ought to go to another hospital for an operation that even a Stroger spokeswoman called "routine."
It doesn't matter if Stroger is at his desk or not. Cynics might even say that the county is better off with him not present.
Everyone wishes him well, knowing--even if Stroger himself and his staff are unwilling to publicly acknowledge--that cancer of any form is a serious matter. And certainly one that requires an elected official to disclose it.
Stroger's attempt to get away with acting as if he has no accountability to his constituents is deplorable. But more deplorable are the Democrats who sheep-like put an obvious incompetent like Stroger in office. They would have elected Dora the Explorer if she was running on the Democratic ticket.
It has created quite a tempest in Chicago, about whether the head of a multi-billion-dollar agency governing one of largest counties in the nation owes it to the public to disclose his illness. My only question:
Why does it matter?
Todd Stroger's alleged guardianship of Cook County government has been a joke. A public health care system "in crisis," a huge budget deficit, a bloated payroll openly larded with his relatives in high-paying jobs and with party loyalists. Pathetically, the doctors at his own county hospital--the one named after his father, John--said he ought to go to another hospital for an operation that even a Stroger spokeswoman called "routine."
It doesn't matter if Stroger is at his desk or not. Cynics might even say that the county is better off with him not present.
Everyone wishes him well, knowing--even if Stroger himself and his staff are unwilling to publicly acknowledge--that cancer of any form is a serious matter. And certainly one that requires an elected official to disclose it.
Stroger's attempt to get away with acting as if he has no accountability to his constituents is deplorable. But more deplorable are the Democrats who sheep-like put an obvious incompetent like Stroger in office. They would have elected Dora the Explorer if she was running on the Democratic ticket.
Monday, June 18, 2007
City congestion takes toll on common sense
Instead of forcing the public to pay for downtown's density dilemma, maybe Chicago should stop bribing businesses to set up shop there
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
There's something appealing about taxing cars and trucks that traverse the Loop, as Ald. Edward Burke (14th) suggests: It would tap suburban and other drivers who supposedly don't pay for those city streets.
It would satisfy Chicagoans who believe suburbanites are moochers, enjoying the city's benefits and amenities without paying for them. Burke himself suggested as much when he pointed out that suburbanites don't pay for the city's vehicle sticker.
If nicking suburbanites for the costs of clogged downtown streets is the real purpose of Burke's proposed ordinance, why not go all the way: Impose a whopping toll or fine only on anyone who drives into downtown without a City of Chicago sticker? That way Burke would get the huge revenue stream he wants for the money-sucking CTA, and Chicagoans themselves would get to enjoy a less congested downtown, without having to pay a toll. Except that such a scheme probably would be illegal, because (A) public streets by law are equally public, and (B) the taxes of every motorist in Illinois help pay for city streets.
But there's something appealing about a downtown vehicle toll: The people -- whether Chicagoans or suburbanites -- who are creating the problems (congestion, pollution) would be paying for the privilege. It's not dumping the costs of those streets on the rest of us who infrequently or never drive downtown. It's the same idea as the Illinois toll roads: The folks who use them have to cough up.
Of course, downtown interests fear that a downtown toll could hurt their businesses. For them, congestion isn't such a bad thing. In fact, when you think about it, what's so bad about downtown the way it is? Downtown, with its attractiveness and vitality, eclipses just about any other big-city downtown in America. In fact, the hustle and bustle is part of the attraction of downtown. Remember what State Street was like when it became a mall? There were no cars on it, and few shoppers. So, perhaps we should just learn to live with the congestion, as most people have.
Maybe a vehicle congestion tax isn't such a good idea after all. If congestion is the real problem with downtown, then maybe we should rethink what downtowns should look like.
Today's downtown is a hand-me-down from the late 19th Century, when technology forced people into more face-to-face communications. You could use the telegraph (assuming you wanted to wait for the messenger) or a novelty called a telephone, which wasn't so grand because the person you wanted to speak with didn't always have one. Sellers, buyers, suppliers, traders, lawyers, clerks -- they all had to communicate with each other, and that meant they had to be near each other, if not face-to-face. Also, people couldn't commute long distances; they could live no farther than the end of the horse-drawn streetcar line. Thus, skyscrapers and high downtown densities.
But those densities might be obsolete thanks to the telecommunications revolution. You can go through an entire day at the office without actually seeing a seller, buyer, supplier, trader or lawyer. It's why Sears could move its giant merchandise group out, over the horizon, to Hoffman Estates. It's as if congestion is the price we pay so some people can "do lunch" together.
So, it is fair to ask, why does government continue to subsidize these densities? The subsidies flow in the form of tax-increment financing districts, direct grants, huge mass transit subsidies and the likes of Block 37 -- the city's long-delayed attempt to play developer. The costs of TIFs fall on other government units, such as schools, and neighborhoods that long are denied the increased tax revenues that they otherwise would receive from the properties.
Yes, the subsidies bring jobs and the prestige of corporate headquarters. But they also bring the supposedly dreaded congestion.
If the goal of the tax is a less congested downtown, maybe we should stop trying so hard to lure more businesses there with big pots of money. Let the chips fall; let businesses pick locations that conform to the economics of a modern telecommunications society.
Sure, we would lose businesses that we had to bribe to locate downtown. But then government wouldn't need to impose a tax to help solve a problem it helped to create. And maybe we wouldn't be arguing about doing silly things, such as imposing a downtown vehicle toll.
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
There's something appealing about taxing cars and trucks that traverse the Loop, as Ald. Edward Burke (14th) suggests: It would tap suburban and other drivers who supposedly don't pay for those city streets.
It would satisfy Chicagoans who believe suburbanites are moochers, enjoying the city's benefits and amenities without paying for them. Burke himself suggested as much when he pointed out that suburbanites don't pay for the city's vehicle sticker.
If nicking suburbanites for the costs of clogged downtown streets is the real purpose of Burke's proposed ordinance, why not go all the way: Impose a whopping toll or fine only on anyone who drives into downtown without a City of Chicago sticker? That way Burke would get the huge revenue stream he wants for the money-sucking CTA, and Chicagoans themselves would get to enjoy a less congested downtown, without having to pay a toll. Except that such a scheme probably would be illegal, because (A) public streets by law are equally public, and (B) the taxes of every motorist in Illinois help pay for city streets.
But there's something appealing about a downtown vehicle toll: The people -- whether Chicagoans or suburbanites -- who are creating the problems (congestion, pollution) would be paying for the privilege. It's not dumping the costs of those streets on the rest of us who infrequently or never drive downtown. It's the same idea as the Illinois toll roads: The folks who use them have to cough up.
Of course, downtown interests fear that a downtown toll could hurt their businesses. For them, congestion isn't such a bad thing. In fact, when you think about it, what's so bad about downtown the way it is? Downtown, with its attractiveness and vitality, eclipses just about any other big-city downtown in America. In fact, the hustle and bustle is part of the attraction of downtown. Remember what State Street was like when it became a mall? There were no cars on it, and few shoppers. So, perhaps we should just learn to live with the congestion, as most people have.
Maybe a vehicle congestion tax isn't such a good idea after all. If congestion is the real problem with downtown, then maybe we should rethink what downtowns should look like.
Today's downtown is a hand-me-down from the late 19th Century, when technology forced people into more face-to-face communications. You could use the telegraph (assuming you wanted to wait for the messenger) or a novelty called a telephone, which wasn't so grand because the person you wanted to speak with didn't always have one. Sellers, buyers, suppliers, traders, lawyers, clerks -- they all had to communicate with each other, and that meant they had to be near each other, if not face-to-face. Also, people couldn't commute long distances; they could live no farther than the end of the horse-drawn streetcar line. Thus, skyscrapers and high downtown densities.
But those densities might be obsolete thanks to the telecommunications revolution. You can go through an entire day at the office without actually seeing a seller, buyer, supplier, trader or lawyer. It's why Sears could move its giant merchandise group out, over the horizon, to Hoffman Estates. It's as if congestion is the price we pay so some people can "do lunch" together.
So, it is fair to ask, why does government continue to subsidize these densities? The subsidies flow in the form of tax-increment financing districts, direct grants, huge mass transit subsidies and the likes of Block 37 -- the city's long-delayed attempt to play developer. The costs of TIFs fall on other government units, such as schools, and neighborhoods that long are denied the increased tax revenues that they otherwise would receive from the properties.
Yes, the subsidies bring jobs and the prestige of corporate headquarters. But they also bring the supposedly dreaded congestion.
If the goal of the tax is a less congested downtown, maybe we should stop trying so hard to lure more businesses there with big pots of money. Let the chips fall; let businesses pick locations that conform to the economics of a modern telecommunications society.
Sure, we would lose businesses that we had to bribe to locate downtown. But then government wouldn't need to impose a tax to help solve a problem it helped to create. And maybe we wouldn't be arguing about doing silly things, such as imposing a downtown vehicle toll.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Do It Yourself Sopranos
By Dennis Byrne
PoliticalMavens.com
After a brilliant run, Sopranos creator David Chase dropped from exhaustion at the finish line.
The non-ending ending, in which nothing about the major characters is resolved, was quickly praised after the HBO’s acclaimed series ended Sunday night as brilliant and triumphant.
The praise is as deserving as cheers for the emperor who paraded around sans clothes. It’s as if Chase ran out of ideas, threw up his hands and told his viewers to “take it from here.” We could understand exhaustion as an explanation; the series was one of television’s most masterful.
But many reviewers indeed took it from there, hailing the ending’s ambiguity as a metaphor for, well, everything in life. As if there’s something creative about concluding that “life goes on.” Or not.
We already know that, from our own mundane, drab lives, and so we turn to the lamp keepers of the imagination—writers, artists, performers, producers—to fill in the blanks. Chase had done the job wonderfully and consistently over the years, so we expected much.
Just like other great epics and works of art, skillful endings often are what have made great works of art deserving the honorific, “classic.” Without the final movement, Ode to Joy, Beethoven’s Ninth would be merely great symphony instead of the masterpiece it is. I seem to recall that Shakespeare’s great plays had endings. Movies, books—most have endings too.
Read more at PoliticalMavens.com
PoliticalMavens.com
After a brilliant run, Sopranos creator David Chase dropped from exhaustion at the finish line.
The non-ending ending, in which nothing about the major characters is resolved, was quickly praised after the HBO’s acclaimed series ended Sunday night as brilliant and triumphant.
The praise is as deserving as cheers for the emperor who paraded around sans clothes. It’s as if Chase ran out of ideas, threw up his hands and told his viewers to “take it from here.” We could understand exhaustion as an explanation; the series was one of television’s most masterful.
But many reviewers indeed took it from there, hailing the ending’s ambiguity as a metaphor for, well, everything in life. As if there’s something creative about concluding that “life goes on.” Or not.
We already know that, from our own mundane, drab lives, and so we turn to the lamp keepers of the imagination—writers, artists, performers, producers—to fill in the blanks. Chase had done the job wonderfully and consistently over the years, so we expected much.
Just like other great epics and works of art, skillful endings often are what have made great works of art deserving the honorific, “classic.” Without the final movement, Ode to Joy, Beethoven’s Ninth would be merely great symphony instead of the masterpiece it is. I seem to recall that Shakespeare’s great plays had endings. Movies, books—most have endings too.
Read more at PoliticalMavens.com
No place for politics in stem cell science
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Just as lawmakers around the nation, including Illinois, were rushing to spend millions of your tax dollars to kill human embryos for stem-cell research, they were undercut by some inconvenient and untimely news:
Scientists may have found a better way to create the immature, pluripotent stem cells that, by growing into healthy tissue to replace diseased cells, promise great advances in treating or curing some major human diseases.
As the Washington Post put it: "Three teams of scientists said ... they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells to become what are effectively embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos in the process -- an advance that, if it works with human cells, could revolutionize stem-cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade." Much work remains to be done before scientists can conclude that it will work with humans, but it bolsters the argument that there are more ethically pristine ways of creating stem cells without killing embryos.
Significant numbers of scientists believe that the less controversial route to creating stem cells is possible, but their voices have been drowned out by politicians who would have it that if you're opposed to embryonic stem cell research, you're a "right-wing nut" who opposes all stem cell research.
Sadly, the new stem cell discoveries are not likely to slow this runaway train. The House last week and the Senate earlier passed legislation that would expand federal embryonic stem cell funding, but President Bush has promised a veto and a congressional override is in doubt.
In Illinois, the legislature has approved funding, and Gov. Rod Blagojevich has promised to sign it. Democrats will see no reason to hold off on the propaganda blitz in favor of ESC, seeing as how its more extreme proponents have bamboozled the public into believing that the only way to create effective stem cells is through ESC research.
Successful uses of adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells in various therapies are too numerous to recount here. It only needs to be said that ESC has not yet produced a single success, while non-ESC research has. Politics and ideological opportunism explain much (but certainly not all) of the insistence on federal funding of ESC research (even though there is no federal ban on private or state ESC funding.) Politics because too many people want to prove that Bush and persons concerned about the ethical implications of ESC would rather have people suffer and die. Ideology because they need to dump on the argument that human personhood begins at conception. (There's no argument that human life begins at conception; the argument is over when a human life becomes a person, endowed with human-rights protections.) In a word, the argument is about abortion.
ESC proponents will argue that whatever the successes of non-embryonic stem-cell research, such as that announced last week, it should not preclude embryonic research. The logic -- which is appealing -- is to proceed on all fronts and let the best technology win.
That, however, suggests that science has no room for ethical considerations. The consequence of accepting that premise is appalling; it would permanently end any discussion about the ethics of cloning, Josef Mengele's horrific experiments on Holocaust victims and all nuclear weapons research.
Understand what I'm saying before you reach for your keyboard: The science is unsettled about whether non-ESC research is as promising as or superior to the embryonic kind. But at this stage, the research tends to favor the non-ESC kind, in terms of proven advances and practicality. In these circumstances, it makes more sense to invest in the path that is less fraught with the kind of moral battles that tear at our fabric. Unless, you're more interested in scoring political points.
I'm also trying to say something more: The politicalization of science by the left to further its political goals ought to end. We've seen it with global warming (the science on whether we're causing it is not settled), the link between abortion and breast cancer (competent studies do show a possible relationship), and assertions that the over-the-counter Plan B contraceptive has no impact on the sexual behavior of young adolescents is without the support of a valid study.
Most of the public is illiterate enough when it comes to science. To compound it by twisting science for political purposes doesn't help.
Chicago Tribune
Just as lawmakers around the nation, including Illinois, were rushing to spend millions of your tax dollars to kill human embryos for stem-cell research, they were undercut by some inconvenient and untimely news:
Scientists may have found a better way to create the immature, pluripotent stem cells that, by growing into healthy tissue to replace diseased cells, promise great advances in treating or curing some major human diseases.
As the Washington Post put it: "Three teams of scientists said ... they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells to become what are effectively embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos in the process -- an advance that, if it works with human cells, could revolutionize stem-cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade." Much work remains to be done before scientists can conclude that it will work with humans, but it bolsters the argument that there are more ethically pristine ways of creating stem cells without killing embryos.
Significant numbers of scientists believe that the less controversial route to creating stem cells is possible, but their voices have been drowned out by politicians who would have it that if you're opposed to embryonic stem cell research, you're a "right-wing nut" who opposes all stem cell research.
Sadly, the new stem cell discoveries are not likely to slow this runaway train. The House last week and the Senate earlier passed legislation that would expand federal embryonic stem cell funding, but President Bush has promised a veto and a congressional override is in doubt.
In Illinois, the legislature has approved funding, and Gov. Rod Blagojevich has promised to sign it. Democrats will see no reason to hold off on the propaganda blitz in favor of ESC, seeing as how its more extreme proponents have bamboozled the public into believing that the only way to create effective stem cells is through ESC research.
Successful uses of adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells in various therapies are too numerous to recount here. It only needs to be said that ESC has not yet produced a single success, while non-ESC research has. Politics and ideological opportunism explain much (but certainly not all) of the insistence on federal funding of ESC research (even though there is no federal ban on private or state ESC funding.) Politics because too many people want to prove that Bush and persons concerned about the ethical implications of ESC would rather have people suffer and die. Ideology because they need to dump on the argument that human personhood begins at conception. (There's no argument that human life begins at conception; the argument is over when a human life becomes a person, endowed with human-rights protections.) In a word, the argument is about abortion.
ESC proponents will argue that whatever the successes of non-embryonic stem-cell research, such as that announced last week, it should not preclude embryonic research. The logic -- which is appealing -- is to proceed on all fronts and let the best technology win.
That, however, suggests that science has no room for ethical considerations. The consequence of accepting that premise is appalling; it would permanently end any discussion about the ethics of cloning, Josef Mengele's horrific experiments on Holocaust victims and all nuclear weapons research.
Understand what I'm saying before you reach for your keyboard: The science is unsettled about whether non-ESC research is as promising as or superior to the embryonic kind. But at this stage, the research tends to favor the non-ESC kind, in terms of proven advances and practicality. In these circumstances, it makes more sense to invest in the path that is less fraught with the kind of moral battles that tear at our fabric. Unless, you're more interested in scoring political points.
I'm also trying to say something more: The politicalization of science by the left to further its political goals ought to end. We've seen it with global warming (the science on whether we're causing it is not settled), the link between abortion and breast cancer (competent studies do show a possible relationship), and assertions that the over-the-counter Plan B contraceptive has no impact on the sexual behavior of young adolescents is without the support of a valid study.
Most of the public is illiterate enough when it comes to science. To compound it by twisting science for political purposes doesn't help.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Scary thought: Al Gore could be in charge
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
If Al Gore had been president ...
President Al Gore today asked the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution of "concern" over the nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq.
"Both countries are perilously close to possessing nuclear weapons," Gore said at a White House press conference. "Nuclear warfare between these two historic enemies would be a tragedy for everyone."
President Gore requested the resolution after the countries' two dictators, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, renewed threats of annihilation against each other over disputed Persian Gulf territory. Two decades ago, the two nations fought a prolonged war involving the use of chemical weapons over dominance of the strategically important gulf region, and both nations years ago dropped any pretense that their nuclear programs had peaceful purposes.
Gore said former President Jimmy Carter, who now is Gore's UN ambassador, would present new, softer language than what's contained in the 14 previously rejected resolutions proposed by the United States. Gore indicated that the resolution would drop a U.S. request for a multinational summit of Middle East nations and instead seek mediation by the International Anger Management Institute.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, said in response, "Great, just what we need, another futile request for a feeble declaration from an international body incapable of agreeing on the time of day. Ever since 9/11, the Gore administration's toothless foreign policy has led to more attacks by Islamic terrorists, killing thousands more Americans on our own soil and worsening the sectarian violence in the Middle East.
"All because no one seems capable of saying, 'Enough.' "
Gore has persistently argued that only multilateral talks involving the European community and all Muslim countries can settle the growing conflicts that threaten to drastically reduce the amount of crude oil available to a worsening American economy. Because of the uncertainty of supplies from the region, mandated caps imposed on U.S. off-shore oil fields, a moratorium on all domestic crude oil exploration and new production, and the crippling of domestic refining capabilities by a host of new government regulations, the nation now finds itself in the grip of an unprecedented energy crisis, with average gasoline prices soaring to a near-record $8.35 a gallon. As unemployment climbed to 9.3 percent -- the highest since the early 1980s -- and energy-driven inflation has bounded to 9.1 percent -- reminiscent of the "stagflation" that characterized Carter's presidency -- Gore's presidential approval ratings have hit a rock-bottom 25 percent.
Despite the dire economy, Gore renewed his threat to veto any legislation that would lessen costly measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Kyoto treaty. "This will be seen by our allies as a betrayal, and tarnish America's good name worldwide," Gore said. The president sidestepped repeated questions about why America should carry the burden, even though no European nation has met carbon dioxide emission standards, and China and India, which have leapfrogged America as the world's leading polluters, have not attempted to control their emissions.
Gore also threatened to veto the so-called USA Patriot Act, proposed legislation that would strengthen America's intelligence-gathering capabilities. A bipartisan coalition crafted the legislation in the wake of repeated terrorist attacks on American cities, including the horrific use of hijacked airplanes to destroy the Capitol and Chicago's Sears Tower. One of the most important features of the Patriot Act would be the interception of communications between domestic terrorists and Al Qaeda operatives operating freely in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In other matters, Gore:
*Said he would present a "comprehensive" proposal to deal with the genocide in Darfur "at the appropriate time." He specifically ruled out the use of force because "it wouldn't look good." Besides, "we can handle only one genocide at a time," referring to Hussein's continued slaughter of Kurds and Shiites.
*Warned against any Israeli attempts to use force to stop Iraq and Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "Israel must understand that force would doom hopes for a multinational summit to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian-Lebanese-Syrian war. The American people want a realistic foreign policy, one that rejects the use of force in any form," he said.
*Said he would not comment on a newly published book, "An Assault on Reason," by his defeated 2000 and 2004 presidential opponent George W. Bush in which Bush assailed the Gore presidency as "the worst in history." Gore, however, cracked a smile when a reporter reminded him that Bush said the book was not "political."
Chicago Tribune
If Al Gore had been president ...
President Al Gore today asked the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution of "concern" over the nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq.
"Both countries are perilously close to possessing nuclear weapons," Gore said at a White House press conference. "Nuclear warfare between these two historic enemies would be a tragedy for everyone."
President Gore requested the resolution after the countries' two dictators, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, renewed threats of annihilation against each other over disputed Persian Gulf territory. Two decades ago, the two nations fought a prolonged war involving the use of chemical weapons over dominance of the strategically important gulf region, and both nations years ago dropped any pretense that their nuclear programs had peaceful purposes.
Gore said former President Jimmy Carter, who now is Gore's UN ambassador, would present new, softer language than what's contained in the 14 previously rejected resolutions proposed by the United States. Gore indicated that the resolution would drop a U.S. request for a multinational summit of Middle East nations and instead seek mediation by the International Anger Management Institute.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, said in response, "Great, just what we need, another futile request for a feeble declaration from an international body incapable of agreeing on the time of day. Ever since 9/11, the Gore administration's toothless foreign policy has led to more attacks by Islamic terrorists, killing thousands more Americans on our own soil and worsening the sectarian violence in the Middle East.
"All because no one seems capable of saying, 'Enough.' "
Gore has persistently argued that only multilateral talks involving the European community and all Muslim countries can settle the growing conflicts that threaten to drastically reduce the amount of crude oil available to a worsening American economy. Because of the uncertainty of supplies from the region, mandated caps imposed on U.S. off-shore oil fields, a moratorium on all domestic crude oil exploration and new production, and the crippling of domestic refining capabilities by a host of new government regulations, the nation now finds itself in the grip of an unprecedented energy crisis, with average gasoline prices soaring to a near-record $8.35 a gallon. As unemployment climbed to 9.3 percent -- the highest since the early 1980s -- and energy-driven inflation has bounded to 9.1 percent -- reminiscent of the "stagflation" that characterized Carter's presidency -- Gore's presidential approval ratings have hit a rock-bottom 25 percent.
Despite the dire economy, Gore renewed his threat to veto any legislation that would lessen costly measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Kyoto treaty. "This will be seen by our allies as a betrayal, and tarnish America's good name worldwide," Gore said. The president sidestepped repeated questions about why America should carry the burden, even though no European nation has met carbon dioxide emission standards, and China and India, which have leapfrogged America as the world's leading polluters, have not attempted to control their emissions.
Gore also threatened to veto the so-called USA Patriot Act, proposed legislation that would strengthen America's intelligence-gathering capabilities. A bipartisan coalition crafted the legislation in the wake of repeated terrorist attacks on American cities, including the horrific use of hijacked airplanes to destroy the Capitol and Chicago's Sears Tower. One of the most important features of the Patriot Act would be the interception of communications between domestic terrorists and Al Qaeda operatives operating freely in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In other matters, Gore:
*Said he would present a "comprehensive" proposal to deal with the genocide in Darfur "at the appropriate time." He specifically ruled out the use of force because "it wouldn't look good." Besides, "we can handle only one genocide at a time," referring to Hussein's continued slaughter of Kurds and Shiites.
*Warned against any Israeli attempts to use force to stop Iraq and Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "Israel must understand that force would doom hopes for a multinational summit to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian-Lebanese-Syrian war. The American people want a realistic foreign policy, one that rejects the use of force in any form," he said.
*Said he would not comment on a newly published book, "An Assault on Reason," by his defeated 2000 and 2004 presidential opponent George W. Bush in which Bush assailed the Gore presidency as "the worst in history." Gore, however, cracked a smile when a reporter reminded him that Bush said the book was not "political."
Monday, May 28, 2007
When is opinion actually grounds for a hate crime?
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Decades ago, north suburban Skokie, a predominantly Jewish community that included a significant number of Holocaust survivors, banned a hateful bunch of neo-Nazi morons who wanted to march in the village.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the village, and U.S. District Judge Bernard M. Decker, in a decision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, struck down the ban. "It is better," Decker said, "to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear. ... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."
Apparently, the constabulary in northwest suburban Crystal Lake disagrees, seeing fit to arrest two high school girls for handing out allegedly anti-homosexual literature at their school. We have to say "allegedly" because the specifics of the girls' pamphlets have not been disclosed because they are "evidence," the police said. We are to believe that two girls are such a big threat to the commonweal that they should be arrested on -- get this -- felony hate-crime charges.
As a sideshow to this circus, one of the girls has been locked up until trial because the judge decided the girl's supposed unhealthy home environment and lengthy juvenile record did not allow home detention. Thus, for exercising her right of political speech, she has ended up in the slammer.
Even the most blindly ardent advocate of hate-crime statutes should be able to understand the problem here. The underlying charge against the girls is disorderly conduct; the two girls may or may not have violated that law. But the seriousness of the charge has been jacked up beyond reason to a felony because of a viewpoint that they expressed.
They did not physically endanger or attack anyone, if the news accounts are accurate. They did not incite a riot; they did not cry "fire" in a crowded theater. They expressed an opinion. We are constantly advised by devotees of ever tougher and more expansive hate-crime legislation that it poses no danger to free speech or expression. Such arguments are revealed by the Crystal Lake case to be a load of malarkey. But if you express a concern about the 1st Amendment impacts of hate-crime legislation, you become a prime target for an unconscionable political attack.
For example, Michael C. Dorf, writing in FindLaw.com, just knows that President Bush is anything but pure of heart in opposing a new attempt to expand federal hate-crime legislation. "The true grounds," he said, "for the president's threatened veto appear to be simpler and more odious [than legitimately arguable reasons]: The Bush administration aims to curry favor with voters who oppose any legal recognition for same-sex relationships, even protection against private violence." We all should be blessed with such an ability to peer into people's hearts.
The problems with federal hate-crime laws are many, including using interstate commerce clauses or the 13th Amendment to justify them. Not the least of the problems is how to decide who qualifies for hate-crime protection, without becoming arbitrary. Congress defines a hate crime as one "in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation of any person."
What qualifies these categories of people, we're told, for hate-crime protection is the history of persecution they've suffered. The rest of us don't qualify if hate motivates a crime against us, because we (presumably) are not a part of any group that has been historically persecuted.
How do you know which groups have been persecuted enough to qualify for protections against hate crimes? Why are protections provided for sexual identities, but not for the homeless? How about protections against crimes of hatred based on economic class?
The response is that the protected categories are selected to deliver a message that helps to protect everyone else in a traditionally despised group.
But that response is insufficient: If a crime motivated by hate is bad for one person, under the equal protection of the law concept found in the Constitution, it is bad for everyone. If we're going to have hate-crime laws, they should protect everyone. Not just the groups that cynical politicians want to cultivate for votes.
Chicago Tribune
Decades ago, north suburban Skokie, a predominantly Jewish community that included a significant number of Holocaust survivors, banned a hateful bunch of neo-Nazi morons who wanted to march in the village.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the village, and U.S. District Judge Bernard M. Decker, in a decision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, struck down the ban. "It is better," Decker said, "to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear. ... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."
Apparently, the constabulary in northwest suburban Crystal Lake disagrees, seeing fit to arrest two high school girls for handing out allegedly anti-homosexual literature at their school. We have to say "allegedly" because the specifics of the girls' pamphlets have not been disclosed because they are "evidence," the police said. We are to believe that two girls are such a big threat to the commonweal that they should be arrested on -- get this -- felony hate-crime charges.
As a sideshow to this circus, one of the girls has been locked up until trial because the judge decided the girl's supposed unhealthy home environment and lengthy juvenile record did not allow home detention. Thus, for exercising her right of political speech, she has ended up in the slammer.
Even the most blindly ardent advocate of hate-crime statutes should be able to understand the problem here. The underlying charge against the girls is disorderly conduct; the two girls may or may not have violated that law. But the seriousness of the charge has been jacked up beyond reason to a felony because of a viewpoint that they expressed.
They did not physically endanger or attack anyone, if the news accounts are accurate. They did not incite a riot; they did not cry "fire" in a crowded theater. They expressed an opinion. We are constantly advised by devotees of ever tougher and more expansive hate-crime legislation that it poses no danger to free speech or expression. Such arguments are revealed by the Crystal Lake case to be a load of malarkey. But if you express a concern about the 1st Amendment impacts of hate-crime legislation, you become a prime target for an unconscionable political attack.
For example, Michael C. Dorf, writing in FindLaw.com, just knows that President Bush is anything but pure of heart in opposing a new attempt to expand federal hate-crime legislation. "The true grounds," he said, "for the president's threatened veto appear to be simpler and more odious [than legitimately arguable reasons]: The Bush administration aims to curry favor with voters who oppose any legal recognition for same-sex relationships, even protection against private violence." We all should be blessed with such an ability to peer into people's hearts.
The problems with federal hate-crime laws are many, including using interstate commerce clauses or the 13th Amendment to justify them. Not the least of the problems is how to decide who qualifies for hate-crime protection, without becoming arbitrary. Congress defines a hate crime as one "in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation of any person."
What qualifies these categories of people, we're told, for hate-crime protection is the history of persecution they've suffered. The rest of us don't qualify if hate motivates a crime against us, because we (presumably) are not a part of any group that has been historically persecuted.
How do you know which groups have been persecuted enough to qualify for protections against hate crimes? Why are protections provided for sexual identities, but not for the homeless? How about protections against crimes of hatred based on economic class?
The response is that the protected categories are selected to deliver a message that helps to protect everyone else in a traditionally despised group.
But that response is insufficient: If a crime motivated by hate is bad for one person, under the equal protection of the law concept found in the Constitution, it is bad for everyone. If we're going to have hate-crime laws, they should protect everyone. Not just the groups that cynical politicians want to cultivate for votes.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Chicago Secretly Plans to Sell Assets to Fund 2016 Summer Olympics
By Dennis Byrne
Budget and Tax News
Months after Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley began promising taxpayers they would not foot the bill for the 2016 Olympics, the city secretly drafted a plan to sell public assets to help fund the Games and pledged to cover $500 million in any losses.
City officials revealed the plans and pledge in March, after a visit from Olympics officials. On April 14, the U.S. Olympic Committee selected Chicago, over two-time host city Los Angeles, to represent the U.S. in the bid for the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics. The final choice of host city will be made by the International Olympic Committee in October 2009.
Covering the losses and selling public air rights over near-downtown property were ideas developed behind the scenes in response to the United States Olympic Committee, which has demanded financial assurances that Chicago can pay for the multibillion-dollar event and any cost overruns if the city wins the bid to host the Games.
“We definitely want the government to have skin in this game,” said a committee spokesman, referring to financial backup from a city legendary for cost overruns on big projects, such as the ongoing expansion of O’Hare International Airport and the glitzy lakefront Millennium Park, which opened four years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget in 2004.
Read more at Budget and Tax News
Budget and Tax News
Months after Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley began promising taxpayers they would not foot the bill for the 2016 Olympics, the city secretly drafted a plan to sell public assets to help fund the Games and pledged to cover $500 million in any losses.
City officials revealed the plans and pledge in March, after a visit from Olympics officials. On April 14, the U.S. Olympic Committee selected Chicago, over two-time host city Los Angeles, to represent the U.S. in the bid for the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics. The final choice of host city will be made by the International Olympic Committee in October 2009.
Covering the losses and selling public air rights over near-downtown property were ideas developed behind the scenes in response to the United States Olympic Committee, which has demanded financial assurances that Chicago can pay for the multibillion-dollar event and any cost overruns if the city wins the bid to host the Games.
“We definitely want the government to have skin in this game,” said a committee spokesman, referring to financial backup from a city legendary for cost overruns on big projects, such as the ongoing expansion of O’Hare International Airport and the glitzy lakefront Millennium Park, which opened four years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget in 2004.
Read more at Budget and Tax News
Monday, May 21, 2007
Saying 'no' in U.S. has political price
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Now that we've plunged into a candidate's premartial sexual activity with his wife as a legitimate presidential campaign issue, is there anything left that doesn't require disclosure?
How many times does the candidate and his spouse or "partner" do "it"? Mike Wallace (him again) has brought us to this idiotic state by casually asking Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney whether he and his wife, Ann, engaged in premarital sex. Romney, presented with this question on CBS' "60 Minutes," may have been the first person in the world to provide this bit of information to 14 million people. His answer was no.
Romney was asked this caught-ya-with-your pants-down question because he is a Mormon, a religion that has strictures against sex out of wedlock. As PublicEye, CBS News' watchdog, put it, Romney's answer goes to how serious a Mormon he really is and Mormonism "is an issue for many voters."
Oh, you mean as in: Lots of people have an "issue" with Mormonism because it -- as do many religions, millions of Americans and social commentators -- opposes pre- and extramarital sex.
This is a fight that a conservative candidate can't win. If he says he had premarital sex, he'll be nailed as a hypocrite because he has violated the precepts of his church. (If that reasoning is valid, then only atheists need run for president.) If he says he didn't have premarital sex, he's a hopeless, ancient moralist and, by extension, someone who would impose his religious views on the nation. (His denial also would unleash a pack of reporters trying to prove he did have premarital sex.)
In today's climate, it took guts for Romney to (admit to) (confess to) (make a clean breast of) being chaste. Like in a boys high school locker room, virginity is not a virtue to be disclosed. In fact, the words virginity and virtue are barely mentioned in the same sentence anymore.
As if to prove that virginity and abstinence are on the run, the new Democrat-controlled Congress is expected to kill a $50 million abstinence education program designed to delay sexual initiation, hopefully until marriage.
The programs include instruction on human anatomy, sexually transmitted diseases, building self-esteem and other techniques that will help combat the powerful peer pressure and cultural messages that encourage early sexual activity. This Title V abstinence program shouldn't be confused with "abstinence-plus" programs, whose basic message is, "Yes, well, abstinence is a fine idea in theory, but if you can't control yourself -- and you won't be able to -- here is how to sexually gratify yourself."
You can be sure that under the Democrats, such how-to programs will continue to be funded, but not the abstinence-only programs. Republicans, when they controlled Congress, at least let the two types of programs exist side-by-side. Democrats apparently can't tolerate kids being told both sides.
Rep. John Dingell, Democratic chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Title V funding, said it should be eliminated because it is a "colossal failure." He pointed to a recent congressional study that said so.
But it's not necessarily so. Ten scientific studies, according to the Heritage Foundation, have shown that "real abstinence programs can be highly effective in reducing early sexual activity." You can find studies that support both sides of the issue; but that doesn't mean Dingell should get away with pretending that all the science is on his side.
No, the problem isn't that the abstinence programs have been a colossal failure. If they have managed to hold back even a small part of the tide of the sexualization of children, they would be a colossal success. The colossal failure has come on the part of a culture that has no problem with the sexualization of children, by, for example, flooding entertainment media with messages that not just endorse sexuality but deride abstinence.
No government program by itself can hold back the tide; the reduction in single motherhood, increases in sexually transmitted disease and all the other disastrous effects of today's sexually obsessed society can only be stemmed by a change in culture. It takes, as it were, a village.
Chicago Tribune
Now that we've plunged into a candidate's premartial sexual activity with his wife as a legitimate presidential campaign issue, is there anything left that doesn't require disclosure?
How many times does the candidate and his spouse or "partner" do "it"? Mike Wallace (him again) has brought us to this idiotic state by casually asking Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney whether he and his wife, Ann, engaged in premarital sex. Romney, presented with this question on CBS' "60 Minutes," may have been the first person in the world to provide this bit of information to 14 million people. His answer was no.
Romney was asked this caught-ya-with-your pants-down question because he is a Mormon, a religion that has strictures against sex out of wedlock. As PublicEye, CBS News' watchdog, put it, Romney's answer goes to how serious a Mormon he really is and Mormonism "is an issue for many voters."
Oh, you mean as in: Lots of people have an "issue" with Mormonism because it -- as do many religions, millions of Americans and social commentators -- opposes pre- and extramarital sex.
This is a fight that a conservative candidate can't win. If he says he had premarital sex, he'll be nailed as a hypocrite because he has violated the precepts of his church. (If that reasoning is valid, then only atheists need run for president.) If he says he didn't have premarital sex, he's a hopeless, ancient moralist and, by extension, someone who would impose his religious views on the nation. (His denial also would unleash a pack of reporters trying to prove he did have premarital sex.)
In today's climate, it took guts for Romney to (admit to) (confess to) (make a clean breast of) being chaste. Like in a boys high school locker room, virginity is not a virtue to be disclosed. In fact, the words virginity and virtue are barely mentioned in the same sentence anymore.
As if to prove that virginity and abstinence are on the run, the new Democrat-controlled Congress is expected to kill a $50 million abstinence education program designed to delay sexual initiation, hopefully until marriage.
The programs include instruction on human anatomy, sexually transmitted diseases, building self-esteem and other techniques that will help combat the powerful peer pressure and cultural messages that encourage early sexual activity. This Title V abstinence program shouldn't be confused with "abstinence-plus" programs, whose basic message is, "Yes, well, abstinence is a fine idea in theory, but if you can't control yourself -- and you won't be able to -- here is how to sexually gratify yourself."
You can be sure that under the Democrats, such how-to programs will continue to be funded, but not the abstinence-only programs. Republicans, when they controlled Congress, at least let the two types of programs exist side-by-side. Democrats apparently can't tolerate kids being told both sides.
Rep. John Dingell, Democratic chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Title V funding, said it should be eliminated because it is a "colossal failure." He pointed to a recent congressional study that said so.
But it's not necessarily so. Ten scientific studies, according to the Heritage Foundation, have shown that "real abstinence programs can be highly effective in reducing early sexual activity." You can find studies that support both sides of the issue; but that doesn't mean Dingell should get away with pretending that all the science is on his side.
No, the problem isn't that the abstinence programs have been a colossal failure. If they have managed to hold back even a small part of the tide of the sexualization of children, they would be a colossal success. The colossal failure has come on the part of a culture that has no problem with the sexualization of children, by, for example, flooding entertainment media with messages that not just endorse sexuality but deride abstinence.
No government program by itself can hold back the tide; the reduction in single motherhood, increases in sexually transmitted disease and all the other disastrous effects of today's sexually obsessed society can only be stemmed by a change in culture. It takes, as it were, a village.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Papers were victim, not his lordship
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Now, if that don't beat all -- Conrad Black's attorney playing the class-warfare gambit in the former newspaper baron's criminal trial.
The irony is: Who in the world, besides Queen Elizabeth II, lives and breathes class consciousness more than Lord Black of CrossHarbour? Here's someone who so coveted the privileges and recognitions attached to the upper classes and royalty that he renounced his Canadian citizenship in exchange for a lifelong peerage in the British House of Lords. But now that Black finds himself on trial in a backwater known as Chicago for allegedly illegally snatching some $80 million from the shareholders of his media empire, his lawyer, Edward Genson, suddenly wants everyone to believe that his lordship is just one of the boys. When the jurors were about to hear Black's estimate of his elevated self-worth -- in his own words -- Genson futilely protested:
"This ... appeals to class prejudice and I move for a mistrial." This is rich.
In question were Black's written thoughts to other executives about those pesky shareholders who dared question his proprietorship of their money. Their "agitations," as Black called them, should not "force us into a hair shirt." Everyone knew about our taste for the high life, Black wrote (much more elegantly than I have written here), and we need not "revolutionize" our style with a "Damascene conversion to vows of poverty."
A Chicago jury might convict him of being a popinjay, but here jurors -- commoners and vulgar class they might be -- are practiced enough to know that their duty is to weigh the case on its legal merits.
But we can ask if what he did, as described by the evidence and witnesses, was right. Let me explain. When I labored for the liege lord several years ago at the Chicago Sun-Times, Black's leadership talked reverentially about "proprietorship." I gathered it was a British notion, unfamiliar to us colonists, involving the exercise of certain responsibilities that come with ownership. For example, a proprietor is obliged not to turn the institution over to the serfs, err, employees. Turned loose, they, of course, would destroy the institution. Proprietorship requires that workers be underpaid and overworked. For the good of the institution.
For Black, the requirements of proprietorship apparently included selling off parts of the institution's assets -- a collection of smaller newspapers -- and pocketing the money himself. He built the institution with his own hands and he, by God, was not going to allow others, or the institution itself, to benefit from his perspiration. How did he do this? The buyers of the newspaper coughed up millions of dollars, in addition to the purchase price, to pay Black and his minions to stay away. For the millions of dollars, he signed "non-compete" agreements, promising not to return and set up competing newspapers. Never mind that some of the buyers didn't ask for such a guarantee. Black justifies these non-compete agreements with the premise that he was such a splendid newspaper proprietor, the buyers were scared out of their wits to engage in a head-to-head battle with him. This is a thought that some of us who labored for him find to be incredible. But then, we only saw what he was doing to the institution from the inside, and what do we know?
Black would have us believe that his prosecution is an example of how the "corporate governance" fad has run amok. In truth, he has touched on larger issues at the heart of the corporate governance debate:
On one hand is the view that the marketplace, if left alone, would correct the inefficiencies, mistakes or unethical acts committed by whoever is running a company, because a more competent or honest entrepreneur would gobble up the company to reap its unrealized potential. But, according to this view, the market has been stymied by excessive regulation, allowing executives -- freed from marketplace restrictions -- to get away with their excesses.
The other view is there's not enough government regulation.
Then there's the Black model: What works best is a proprietor who grabs as much as he can, and nuts to everyone else. For all his clever moves, the companies under his proprietorship -- as well as their shareholders, employees, suppliers and ultimately their customers -- are not the better for it. This is something that only a person totally consumed by class consciousness would fail to see.
Chicago Tribune
Now, if that don't beat all -- Conrad Black's attorney playing the class-warfare gambit in the former newspaper baron's criminal trial.
The irony is: Who in the world, besides Queen Elizabeth II, lives and breathes class consciousness more than Lord Black of CrossHarbour? Here's someone who so coveted the privileges and recognitions attached to the upper classes and royalty that he renounced his Canadian citizenship in exchange for a lifelong peerage in the British House of Lords. But now that Black finds himself on trial in a backwater known as Chicago for allegedly illegally snatching some $80 million from the shareholders of his media empire, his lawyer, Edward Genson, suddenly wants everyone to believe that his lordship is just one of the boys. When the jurors were about to hear Black's estimate of his elevated self-worth -- in his own words -- Genson futilely protested:
"This ... appeals to class prejudice and I move for a mistrial." This is rich.
In question were Black's written thoughts to other executives about those pesky shareholders who dared question his proprietorship of their money. Their "agitations," as Black called them, should not "force us into a hair shirt." Everyone knew about our taste for the high life, Black wrote (much more elegantly than I have written here), and we need not "revolutionize" our style with a "Damascene conversion to vows of poverty."
A Chicago jury might convict him of being a popinjay, but here jurors -- commoners and vulgar class they might be -- are practiced enough to know that their duty is to weigh the case on its legal merits.
But we can ask if what he did, as described by the evidence and witnesses, was right. Let me explain. When I labored for the liege lord several years ago at the Chicago Sun-Times, Black's leadership talked reverentially about "proprietorship." I gathered it was a British notion, unfamiliar to us colonists, involving the exercise of certain responsibilities that come with ownership. For example, a proprietor is obliged not to turn the institution over to the serfs, err, employees. Turned loose, they, of course, would destroy the institution. Proprietorship requires that workers be underpaid and overworked. For the good of the institution.
For Black, the requirements of proprietorship apparently included selling off parts of the institution's assets -- a collection of smaller newspapers -- and pocketing the money himself. He built the institution with his own hands and he, by God, was not going to allow others, or the institution itself, to benefit from his perspiration. How did he do this? The buyers of the newspaper coughed up millions of dollars, in addition to the purchase price, to pay Black and his minions to stay away. For the millions of dollars, he signed "non-compete" agreements, promising not to return and set up competing newspapers. Never mind that some of the buyers didn't ask for such a guarantee. Black justifies these non-compete agreements with the premise that he was such a splendid newspaper proprietor, the buyers were scared out of their wits to engage in a head-to-head battle with him. This is a thought that some of us who labored for him find to be incredible. But then, we only saw what he was doing to the institution from the inside, and what do we know?
Black would have us believe that his prosecution is an example of how the "corporate governance" fad has run amok. In truth, he has touched on larger issues at the heart of the corporate governance debate:
On one hand is the view that the marketplace, if left alone, would correct the inefficiencies, mistakes or unethical acts committed by whoever is running a company, because a more competent or honest entrepreneur would gobble up the company to reap its unrealized potential. But, according to this view, the market has been stymied by excessive regulation, allowing executives -- freed from marketplace restrictions -- to get away with their excesses.
The other view is there's not enough government regulation.
Then there's the Black model: What works best is a proprietor who grabs as much as he can, and nuts to everyone else. For all his clever moves, the companies under his proprietorship -- as well as their shareholders, employees, suppliers and ultimately their customers -- are not the better for it. This is something that only a person totally consumed by class consciousness would fail to see.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Oath upheld, but at what cost?
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Whatever your politics or your views on the Iraq war, the admission by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee he knew that America was duped into a war, but remained silent because he was sworn to secrecy, was a stunner.
"At the time of this debate," he recently said on the Senate floor, "I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And I would read the headlines in the paper in the morning and watch the television newscasts and shake my head. ...
"The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it. ... So in my frustration, I sat on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth."
As many in his home state know, the idea that Durbin could keep his mouth shut about anything is a stunner in itself. He has been known to shoot it off frequently and disastrously. Witness the time he made the inflammatory and false comparison of the U.S. military's treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the millions murdered by the Nazis, Soviet Gulags and Cambodia's Pol Pot.
So, what are we to think now? That Durbin willingly let thousands of Americans and uncounted thousands of Iraqis die when he knew the truth? Is he bringing it up now because he is seeking absolution? Was it just bravado, a childlike "I know what you don't know" moment? Was it a slip of the tongue; did he misspeak? Was it just a routine attempt to again make Bush administration officials look like liars, but he failed to think through the implications and consequences of what he was saying? Did it even occur to him that he was implicating every member of the Intelligence Committee for hiding the truth from the public?
Was Durbin's statement a fabrication? The assumption seems to be that this is a story that concerns only the right wing, because Durbin's statement received prominent play from the conservative Washington Times -- described (by liberals) as an "ultraconservative" publication -- from where it was picked up by conservative bloggers. Durbin's office played on a nasty right-winger theme; the first words of its written response were: "Right-wing publications of dubious integrity -- conservative blogs such as Power Line and the ultraconservative Washington Times ... " In other words, who is saying it is more important than what is being said.
Maybe Durbin's office should have looked harder because some liberal bloggers are even more upset with the idea that Durbin let President Bush get away with what they believe is an unconscionable lie. Was Durbin a part of the cabal? Do he and Vice President Dick Cheney have a secret handshake? They both have the same first names, have you noticed?
Actually, Durbin has stumbled onto a serious and difficult question: What was more important, his oath of silence or stopping a nation from going to a wrong, possibly, immoral war?
The question cannot be easily brushed aside. It is the kind of ethical question that comes up more frequently than we'd like, in both the public and private sectors. Durbin has inadvertently illustrated that such important questions are not always as black and white as antagonists would like to have them. We're all guilty of it, but few of us get to be guilty on such a monumental scale.
What if Durbin had stood up in 2003, before the war, and said: "As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have access to secret intelligence reports. What you are being told by Bush, the British and most Western intelligence agencies are lies. If you don't believe me, here are the documents. Yes, they're classified, but in a democracy, truth is more important than is whatever justifies keeping these documents secret."
An illegal act? Probably yes. A patriotic act? You might say. Yes, Durbin voiced his concern about the quality of intelligence and going to war, before the war started, as his office reminds us. Yes, he voted against going to war. But could he have changed the course of history? I don't know what Durbin should have done. An oath isn't to be taken lightly; President Bill Clinton found that out when he was impeached, accused of lying under oath. But if the Bush administration's lies were as apparent and real as Durbin now says they were, and so much death and suffering were the knowable outcome of the bad intelligence, doing nothing is not something I'd want on my conscience.
Chicago Tribune
Whatever your politics or your views on the Iraq war, the admission by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee he knew that America was duped into a war, but remained silent because he was sworn to secrecy, was a stunner.
"At the time of this debate," he recently said on the Senate floor, "I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And I would read the headlines in the paper in the morning and watch the television newscasts and shake my head. ...
"The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it. ... So in my frustration, I sat on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth."
As many in his home state know, the idea that Durbin could keep his mouth shut about anything is a stunner in itself. He has been known to shoot it off frequently and disastrously. Witness the time he made the inflammatory and false comparison of the U.S. military's treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the millions murdered by the Nazis, Soviet Gulags and Cambodia's Pol Pot.
So, what are we to think now? That Durbin willingly let thousands of Americans and uncounted thousands of Iraqis die when he knew the truth? Is he bringing it up now because he is seeking absolution? Was it just bravado, a childlike "I know what you don't know" moment? Was it a slip of the tongue; did he misspeak? Was it just a routine attempt to again make Bush administration officials look like liars, but he failed to think through the implications and consequences of what he was saying? Did it even occur to him that he was implicating every member of the Intelligence Committee for hiding the truth from the public?
Was Durbin's statement a fabrication? The assumption seems to be that this is a story that concerns only the right wing, because Durbin's statement received prominent play from the conservative Washington Times -- described (by liberals) as an "ultraconservative" publication -- from where it was picked up by conservative bloggers. Durbin's office played on a nasty right-winger theme; the first words of its written response were: "Right-wing publications of dubious integrity -- conservative blogs such as Power Line and the ultraconservative Washington Times ... " In other words, who is saying it is more important than what is being said.
Maybe Durbin's office should have looked harder because some liberal bloggers are even more upset with the idea that Durbin let President Bush get away with what they believe is an unconscionable lie. Was Durbin a part of the cabal? Do he and Vice President Dick Cheney have a secret handshake? They both have the same first names, have you noticed?
Actually, Durbin has stumbled onto a serious and difficult question: What was more important, his oath of silence or stopping a nation from going to a wrong, possibly, immoral war?
The question cannot be easily brushed aside. It is the kind of ethical question that comes up more frequently than we'd like, in both the public and private sectors. Durbin has inadvertently illustrated that such important questions are not always as black and white as antagonists would like to have them. We're all guilty of it, but few of us get to be guilty on such a monumental scale.
What if Durbin had stood up in 2003, before the war, and said: "As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have access to secret intelligence reports. What you are being told by Bush, the British and most Western intelligence agencies are lies. If you don't believe me, here are the documents. Yes, they're classified, but in a democracy, truth is more important than is whatever justifies keeping these documents secret."
An illegal act? Probably yes. A patriotic act? You might say. Yes, Durbin voiced his concern about the quality of intelligence and going to war, before the war started, as his office reminds us. Yes, he voted against going to war. But could he have changed the course of history? I don't know what Durbin should have done. An oath isn't to be taken lightly; President Bill Clinton found that out when he was impeached, accused of lying under oath. But if the Bush administration's lies were as apparent and real as Durbin now says they were, and so much death and suffering were the knowable outcome of the bad intelligence, doing nothing is not something I'd want on my conscience.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Outrage misplaced over phony-ID raid
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
North Michigan Avenue merchants, joined by hundreds of nearby Gold Coast residents, today angrily marched in protest of a raid by heavily armed federal agents on a fake ID ring operating openly for months on the Magnificent Mile.
Asked why they weren't angered by the presence of the ring, headed by a murder suspect, operating so brazenly in their neighborhood, a spokesman for the posh shopping district explained: "Of course we didn't want the counterfeiters here. We're just objecting to the tactics [the feds] used."
Meanwhile, a similar raid on a gang of counterfeiters in north suburban Wilmette's lakefront Gillson Park drew similar howls of protest from hundreds of neighbors who stood in front of the swank Michigan Shores Club shouting, "No justice, no peace!"
"No, we didn't sanction the gang's operations, although we didn't mind undocumented immigrants coming here to be documented because we're open-minded," said a club member who, in his haste to join the protest, abandoned cherries jubilee to smolder, "We just don't want anyone with guns, much less big guns, in our community."
*
*
*
Sorry, I couldn't help conjuring up those ridiculous images after some of those protesting last week's federal raid on the ring of ID counterfeiters in Chicago's mostly Hispanic Little Village neighborhood said -- predictably and irresponsibly -- that such a raid would never happen on North Michigan Avenue or in the suburbs. Which is to accuse the feds of something dark, something racist.
But would I be out of line here to point out that one reason that Michigan Avenue and Wilmette were not raided is because the counterfeiting rings aren't operating there? I'm just guessing here, but if the gangsters tried to set up shop there, they would have been turned in or, if you prefer, snitched out -- an act that has come into great disrepute among hip-hoppers and their fans.
Something tells me that the folks along Michigan Avenue and in Wilmette would not have tolerated the open sale of 100 high-quality fake driver's licenses, Social Security cards or green cards every day. I'm guessing that they wouldn't want to be in the place where "undocumented" persons from all over the Chicago area come to get documented.
This isn't something that happened surreptitiously in the dead of night. It happened in broad daylight and was well enough known to attract customers from well outside the community: not just Mexican immigrants, but from Pakistan, Poland and other countries.
If they heard about it, then people in the Little Village shopping plaza certainly knew about the high-stakes racket in their midst that allegedly was profitable enough to provoke a murder. Am I way off base here to suggest that such activities not only were tolerated but perhaps even condoned? Yes, maybe the gang terrorized the neighborhood with threats of violence for snitching, but then wouldn't the arms that the feds carried in the raid be reasonable for defense of self and the community?
As U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald tried to point out at a press conference defending the show of force and the raid itself, this story involves more than illegal immigration. It involves the easy availability of false documents, which, as we know, can give cover to terrorists. You'd think that Fitzgerald would get at least a little credit for doing exactly what should have been done before Sept. 11, 2001: helping to preserve the integrity of official documents.
By the way, fake IDs also threaten public safety and security in other ways. Here's another story, this time, not made up:
Six children, riding in a van with their parents on a Milwaukee-area interstate, died in a horrific blaze in 1994, after a heavy metal part fell from a truck, puncturing and igniting the van's gas tank.
Rev. Duane "Scott" Willis and his wife, Janet, escaped safely, only to watch helplessly as their trapped children suffered agonizing deaths in the conflagration. The truck was driven by Ricardo Guzman, who bribed employees of the Illinois secretary of state's office to get his illegal license.
Other truckers tried to warn Guzman on their CB radios that the metal part was dangling dangerously from his truck, but either Guzman didn't hear the warnings or, speaking only Spanish, didn't understand them.
Chicago Tribune
North Michigan Avenue merchants, joined by hundreds of nearby Gold Coast residents, today angrily marched in protest of a raid by heavily armed federal agents on a fake ID ring operating openly for months on the Magnificent Mile.
Asked why they weren't angered by the presence of the ring, headed by a murder suspect, operating so brazenly in their neighborhood, a spokesman for the posh shopping district explained: "Of course we didn't want the counterfeiters here. We're just objecting to the tactics [the feds] used."
Meanwhile, a similar raid on a gang of counterfeiters in north suburban Wilmette's lakefront Gillson Park drew similar howls of protest from hundreds of neighbors who stood in front of the swank Michigan Shores Club shouting, "No justice, no peace!"
"No, we didn't sanction the gang's operations, although we didn't mind undocumented immigrants coming here to be documented because we're open-minded," said a club member who, in his haste to join the protest, abandoned cherries jubilee to smolder, "We just don't want anyone with guns, much less big guns, in our community."
*
*
*
Sorry, I couldn't help conjuring up those ridiculous images after some of those protesting last week's federal raid on the ring of ID counterfeiters in Chicago's mostly Hispanic Little Village neighborhood said -- predictably and irresponsibly -- that such a raid would never happen on North Michigan Avenue or in the suburbs. Which is to accuse the feds of something dark, something racist.
But would I be out of line here to point out that one reason that Michigan Avenue and Wilmette were not raided is because the counterfeiting rings aren't operating there? I'm just guessing here, but if the gangsters tried to set up shop there, they would have been turned in or, if you prefer, snitched out -- an act that has come into great disrepute among hip-hoppers and their fans.
Something tells me that the folks along Michigan Avenue and in Wilmette would not have tolerated the open sale of 100 high-quality fake driver's licenses, Social Security cards or green cards every day. I'm guessing that they wouldn't want to be in the place where "undocumented" persons from all over the Chicago area come to get documented.
This isn't something that happened surreptitiously in the dead of night. It happened in broad daylight and was well enough known to attract customers from well outside the community: not just Mexican immigrants, but from Pakistan, Poland and other countries.
If they heard about it, then people in the Little Village shopping plaza certainly knew about the high-stakes racket in their midst that allegedly was profitable enough to provoke a murder. Am I way off base here to suggest that such activities not only were tolerated but perhaps even condoned? Yes, maybe the gang terrorized the neighborhood with threats of violence for snitching, but then wouldn't the arms that the feds carried in the raid be reasonable for defense of self and the community?
As U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald tried to point out at a press conference defending the show of force and the raid itself, this story involves more than illegal immigration. It involves the easy availability of false documents, which, as we know, can give cover to terrorists. You'd think that Fitzgerald would get at least a little credit for doing exactly what should have been done before Sept. 11, 2001: helping to preserve the integrity of official documents.
By the way, fake IDs also threaten public safety and security in other ways. Here's another story, this time, not made up:
Six children, riding in a van with their parents on a Milwaukee-area interstate, died in a horrific blaze in 1994, after a heavy metal part fell from a truck, puncturing and igniting the van's gas tank.
Rev. Duane "Scott" Willis and his wife, Janet, escaped safely, only to watch helplessly as their trapped children suffered agonizing deaths in the conflagration. The truck was driven by Ricardo Guzman, who bribed employees of the Illinois secretary of state's office to get his illegal license.
Other truckers tried to warn Guzman on their CB radios that the metal part was dangling dangerously from his truck, but either Guzman didn't hear the warnings or, speaking only Spanish, didn't understand them.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Court ruling abets life, logic
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Reacting to last week's Supreme Court ruling upholding a federal law banning partial-birth abortion in most cases, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he agreed with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
As she emphasized in her dissenting opinion, Obama said, this ruling "signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority [on the court] to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient."
Far be it from me to disagree with someone who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and with my sister publication, the Los Angeles Times, which called the decision an "unconscionable U-turn" from past decisions, but they've got it wrong. Although not as wrong as the wild-eyed pro-choicers who should come down from orbit and first read the decision before they pronounce the end of womankind.
They might think the reasoning of the court's majority is overly clever, but it should be examined because its explanation needs to be understood about why it does not "disregard prior rulings."
The court argues that its latest decision -- Gonzales vs. Carhart -- not only follows the precedent of the landmark 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case, but also said that deciding Gonzales otherwise would have "repudiated" Casey. Writing for the majority in Gonzales, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued that Casey reaffirmed the "essential holdings of the 1973 landmark case, Roe vs. Wade," which included the principle that the state has "legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and [emphasis added] the life of the fetus that may become a child." Yes, Roe says the interests of the woman and the fetus can be balanced.
The court observed that, in accordance with prior decisions, restrictions that place "an undue burden" on the right to have an abortion are not permitted. In other words, a law that purposely places a "substantial obstacle in a woman's path" is not allowed. But if it doesn't -- and the court concluded that this ban doesn't because women arguably have other safe alternatives -- Congress can pass laws that "express profound respect for the life of the unborn." In concluding that the ban does not create an undue burden, the majority rejected arguments that the ban is "too vague," again citing previous decisions that set tests for "vagueness."
As important, the court said that the law was a proper response by Congress to a previous high court decision, Stenberg vs. Carhart, in which it found that Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban violated the Constitution, as applied in Casey. The language of the congressional ban is significantly different than Nebraska's ban, the court pointed out. And Congress is not required to agree with the controversial "factual findings" set out by the district court in Stenberg. Also, Kennedy wrote, Congress has a right to state its own findings: that partial-birth abortion "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."
Casey, Kennedy said, "reaffirmed that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman ... The act's ban on abortions involving partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the government's objectives. Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant. This court [in Washington vs. Glucksberg] has confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned."
There's one more point to be made about how this decision respects precedent: The heart of the pro-choice argument is that the ban fails to protect women's health and therefore is unconstitutional. But they never define "health" in the kind of detail that another high court decision does. Doe vs. Bolton, the companion case to Roe vs. Wade, makes it clear: Health is anything that a woman defines it to be, even if it is nothing more than her discomfort about her pregnancy.
If the rigid pro-choicers could acknowledge that an exception to the partial-birth abortion ban should be allowed (like the one that allows the procedure to save a woman's life) only in cases of the most serious health problems -- define it as you like and let's debate it -- then maybe we wouldn't have been in court fighting over this ban in the first place. If, as this court suggests, Congress and state legislatures are the proper places for this debate, perhaps compromise on this contentious issue is possible.
Chicago Tribune
Reacting to last week's Supreme Court ruling upholding a federal law banning partial-birth abortion in most cases, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he agreed with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
As she emphasized in her dissenting opinion, Obama said, this ruling "signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority [on the court] to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient."
Far be it from me to disagree with someone who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and with my sister publication, the Los Angeles Times, which called the decision an "unconscionable U-turn" from past decisions, but they've got it wrong. Although not as wrong as the wild-eyed pro-choicers who should come down from orbit and first read the decision before they pronounce the end of womankind.
They might think the reasoning of the court's majority is overly clever, but it should be examined because its explanation needs to be understood about why it does not "disregard prior rulings."
The court argues that its latest decision -- Gonzales vs. Carhart -- not only follows the precedent of the landmark 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case, but also said that deciding Gonzales otherwise would have "repudiated" Casey. Writing for the majority in Gonzales, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued that Casey reaffirmed the "essential holdings of the 1973 landmark case, Roe vs. Wade," which included the principle that the state has "legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and [emphasis added] the life of the fetus that may become a child." Yes, Roe says the interests of the woman and the fetus can be balanced.
The court observed that, in accordance with prior decisions, restrictions that place "an undue burden" on the right to have an abortion are not permitted. In other words, a law that purposely places a "substantial obstacle in a woman's path" is not allowed. But if it doesn't -- and the court concluded that this ban doesn't because women arguably have other safe alternatives -- Congress can pass laws that "express profound respect for the life of the unborn." In concluding that the ban does not create an undue burden, the majority rejected arguments that the ban is "too vague," again citing previous decisions that set tests for "vagueness."
As important, the court said that the law was a proper response by Congress to a previous high court decision, Stenberg vs. Carhart, in which it found that Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban violated the Constitution, as applied in Casey. The language of the congressional ban is significantly different than Nebraska's ban, the court pointed out. And Congress is not required to agree with the controversial "factual findings" set out by the district court in Stenberg. Also, Kennedy wrote, Congress has a right to state its own findings: that partial-birth abortion "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."
Casey, Kennedy said, "reaffirmed that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman ... The act's ban on abortions involving partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the government's objectives. Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant. This court [in Washington vs. Glucksberg] has confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned."
There's one more point to be made about how this decision respects precedent: The heart of the pro-choice argument is that the ban fails to protect women's health and therefore is unconstitutional. But they never define "health" in the kind of detail that another high court decision does. Doe vs. Bolton, the companion case to Roe vs. Wade, makes it clear: Health is anything that a woman defines it to be, even if it is nothing more than her discomfort about her pregnancy.
If the rigid pro-choicers could acknowledge that an exception to the partial-birth abortion ban should be allowed (like the one that allows the procedure to save a woman's life) only in cases of the most serious health problems -- define it as you like and let's debate it -- then maybe we wouldn't have been in court fighting over this ban in the first place. If, as this court suggests, Congress and state legislatures are the proper places for this debate, perhaps compromise on this contentious issue is possible.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
What Good Could Come From Airing the VT Killer's Video?
NBC played into this murderer's hands, and thus makes itself an accomplice to his horrific acts, by flooding the country with his images, making him a hero for every nut job in the country.
By Dennis Byrne
Editor & Publisher
So, what does it say about NBC that a sociopathic mass murder selected the network to let him get in the last word by airing his dangerous and perverted tapes.
If I were the decider at NBC, I would have said, "Not on my network, jerk." Instead, NBC played into this murderer's hands, and thus makes itself an accomplice to his horrific acts, by flooding the country with his images, making him a hero for every nut job in the country. When the shots ring out the next time, and students die in their classrooms, I hope NBC executives remember.
Read more at Editor & Publisher
By Dennis Byrne
Editor & Publisher
So, what does it say about NBC that a sociopathic mass murder selected the network to let him get in the last word by airing his dangerous and perverted tapes.
If I were the decider at NBC, I would have said, "Not on my network, jerk." Instead, NBC played into this murderer's hands, and thus makes itself an accomplice to his horrific acts, by flooding the country with his images, making him a hero for every nut job in the country. When the shots ring out the next time, and students die in their classrooms, I hope NBC executives remember.
Read more at Editor & Publisher
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Blame Rumsfeld for the VTU massacre
By Dennis Byrne
Political Mavens
Even before anyone knew the shooter’s name, John Nichols in the liberal Nation magazine on-line was urging us to check out Michael Moore for a better understanding of the shooting at Virginia State University.
While fairly criticizing the media for their instant analyses attempting to explain the reason for the shooting, Nichols offered up his own bizarre expert, Moore. “Do not doubt that the National Rifle Association is preparing its this-had-nothing-to-do-with-guns’ press release,” Nichols wrote. “…Many groups on all sides of issues related to guns and violence in America will be busy making their points, just as many in the media will look for one dimensional ‘explanations’….”
All true, but then in a perfect illustration of his point he suggests that we can all understand the massacre better if we took his “modest proposal: Instead of adopting a particular line, rent Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine.’ Of course, there are those who will not be able to see beyond their rage at Moore to recognize the value of this particular film.” He continues:
Read more at Political Mavens
Political Mavens
Even before anyone knew the shooter’s name, John Nichols in the liberal Nation magazine on-line was urging us to check out Michael Moore for a better understanding of the shooting at Virginia State University.
While fairly criticizing the media for their instant analyses attempting to explain the reason for the shooting, Nichols offered up his own bizarre expert, Moore. “Do not doubt that the National Rifle Association is preparing its this-had-nothing-to-do-with-guns’ press release,” Nichols wrote. “…Many groups on all sides of issues related to guns and violence in America will be busy making their points, just as many in the media will look for one dimensional ‘explanations’….”
All true, but then in a perfect illustration of his point he suggests that we can all understand the massacre better if we took his “modest proposal: Instead of adopting a particular line, rent Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine.’ Of course, there are those who will not be able to see beyond their rage at Moore to recognize the value of this particular film.” He continues:
Read more at Political Mavens
Monday, April 16, 2007
Can you read this?
A Chicago Tribune reader, like others, again [here and below] makes a reading error in a letter to the editor in response to my calling for the reporting of the good news coming out of Iraq: I didn't say that the bad news shouldn't be reported; I said that the good news should not be buried or ignored, as it seems to be in some corners. When I was taught journalism at Marquette University 40 years ago, reporting both sides of a story was called good journalism.
News of IraqColumnist Dennis Byrne's recent piece on the April 9 Chicago Tribune Commentary page, about the good news coming out of Iraq, reminds me of a story about a discussion between an employer and group of employees.
The employees suggested that the employer should send along only good reports about the employees to any prospective new employer.
The employer responded:
"But what if we could prove the employee was a dangerously incompetent lout. You mean we couldn't send that along to the new employer?"
To which the employees said:
"Oh, but want about his good points?"
Thomas Amato
River Forest
Don't cut parents out of classrooms
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
"So, Johnny, what happened in school today?"
"Sorry, Dad, I can't tell you. They made us sign confidentiality agreements that forbid us from telling anyone what was said in class."
A couple of weeks ago I wrote, to the dismay and disagreement of a few, about how tough it is becoming for parents to be involved in their children's lives, what with "it-takes-a-village-to-raise-your-kids" adherents getting in the way. Now comes the ultimate:
North suburban Deerfield High School freshmen last month were required to sign a "confidentiality agreement" promising not to disclose to anyone what was said in a mandatory class involving one of the touchiest of subjects: homosexuality.
To be fair, the class was viewed in two ways:
•The school said the class was about building acceptance, tolerance and safety for bullied or marginalized students, such as gays. A panel of gay and pro-gay students explained to the students what it is like to be homosexual in an unfriendly, hostile or even threatening atmosphere and explored ways for students to become more accepting.
•North Shore Student Advocacy, the opponents, said the presentation by members of the Straight and Gay Alliance student group was an attempt to cast homosexuality in a positive light without presenting opposing views. The opponents feared that 14-year-olds who disagreed would be unfairly burdened with the label of hater or religious fanatic.
Which description is more accurate is difficult to determine, because parents have not been allowed to sit in on the class—which is understandable because there's nothing like the presence of parents to stifle discussion—and a promised videotape has not been made available. All the parents have to go on is what their children tell them, which is ironic because the children aren't supposed to be talking about it to anyone.
My first reaction was disbelief and outrage—at the unprecedented arrogance and stupidity of telling children that they can't talk about what's going on in school, even, presumably, with their parents. The know-it-alls were spinning out of control.
But a reading of the promise that the students were asked to sign indicates that it was more likely the result of a well-intentioned effort to protect children from being ridiculed and punished by their peers for what they say.
"We don't repeat what someone says in class outside of the classroom except if we have permission from the person that said it," the statement read. "We will not continue a conversation outside of class without permission from all the people that were involved during the class."
Such a promise, of course, makes it impossible to discuss what happened in class with the people who matter most: parents. The agreement may have been done without the intention of cutting out parents, which doesn't say much about how carefully this project was thought out. At best, the pledge was well intentioned but naive and ill-considered. At worst, it was really intended to hide a controversial issue from parents. To borrow from the Las Vegas marketing slogan: "What happens in school, stays in school."
Concerned Women for America a conservative advocacy group, later said the school principal told it that the pledge was a mistake. But I think there's a bigger mistake than the pledge itself: The project is an unrealistic attempt to create a non-judgmental environment about a complicated and controversial political, social, ethical and moral issue. Take another look at the pledge statement: "Each person has a chance to say what he or she wants without having it debated or denied or attacked, or agreed with or supported. It gets to stand on its own, without being taken over by someone else, either by cross talk [debating, denying] or piggybacking [agreeing, supporting]."
Here is an attempt to scrub a discussion clean of debate, disagreement or—astonishingly—agreement. It assumes that "choosing sides" is a horrible way to come to a mutual understanding.
This is not the real world. Nor is it right when one side is given an official platform to make value statements, as it was in the Deerfield class. Never mind the gross unfairness of it and how it biases the discussion against people who disagree with the appointed few. Worse, it reflects a fanciful belief that we can and must avoid "hurt feelings," even at the cost of an idea that the recently deceased author Kurt Vonnegut so dearly valued: That from cantankerous disagreement we can extract the real and true.
At least that's what I think, and if that causes hurt feelings at Deerfield High School, too bad.
Chicago Tribune
"So, Johnny, what happened in school today?"
"Sorry, Dad, I can't tell you. They made us sign confidentiality agreements that forbid us from telling anyone what was said in class."
A couple of weeks ago I wrote, to the dismay and disagreement of a few, about how tough it is becoming for parents to be involved in their children's lives, what with "it-takes-a-village-to-raise-your-kids" adherents getting in the way. Now comes the ultimate:
North suburban Deerfield High School freshmen last month were required to sign a "confidentiality agreement" promising not to disclose to anyone what was said in a mandatory class involving one of the touchiest of subjects: homosexuality.
To be fair, the class was viewed in two ways:
•The school said the class was about building acceptance, tolerance and safety for bullied or marginalized students, such as gays. A panel of gay and pro-gay students explained to the students what it is like to be homosexual in an unfriendly, hostile or even threatening atmosphere and explored ways for students to become more accepting.
•North Shore Student Advocacy, the opponents, said the presentation by members of the Straight and Gay Alliance student group was an attempt to cast homosexuality in a positive light without presenting opposing views. The opponents feared that 14-year-olds who disagreed would be unfairly burdened with the label of hater or religious fanatic.
Which description is more accurate is difficult to determine, because parents have not been allowed to sit in on the class—which is understandable because there's nothing like the presence of parents to stifle discussion—and a promised videotape has not been made available. All the parents have to go on is what their children tell them, which is ironic because the children aren't supposed to be talking about it to anyone.
My first reaction was disbelief and outrage—at the unprecedented arrogance and stupidity of telling children that they can't talk about what's going on in school, even, presumably, with their parents. The know-it-alls were spinning out of control.
But a reading of the promise that the students were asked to sign indicates that it was more likely the result of a well-intentioned effort to protect children from being ridiculed and punished by their peers for what they say.
"We don't repeat what someone says in class outside of the classroom except if we have permission from the person that said it," the statement read. "We will not continue a conversation outside of class without permission from all the people that were involved during the class."
Such a promise, of course, makes it impossible to discuss what happened in class with the people who matter most: parents. The agreement may have been done without the intention of cutting out parents, which doesn't say much about how carefully this project was thought out. At best, the pledge was well intentioned but naive and ill-considered. At worst, it was really intended to hide a controversial issue from parents. To borrow from the Las Vegas marketing slogan: "What happens in school, stays in school."
Concerned Women for America a conservative advocacy group, later said the school principal told it that the pledge was a mistake. But I think there's a bigger mistake than the pledge itself: The project is an unrealistic attempt to create a non-judgmental environment about a complicated and controversial political, social, ethical and moral issue. Take another look at the pledge statement: "Each person has a chance to say what he or she wants without having it debated or denied or attacked, or agreed with or supported. It gets to stand on its own, without being taken over by someone else, either by cross talk [debating, denying] or piggybacking [agreeing, supporting]."
Here is an attempt to scrub a discussion clean of debate, disagreement or—astonishingly—agreement. It assumes that "choosing sides" is a horrible way to come to a mutual understanding.
This is not the real world. Nor is it right when one side is given an official platform to make value statements, as it was in the Deerfield class. Never mind the gross unfairness of it and how it biases the discussion against people who disagree with the appointed few. Worse, it reflects a fanciful belief that we can and must avoid "hurt feelings," even at the cost of an idea that the recently deceased author Kurt Vonnegut so dearly valued: That from cantankerous disagreement we can extract the real and true.
At least that's what I think, and if that causes hurt feelings at Deerfield High School, too bad.
Monday, April 09, 2007
And now, good news from Iraq
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces there, also reported the recent capture of "more than the usual numbers" of weapons caches. One consisted of more than 120 improvised explosive devices, some of which were the "particularly lethal" anti-armor munitions being used against U.S. troops.
Perhaps you're wondering what a straight news story is doing here, in a commentary section. It's because there doesn't seem to be enough room in the media's straight news sections to report positive developments in the Iraq war. So, as a reader service, I am writing a news story involving the possible saving of at least 120 GIs' lives.
This story is based on a PBS interview of Petraeus by Jim Lehrer and reporting by Sharon Behn of The Washington Times. (Yes, I know that liberals consider the Times to be a hopelessly biased conservative rag, much as many conservatives consider The New York Times to be a hopelessly biased liberal rag.) For what I can tell, no one reported Petraeus' comments with this emphasis.
"There have been some encouraging indicators in Baghdad, in terms of a reduction in sectarian murders," he said. "There have been some families returning; there have certainly been revivals in the markets," which he called one of the main measures of progress. He particularly noted the return of "tens of thousands" of Iraqis to an enormous, vibrant, milelong market because of increased feelings of security. "... [T]here are soccer leagues out here. The national soccer team is on its practice fields. There are signs of normality in Baghdad, albeit, again, in a city that may have been hit by violence on that given day." He pointed to a "major development" in Anbar province, a place that "many were ready to write off as a lost cause."
"[A]ll of a sudden you have cities all the way from the border, Al Qaim through Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and Fallujah, where tribes have volunteered for the Iraqi security forces." He said it is a "stunning development and reflects the frustration that the Sunni Arab tribes in Anbar have had with Al Qaeda and what Al Qaeda has done to them, to their sheiks, their families, their young men and, frankly, to their businesses and livelihoods. It has really had a devastating effect. And they have said, 'No more,' and stood up and voted with themselves and with their young men."
Petraeus corrected Lehrer's misimpression that large numbers of troops had been pulled out of the countryside to protect Baghdad. Actually, coalition forces are taking on the enemy as they have migrated out of Baghdad, as expected, pursuing them to new fronts.
Asked about how he can see any "progress" in the doubling of deaths among Iraqi police, Petraeus said, "One thing it tells us is that Iraqi security forces, certainly, are on the front lines and are fighting and dying for their country. They are committed to this endeavor." Meanwhile, the Iraqi government, noting the success of recent raids on death squads, eased the Baghdad curfew to 10 p.m. The action came as some Iraqis hailed the improved security. One woman, Layla, noted that shops were beginning to reopen on the shell-pocked main street of her neighborhood, which once bustled with juice stands, coffee shops, hamburger restaurants and small kitchenware stores.
So, where's the bad news in the story? Just as so many stories don't report the good news, I'm leaving out the bad. It seems only fair when The New York Times, for example, reported Petraeus' comments deep in a story headlined: "Bush Acknowledges Americans Weary of Iraq War." And only briefly, missing the positive comments. In the news business, what's "normal" isn't usually reported because, by definition, it isn't news. Unless it is in a country that is supposedly in ever-deepening chaos. Then the rare appearance of normality, indeed, should be news. But the appearance of normality in Iraq doesn't get reported. Maybe that means that the media consider the increasing normality in Iraq the norm. Or maybe it's just bad reporting.
Chicago Tribune
Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces there, also reported the recent capture of "more than the usual numbers" of weapons caches. One consisted of more than 120 improvised explosive devices, some of which were the "particularly lethal" anti-armor munitions being used against U.S. troops.
Perhaps you're wondering what a straight news story is doing here, in a commentary section. It's because there doesn't seem to be enough room in the media's straight news sections to report positive developments in the Iraq war. So, as a reader service, I am writing a news story involving the possible saving of at least 120 GIs' lives.
This story is based on a PBS interview of Petraeus by Jim Lehrer and reporting by Sharon Behn of The Washington Times. (Yes, I know that liberals consider the Times to be a hopelessly biased conservative rag, much as many conservatives consider The New York Times to be a hopelessly biased liberal rag.) For what I can tell, no one reported Petraeus' comments with this emphasis.
"There have been some encouraging indicators in Baghdad, in terms of a reduction in sectarian murders," he said. "There have been some families returning; there have certainly been revivals in the markets," which he called one of the main measures of progress. He particularly noted the return of "tens of thousands" of Iraqis to an enormous, vibrant, milelong market because of increased feelings of security. "... [T]here are soccer leagues out here. The national soccer team is on its practice fields. There are signs of normality in Baghdad, albeit, again, in a city that may have been hit by violence on that given day." He pointed to a "major development" in Anbar province, a place that "many were ready to write off as a lost cause."
"[A]ll of a sudden you have cities all the way from the border, Al Qaim through Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and Fallujah, where tribes have volunteered for the Iraqi security forces." He said it is a "stunning development and reflects the frustration that the Sunni Arab tribes in Anbar have had with Al Qaeda and what Al Qaeda has done to them, to their sheiks, their families, their young men and, frankly, to their businesses and livelihoods. It has really had a devastating effect. And they have said, 'No more,' and stood up and voted with themselves and with their young men."
Petraeus corrected Lehrer's misimpression that large numbers of troops had been pulled out of the countryside to protect Baghdad. Actually, coalition forces are taking on the enemy as they have migrated out of Baghdad, as expected, pursuing them to new fronts.
Asked about how he can see any "progress" in the doubling of deaths among Iraqi police, Petraeus said, "One thing it tells us is that Iraqi security forces, certainly, are on the front lines and are fighting and dying for their country. They are committed to this endeavor." Meanwhile, the Iraqi government, noting the success of recent raids on death squads, eased the Baghdad curfew to 10 p.m. The action came as some Iraqis hailed the improved security. One woman, Layla, noted that shops were beginning to reopen on the shell-pocked main street of her neighborhood, which once bustled with juice stands, coffee shops, hamburger restaurants and small kitchenware stores.
So, where's the bad news in the story? Just as so many stories don't report the good news, I'm leaving out the bad. It seems only fair when The New York Times, for example, reported Petraeus' comments deep in a story headlined: "Bush Acknowledges Americans Weary of Iraq War." And only briefly, missing the positive comments. In the news business, what's "normal" isn't usually reported because, by definition, it isn't news. Unless it is in a country that is supposedly in ever-deepening chaos. Then the rare appearance of normality, indeed, should be news. But the appearance of normality in Iraq doesn't get reported. Maybe that means that the media consider the increasing normality in Iraq the norm. Or maybe it's just bad reporting.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Let parents rule on kids' issues
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
With the development of a vaccine that protects women against cervical cancer, some people think it is a good idea to require that all pre-pubescent girls be inoculated. That, indeed, may be a good idea. But would the advocates of such mandatory inoculations be as enthusiastic if a yet-undiscovered HIV-AIDS vaccine was mandated for high-risk groups, such as gays, IV drug users and women married to bisexual men? They too are endangered by a life-threatening disease, and if a vaccine can be forced on children, then why not adults?
Not that I'm seriously proposing such a measure; it's just a thought experiment that might illustrate some of the problems of finding the appropriate balance between individual liberty and government intrusiveness. More to the point: How much power should the government have in telling parents how to raise their children? Or the reverse: How much power should the government have to prevent parents from raising their children as they see fit?
Some legislation now being debated by Illinois legislators in Springfield illustrates the last point: House Bill 317 would give every girl the right to have an abortion without telling her parents. All they'd need do is tell a "specified adult family member or a member of the clergy." It's as if to say that notifying a sympathetic aunt is the same as notifying a parent.
This issue keeps popping up because years ago the legislature passed a law affirming a parent's right and obligation to know if his child is to have an abortion. But because a politically motivated state Supreme Court refused for years to issue rules to implement the law, it never took effect. Now, after a court more acquainted with its obligation to enforce the law issued the rules, the abortion lobby is pushing this bill that would invalidate previous ones. About two-thirds of the states have a parental notification law, and polls consistently show that wide majorities of the American public favor such notification. The pro and con arguments have been well trod; I'd just add an observation: Have parents done such a bad job of raising children that the job should be turned over to the children themselves?
House Bill 1727 would require libraries to install filters on their computers to protect children from Internet porn. It was introduced in the face of vehement opposition from groups with radical individual-rights agendas, such as the American Library Association, which believes that kids should have access to "anything they want" in their libraries, according to ALA literature. This is a parent empowerment act, which would help create a safer environment for their children when they are in their libraries.
Some folks think this is a conflict between free speech and parental rights. It isn't. There's no law or court decision that requires libraries to stock porn, whether on the shelves in their youth sections or on their child-accessible computers. That is so sensible that you're right to wonder why a law is required.
House Bill 466 would further limit the number of charter schools in Illinois, denying parents and their children greater choice in how they will use their tax money to educate their children. Charter schools have proven they can develop successful teaching methods and environments, if they are free of the suffocating and costly regulations of school bureaucracies and labor unions. And there's the obvious explanation for why the unions are so anxious to pass this legislation. That they are not even slightly ashamed to be demanding such anti-child, anti-parent legislation says much about their blind self-interest.
There is a constant struggle between just how much control government should have in child-raising. Sometimes government must step in, for example, to prevent abuse, to protect children against diseases and to provide a safe environment. But there should be no argument when government gives every child the right to a virtually secret abortion and to view pornography in public places with official sanction, while forcing most children to attend schools crippled by red tape and exhausted, unmotivated, uncaring or incompetent teachers.
Chicago Tribune
With the development of a vaccine that protects women against cervical cancer, some people think it is a good idea to require that all pre-pubescent girls be inoculated. That, indeed, may be a good idea. But would the advocates of such mandatory inoculations be as enthusiastic if a yet-undiscovered HIV-AIDS vaccine was mandated for high-risk groups, such as gays, IV drug users and women married to bisexual men? They too are endangered by a life-threatening disease, and if a vaccine can be forced on children, then why not adults?
Not that I'm seriously proposing such a measure; it's just a thought experiment that might illustrate some of the problems of finding the appropriate balance between individual liberty and government intrusiveness. More to the point: How much power should the government have in telling parents how to raise their children? Or the reverse: How much power should the government have to prevent parents from raising their children as they see fit?
Some legislation now being debated by Illinois legislators in Springfield illustrates the last point: House Bill 317 would give every girl the right to have an abortion without telling her parents. All they'd need do is tell a "specified adult family member or a member of the clergy." It's as if to say that notifying a sympathetic aunt is the same as notifying a parent.
This issue keeps popping up because years ago the legislature passed a law affirming a parent's right and obligation to know if his child is to have an abortion. But because a politically motivated state Supreme Court refused for years to issue rules to implement the law, it never took effect. Now, after a court more acquainted with its obligation to enforce the law issued the rules, the abortion lobby is pushing this bill that would invalidate previous ones. About two-thirds of the states have a parental notification law, and polls consistently show that wide majorities of the American public favor such notification. The pro and con arguments have been well trod; I'd just add an observation: Have parents done such a bad job of raising children that the job should be turned over to the children themselves?
House Bill 1727 would require libraries to install filters on their computers to protect children from Internet porn. It was introduced in the face of vehement opposition from groups with radical individual-rights agendas, such as the American Library Association, which believes that kids should have access to "anything they want" in their libraries, according to ALA literature. This is a parent empowerment act, which would help create a safer environment for their children when they are in their libraries.
Some folks think this is a conflict between free speech and parental rights. It isn't. There's no law or court decision that requires libraries to stock porn, whether on the shelves in their youth sections or on their child-accessible computers. That is so sensible that you're right to wonder why a law is required.
House Bill 466 would further limit the number of charter schools in Illinois, denying parents and their children greater choice in how they will use their tax money to educate their children. Charter schools have proven they can develop successful teaching methods and environments, if they are free of the suffocating and costly regulations of school bureaucracies and labor unions. And there's the obvious explanation for why the unions are so anxious to pass this legislation. That they are not even slightly ashamed to be demanding such anti-child, anti-parent legislation says much about their blind self-interest.
There is a constant struggle between just how much control government should have in child-raising. Sometimes government must step in, for example, to prevent abuse, to protect children against diseases and to provide a safe environment. But there should be no argument when government gives every child the right to a virtually secret abortion and to view pornography in public places with official sanction, while forcing most children to attend schools crippled by red tape and exhausted, unmotivated, uncaring or incompetent teachers.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Free Speech and the Right to Disagree
By Dennis Byrne
RealClearPolitics
If a high school gives students permission to openly express their support of homosexuality, then why shouldn't other students be allowed to voice their disapproval?
A federal court judge in Chicago might have to answer that question after a high school student in Naperville, IL, a suburb southwest of Chicago, filed suit charging that her civil rights were violated by school officials by not letting her wear a pro-heterosexual T-shirt last year.
Neuqua Valley High School's refusal to let Heidi Zamecnik, 17, wear a T-shirt saying "Be happy, not gay" on the back and "My day of silence, straight alliance" on the front was especially egregious because it came on the same day that the school permitted other students on the national "Day of Silence" to openly express their support of homosexuality.
Read more at RealClearPolitics.com
RealClearPolitics
If a high school gives students permission to openly express their support of homosexuality, then why shouldn't other students be allowed to voice their disapproval?
A federal court judge in Chicago might have to answer that question after a high school student in Naperville, IL, a suburb southwest of Chicago, filed suit charging that her civil rights were violated by school officials by not letting her wear a pro-heterosexual T-shirt last year.
Neuqua Valley High School's refusal to let Heidi Zamecnik, 17, wear a T-shirt saying "Be happy, not gay" on the back and "My day of silence, straight alliance" on the front was especially egregious because it came on the same day that the school permitted other students on the national "Day of Silence" to openly express their support of homosexuality.
Read more at RealClearPolitics.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)