By Dennis Byrne a Chicago-area writer and consultant
March 20, 2006
If you want to discover how a perfectly healthy pink state turns into a lastingblue one, look no further than Illinois.
For years, Republicans often won statewide and federal elective offices. But thanks to a bungling party "leadership" way out of touch with its constituency, Tuesday's primary election to select a GOP nominee for governor presents voters with indecision, disappointment or disgust. Among the candidates, "I don't know" has made a strong showing.
We columnists have raked this field of candidates to the point of tedium, butwhy not? Why should Republicans be forced to choose among marginal, inexperienced, unqualified or downright deplorable candidates?
State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka is a nice lady, which is exactly what corrupt Illinois government doesn't need right now. I had expected more, but she has done nothing in the campaign to demonstrate that she won't be eaten alive by the greedy pals of both parties who constitute what Tribune columnist John Kass calls the "combine."
Ron Gidwitz, Mr. Inside/Mr. Outside, has been an insider for years, but now vows reform and independence. Judging by his low poll numbers, voters don't buy it, despite an expensive, lengthy TV ad campaign. Sad for him, OK for us.
Conservatives, of course, are engaged in their usual dance of death. They can't agree on a single candidate, so they're forced to choose between two and dilute their strength as a voting bloc. Jim Oberweis, as usual, is running second, but still has the best chance of beating Topinka. For me, he's also best on the issues. Bill Brady, a younger and attractive candidate, can wait
his turn.
Mention must be made of another candidate, the scary Andy Martin (a.k.a. Anthony R. Martin-Trigona), because if I don't he'll probably sue. So, I've mentioned him.
A certain number of dissatisfied Republicans will reject them all and pick up a Democratic primary ballot, motivated by the knowledge that they can get better government by voting for two challengers, Forrest Claypool for Cook County Board president and Edwin Eisendrath for governor. The Claypool vote is especially important because a comatose county Republican Party makes the election of a Democrat nearly certain.
And Republicans in the west suburban 6th Congressional District can do a service by crossing into the Democratic primary to vote for Christine Cegelis, the more likely of two candidates to beat a shameless interloper, Tammy Duckworth. In an incredible act of arrogance, she was imposed on the district by Democratic money man Rahm Emanuel and outsiders who think they know better than the voters who should represent them.
But why should Republicans be forced to play in someone else's sandbox? Why do loyal Republicans have to choose among second stringers? Where are the candidates who stand out because of their superb leadership, integrity, experience and wisdom?
The answer is to be found in a party establishment that is more interested in feathering its nest. The GOP leadership would rather see a Democratic ("someone we can work with") win than an independent Republican.
It wasn't Republican Peter Fitzgerald's conservatism that caused his party's establishment to nix his second term as a U.S. senator. It was his determined independence. He represented his constituents and their interests, and not the interwoven and lucrative interests of Illinois' unitary establishment party. It's why the party opposed him in his 1998 primary race against Loleta Didrickson and tried to undermine his nomination of the fiercely independent Patrick Fitzgerald as U.S. attorney. Peter Fitzgerald, of course, enjoys lasting revenge as Patrick Fitzgerald tracks corruption all the way to the offices of the governor and mayor.
The GOP "leadership" (the ones with the money and power) wants us to believe that they back "moderates" on principle. Hogwash. They don't care about principles, only about keeping power. They'd back Larry, Curly and Moe if they thought they'd win. They need to be reminded that our last Republican senator was a conservative. They'll respond that Fitzgerald "lucked out" because his Democratic opponent was the underqualified and ethically challenged incumbent, Carol Moseley Braun. The GOP establishment will say that the next candidate won't be so lucky in the run against incumbent Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin.
Oh, no? Independent and conservative Republicans will have a better chance of winning--if they start planning together now--against the most extreme and obnoxious senator of them all, Dick the Lip.
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and consultant
E-mail: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Subscribe To The Barbershop.
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Washington Press Corps Don't Know Conspiracy
For us folks beyond the Beltway, the best comedy on TV is a live telecast of the White House press corps in action.
Like when the corps was (and continues to be) in an uproar over suspicions (theirs) that Vice President Dick Cheney engaged in some sort of political conspiracy to hide (from them) the accidental shooting of hunting partner Harry Whittington.
But take it from a Chicago writer, that’s no political conspiracy; here it’s just everyday affairs of state. If you want a real political conspiracy, check out a recent Chicago headline: A Cook County jail guard reportedly plotted to allow six inmates to escape in order to influence an election.
For everything that happened in Watergate, and everything that President Bush supposedly hides from the public, they never—to my knowledge—tried to stage a prison break to boost their election chances.
At the risk of confusing you, here’s what allegedly happened in the Chicago jailbreak: The six, including a convicted killer, recently made a break for it by supposedly overpowering a jail guard. Now, the guard reportedly is telling investigators that he conspired to help the six escape to embarrass the incumbent sheriff, Michael Sheahan, and his chief of staff, Tom Dart, who run the jail. The conspiracy’s beneficiary was supposedly Richard Remus, one of Dart’s opponents in next month’s race for sheriff.
Confused? Wait, there’s more: The guard once was part of Sheahan’s Special Operations Response Team, which Remus formerly headed. He no longer does because he and the team were accused by the sheriff’s office in 2003 of abusing inmates.
Remus denied abusing the inmates and, in turn, accused the sheriff of his own conspiracy to smear Remus. Why? Because, Remus said, the sheriff wanted to deflect criticism from his own scandal: three escapes in a year, and a triple shooting involving a gun that was smuggled into maximum security. Probably a result of another conspiracy.
Remus denies he had anything to do with any of it. He told the Chicago Tribune, “No way in hell did any of these guys do something this stupid for a [explicative] campaign. If he [the guard] did do it, put him in the electric chair.”
So, who to believe? Chicagoans can never be sure in such cases of campaign mischief. Here’s a typical example: a candidate for, say, alderman has a brick thrown through his campaign office’s window. He accuses his opponent of the throwing the brick. But, the opponent replies with equal credibility, the candidate himself threw the brick through his own window just to get attention. So, it’s a wash.
In the present case, the unnamed guard, Remus and Sheahan could all end up accusing each other of concocting the whole thing. By the way, there’s a third candidate in the race, who’s probably regretting that he can’t somehow get in on the accusing. Also, by the way, all escapees were quickly captured.
No isolated incident, this. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan is at this moment standing trial for conspiracy and fraud. In Chicago itself, conspiracy, fraud and corruption charges are flying all over the place, leading all the way up to the city clerk. Some speculate that investigation will even ensnarl Mayor Richard M. Daley. No one would be surprised here if everyone in City Hall were involved in a conspiracy to feed at the public trough. (A recent Tribune poll shows that a big majority of Chicagoans believes that Daley knows about the graft, but a majority also believes that Daley’s doing a good job.)
Shining the light on all these conspiracies is U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who—it seems to some partisans—is involved in a political conspiracy of his own to nail Cheney’s former chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby for outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
With all these conspiracies, I’m grateful to have the guidance of the White House press corps to turn up some more. The White House press grilled presidential press secretary Scott McClellan as if he, Cheney, Bush and lord knows who else conspired to hide the shooting from the public. I gather that a part of the evidence was someone’s decision to make the incident public by (gasp) notifying a Texas newspaper instead of the White House press corps. “What did the president know and when did they know it?” the assembled mob demanded in terms reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. Someone said it reminded her of the “levee story.” Someone else suggested the administration sat on the story to avoid the Sunday political talk shows. Someone else demanded to know if the vice president would resign.
Any group taking themselves this seriously obviously can’t imagine how hilarious and self-absorbed they look. Especially to those of us who engage in the writing racket in Chicago, where real political conspiracies grow like mushrooms after the rain. Yeah, the Bush administration made a PR mess of another “situation.” But I’m sure the eyes of the Washington press corps would have bugged even more if the administration had disclosed the shooting to them earlier, say at midnight, making them disturb their slumber or other Saturday night activities.
What would have been even more fun to watch is if someone had leaked the shooting to the Washington press corps before the administration announced it. Perceiving an even darker Bush conspiracy, the press corps would have really gone bug-eyed. And what fun that would have been for the rest of us.
Like when the corps was (and continues to be) in an uproar over suspicions (theirs) that Vice President Dick Cheney engaged in some sort of political conspiracy to hide (from them) the accidental shooting of hunting partner Harry Whittington.
But take it from a Chicago writer, that’s no political conspiracy; here it’s just everyday affairs of state. If you want a real political conspiracy, check out a recent Chicago headline: A Cook County jail guard reportedly plotted to allow six inmates to escape in order to influence an election.
For everything that happened in Watergate, and everything that President Bush supposedly hides from the public, they never—to my knowledge—tried to stage a prison break to boost their election chances.
At the risk of confusing you, here’s what allegedly happened in the Chicago jailbreak: The six, including a convicted killer, recently made a break for it by supposedly overpowering a jail guard. Now, the guard reportedly is telling investigators that he conspired to help the six escape to embarrass the incumbent sheriff, Michael Sheahan, and his chief of staff, Tom Dart, who run the jail. The conspiracy’s beneficiary was supposedly Richard Remus, one of Dart’s opponents in next month’s race for sheriff.
Confused? Wait, there’s more: The guard once was part of Sheahan’s Special Operations Response Team, which Remus formerly headed. He no longer does because he and the team were accused by the sheriff’s office in 2003 of abusing inmates.
Remus denied abusing the inmates and, in turn, accused the sheriff of his own conspiracy to smear Remus. Why? Because, Remus said, the sheriff wanted to deflect criticism from his own scandal: three escapes in a year, and a triple shooting involving a gun that was smuggled into maximum security. Probably a result of another conspiracy.
Remus denies he had anything to do with any of it. He told the Chicago Tribune, “No way in hell did any of these guys do something this stupid for a [explicative] campaign. If he [the guard] did do it, put him in the electric chair.”
So, who to believe? Chicagoans can never be sure in such cases of campaign mischief. Here’s a typical example: a candidate for, say, alderman has a brick thrown through his campaign office’s window. He accuses his opponent of the throwing the brick. But, the opponent replies with equal credibility, the candidate himself threw the brick through his own window just to get attention. So, it’s a wash.
In the present case, the unnamed guard, Remus and Sheahan could all end up accusing each other of concocting the whole thing. By the way, there’s a third candidate in the race, who’s probably regretting that he can’t somehow get in on the accusing. Also, by the way, all escapees were quickly captured.
No isolated incident, this. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan is at this moment standing trial for conspiracy and fraud. In Chicago itself, conspiracy, fraud and corruption charges are flying all over the place, leading all the way up to the city clerk. Some speculate that investigation will even ensnarl Mayor Richard M. Daley. No one would be surprised here if everyone in City Hall were involved in a conspiracy to feed at the public trough. (A recent Tribune poll shows that a big majority of Chicagoans believes that Daley knows about the graft, but a majority also believes that Daley’s doing a good job.)
Shining the light on all these conspiracies is U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who—it seems to some partisans—is involved in a political conspiracy of his own to nail Cheney’s former chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby for outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
With all these conspiracies, I’m grateful to have the guidance of the White House press corps to turn up some more. The White House press grilled presidential press secretary Scott McClellan as if he, Cheney, Bush and lord knows who else conspired to hide the shooting from the public. I gather that a part of the evidence was someone’s decision to make the incident public by (gasp) notifying a Texas newspaper instead of the White House press corps. “What did the president know and when did they know it?” the assembled mob demanded in terms reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. Someone said it reminded her of the “levee story.” Someone else suggested the administration sat on the story to avoid the Sunday political talk shows. Someone else demanded to know if the vice president would resign.
Any group taking themselves this seriously obviously can’t imagine how hilarious and self-absorbed they look. Especially to those of us who engage in the writing racket in Chicago, where real political conspiracies grow like mushrooms after the rain. Yeah, the Bush administration made a PR mess of another “situation.” But I’m sure the eyes of the Washington press corps would have bugged even more if the administration had disclosed the shooting to them earlier, say at midnight, making them disturb their slumber or other Saturday night activities.
What would have been even more fun to watch is if someone had leaked the shooting to the Washington press corps before the administration announced it. Perceiving an even darker Bush conspiracy, the press corps would have really gone bug-eyed. And what fun that would have been for the rest of us.
Domestic Stem Cells
No such thing, right? Language ought to be exact, right?
Then, why can’t professional communicators, once called journalists, continue to shortchange the language, and the public, in their “reporting” of two major issues: “domestic spying” and “opposition” to stem cell research?
Take “domestic spying,” which has become a standard media shortcut for describing the Bush administration’s program to gather intelligence about terrorists by listening to their conversations with folks in America, without a warrant. The repetitive use of “domestic spying” has successfully implanted in many minds the idea that the government is engaged in willy-nilly wiretapping of Americans talking with each other. Which it is not.
When you telephone someone in Paris, do you call that a “domestic” call, because you are calling from New York? Do you call the international operator and say, “I’d like to place a domestic call?” No, you call it an international call. Only a moron would call it an international call. By the same token, if reporters want to brand the program “spying,” then shouldn’t they more properly call it international spying?
Some reporters are guilty of the same mindless misuse of the language when they talk about the Bush administration’s (or conservatives’ or Republicans’) opposition to “stem cell research.” In fact, reporters would be hard pressed to find anyone, including the aforementioned troglodytes, who actually opposes all stem cell research. Their opposition is to one form of stem cell research, involving the use of embryonic cells. Their opposition is based on ethical, moral or religious principles, and the recognition that stem cells from other sources—such as “adult” stem cells harvested from bone marrow or umbilical cords—show greater promise.
Everyone should be capable of understanding the difference between “stem cell research” and “embryonic stem cell research.” So, you can only conclude that reporters who continue to misapply the terms “domestic spying” and “stem cell research” are either incredibly ignorant or biased. Or more terrifying, both.
Then, why can’t professional communicators, once called journalists, continue to shortchange the language, and the public, in their “reporting” of two major issues: “domestic spying” and “opposition” to stem cell research?
Take “domestic spying,” which has become a standard media shortcut for describing the Bush administration’s program to gather intelligence about terrorists by listening to their conversations with folks in America, without a warrant. The repetitive use of “domestic spying” has successfully implanted in many minds the idea that the government is engaged in willy-nilly wiretapping of Americans talking with each other. Which it is not.
When you telephone someone in Paris, do you call that a “domestic” call, because you are calling from New York? Do you call the international operator and say, “I’d like to place a domestic call?” No, you call it an international call. Only a moron would call it an international call. By the same token, if reporters want to brand the program “spying,” then shouldn’t they more properly call it international spying?
Some reporters are guilty of the same mindless misuse of the language when they talk about the Bush administration’s (or conservatives’ or Republicans’) opposition to “stem cell research.” In fact, reporters would be hard pressed to find anyone, including the aforementioned troglodytes, who actually opposes all stem cell research. Their opposition is to one form of stem cell research, involving the use of embryonic cells. Their opposition is based on ethical, moral or religious principles, and the recognition that stem cells from other sources—such as “adult” stem cells harvested from bone marrow or umbilical cords—show greater promise.
Everyone should be capable of understanding the difference between “stem cell research” and “embryonic stem cell research.” So, you can only conclude that reporters who continue to misapply the terms “domestic spying” and “stem cell research” are either incredibly ignorant or biased. Or more terrifying, both.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Ted Kennedy: The ghost of McCarthy past
Are you now or were you ever a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton? Are you now or were you ever a reader or subscriber of that group’s magazine, “Prospect?”
After watching today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, you can almost hear the ghost of the infamous Sen. Joe McCarthy pursing communists during the Red Scare paranoia of the 1950s.
McCarthy’s anti-communist hunts destroyed careers, friendship and lives. Those who had the courage to oppose him are celebrated even today.
“I have here in my hand a list of the names of …,” the demagogic McCarthy frequently declared, proclaiming that he had uncovered commies in the Army, State Department and in the shadowy niches and crannies of Washington.
For the majority of Americans who weren’t around for those horrible times, you can’t fully appreciate his loathsome behavior. Simply reading “suspect” materials or having them in your home was sufficient reason to be investigated. Any connection, however slight, with the “wrong” people or groups was enough to put you on someone’s blacklist.
I was around for the Army-McCarthy hearings, which was the senator’s vehicle for ruining lives under cover of the law. In honesty, I cannot recall since then any performance that has come anywhere close to this outrage—until witnessing the nauseating behavior today of Sen. Ted Kennedy and his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not since the 1950s, have I witnessed such a vile use of “guilt by association” for political advantage.
In the words of Joseph Welch, the Army’s counsel, after McCarthy had destroyed his latest victim: “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.”
McCarthy tried to interrupt, determined to continue on his destructive path: “Let’s, let’s…”
Welch, in words that entered political history cut him off: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
No, Kennedy and his crew don’t.
After watching today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, you can almost hear the ghost of the infamous Sen. Joe McCarthy pursing communists during the Red Scare paranoia of the 1950s.
McCarthy’s anti-communist hunts destroyed careers, friendship and lives. Those who had the courage to oppose him are celebrated even today.
“I have here in my hand a list of the names of …,” the demagogic McCarthy frequently declared, proclaiming that he had uncovered commies in the Army, State Department and in the shadowy niches and crannies of Washington.
For the majority of Americans who weren’t around for those horrible times, you can’t fully appreciate his loathsome behavior. Simply reading “suspect” materials or having them in your home was sufficient reason to be investigated. Any connection, however slight, with the “wrong” people or groups was enough to put you on someone’s blacklist.
I was around for the Army-McCarthy hearings, which was the senator’s vehicle for ruining lives under cover of the law. In honesty, I cannot recall since then any performance that has come anywhere close to this outrage—until witnessing the nauseating behavior today of Sen. Ted Kennedy and his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not since the 1950s, have I witnessed such a vile use of “guilt by association” for political advantage.
In the words of Joseph Welch, the Army’s counsel, after McCarthy had destroyed his latest victim: “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.”
McCarthy tried to interrupt, determined to continue on his destructive path: “Let’s, let’s…”
Welch, in words that entered political history cut him off: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
No, Kennedy and his crew don’t.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Losing our heads over bogus claims
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune, January 9, 2006
It might make a good horror movie: global avian flu meets global warming. Sort of like King Kong meets Godzilla.
We are warned that at least one of these global catastrophes surely will get us. Likely both. On this, we have the word of the infallible: scientists, journalists and activists whose jobs are to knock ignorance and complacency out of us. The only question is which threat will get us first: a worldwide influenza pandemic spread by birds, or Earth flambe brought on by America's greedy refusal to cut greenhouse gases.
Maybe the flu and global warming alarms are warranted. But notwithstanding claims of certitude by our minders, how is a public, made skeptical by so many false warnings and promises, to know if they are right? Can we trust every warning, or promise of a cure, that's made?
Let's ask the renowned South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, who created, with a hyperventilating media, a worldwide sensation by fabricating tailored embryonic stem cells that were supposed to cure, well, just about everything. Or maybe we shouldn't bother him; he's momentarily busy dodging convincing charges that his pioneering "successes" were fake.
This one is on science, because Hwang's work was "peer reviewed," giving it the scientific stamp of approval. But the media don't entirely escape blame; they went wild publishing the claims, as they have typically hyped every supposed "advance" in embryonic stem cell research. In fact, there are few of them and, worse, the media have more or less irresponsibly ignored the more tangible and substantial advances by less controversial "adult" stem cell therapy.
So whom can we trust?
Maybe this can help. It's time for 2005's "Biggest Science Reporting Flubs," awarded by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. STATS is a Washington-based think tank that tracks scientifically misleading myths and rumors and annually highlights the worst examples the media inflict on the public. They are:
1. Meth mania: The media's flipping out over "America's most dangerous drug" is challenged by research showing that methamphetamine use among high school students has declined 28 percent in the last five years, that meth users only slightly outnumber crack users and that meth addicts recover at the same rate as other drug addicts.
2. Poison popcorn: ABC's "Good Morning America" blew it with its "exclusive" investigation claiming that the Food and Drug Administration has opened a probe into the supposed cancer risks of a chemical whose presence is three times the recommended FDA levels in popcorn bags, fast-food boxes and candy wrappers. But there's no FDA investigation, the agency doesn't have recommended levels and such chemicals are not considered unsafe. Oops.
3. Gender-bending babies: USA Today reported a study that allegedly linked phthalates--a family of chemicals that make plastic flexible--to deformities in male infants. After the report panicked parents nationwide, an expert government panel was unable to validate the "findings." The media, of course, ignored the report.
4. Dazed and confused teens: A new "identity disorder" has descended on teens increasingly using drugs, booze and sex to escape reality, proclaimed The New York Times. Except that a University of Michigan long-term study found teens actually are doing less of the bad behaviors.
5. French fry fright: A California lawsuit demanding McDonald's and Frito-Lay warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, allegedly linked to cancer and birth defects, inspired a wave of media hysteria. Which overlooked a major study that found that acrylamide might lower, not raise, cancer rates.
6. Toothpaste terror: Supermarkets began pulling toothpaste off their shelves after panicky reports that an anti-bacterial ingredient in it could lead to depression, liver problems and cancer. The American Dental Society responded that the effect occurred experimentally only when the ingredient was placed in pure form in very hot and heavily chlorinated water.
7. Media gorge on obesity. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report suggesting that a little extra weight may not always be dangerous--which the media trumpeted as proof that the `food police' were dieting us to death. But some of the results were statistically insignificant, and even the CDC didn't claim they were conclusive."
It's not my contention that the number of misreported or overly hyped warnings outnumber the legitimate ones. But how many are too many?
----------
Email: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Chicago Tribune, January 9, 2006
It might make a good horror movie: global avian flu meets global warming. Sort of like King Kong meets Godzilla.
We are warned that at least one of these global catastrophes surely will get us. Likely both. On this, we have the word of the infallible: scientists, journalists and activists whose jobs are to knock ignorance and complacency out of us. The only question is which threat will get us first: a worldwide influenza pandemic spread by birds, or Earth flambe brought on by America's greedy refusal to cut greenhouse gases.
Maybe the flu and global warming alarms are warranted. But notwithstanding claims of certitude by our minders, how is a public, made skeptical by so many false warnings and promises, to know if they are right? Can we trust every warning, or promise of a cure, that's made?
Let's ask the renowned South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, who created, with a hyperventilating media, a worldwide sensation by fabricating tailored embryonic stem cells that were supposed to cure, well, just about everything. Or maybe we shouldn't bother him; he's momentarily busy dodging convincing charges that his pioneering "successes" were fake.
This one is on science, because Hwang's work was "peer reviewed," giving it the scientific stamp of approval. But the media don't entirely escape blame; they went wild publishing the claims, as they have typically hyped every supposed "advance" in embryonic stem cell research. In fact, there are few of them and, worse, the media have more or less irresponsibly ignored the more tangible and substantial advances by less controversial "adult" stem cell therapy.
So whom can we trust?
Maybe this can help. It's time for 2005's "Biggest Science Reporting Flubs," awarded by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. STATS is a Washington-based think tank that tracks scientifically misleading myths and rumors and annually highlights the worst examples the media inflict on the public. They are:
1. Meth mania: The media's flipping out over "America's most dangerous drug" is challenged by research showing that methamphetamine use among high school students has declined 28 percent in the last five years, that meth users only slightly outnumber crack users and that meth addicts recover at the same rate as other drug addicts.
2. Poison popcorn: ABC's "Good Morning America" blew it with its "exclusive" investigation claiming that the Food and Drug Administration has opened a probe into the supposed cancer risks of a chemical whose presence is three times the recommended FDA levels in popcorn bags, fast-food boxes and candy wrappers. But there's no FDA investigation, the agency doesn't have recommended levels and such chemicals are not considered unsafe. Oops.
3. Gender-bending babies: USA Today reported a study that allegedly linked phthalates--a family of chemicals that make plastic flexible--to deformities in male infants. After the report panicked parents nationwide, an expert government panel was unable to validate the "findings." The media, of course, ignored the report.
4. Dazed and confused teens: A new "identity disorder" has descended on teens increasingly using drugs, booze and sex to escape reality, proclaimed The New York Times. Except that a University of Michigan long-term study found teens actually are doing less of the bad behaviors.
5. French fry fright: A California lawsuit demanding McDonald's and Frito-Lay warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, allegedly linked to cancer and birth defects, inspired a wave of media hysteria. Which overlooked a major study that found that acrylamide might lower, not raise, cancer rates.
6. Toothpaste terror: Supermarkets began pulling toothpaste off their shelves after panicky reports that an anti-bacterial ingredient in it could lead to depression, liver problems and cancer. The American Dental Society responded that the effect occurred experimentally only when the ingredient was placed in pure form in very hot and heavily chlorinated water.
7. Media gorge on obesity. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report suggesting that a little extra weight may not always be dangerous--which the media trumpeted as proof that the `food police' were dieting us to death. But some of the results were statistically insignificant, and even the CDC didn't claim they were conclusive."
It's not my contention that the number of misreported or overly hyped warnings outnumber the legitimate ones. But how many are too many?
----------
Email: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Thursday, January 05, 2006
It's dark in here.
Can anyone explain why the investigators on CSI never turn on the lights when they're at an in-door crime scene? Are they stupid, or do they just like to stumble around in the dark?
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Liberal hypocrisy
Hard lesson about endangering lives
For all of those hypocrites intent on ferreting out traitors
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune, January 2, 2006
"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I've seen in all my years of government." --Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), regarding an intelligence leak that has endangered national security.
The leak, Schumer said, has "undermined our national security," and if the facts are true, "it is clear that a crime has been committed."
Schumer was not alone. Other senators, including Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), lined up to demand that the Bush administration, Congress and Dick Tracy's crime stoppers ferret out the traitor and hand him over for caning. Because of this kind of leak, they warned, someone could die.
But the leak that drew their foregoing ire wasn't the one about the warrantless wiretapping of people in America who chat with Al Qaeda. It was directed at whoever disclosed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, in an alleged White House conspiracy to damage the reputations of the opponents of the Iraq war. Among the many things this might tell us is that Schumer doesn't regard preventing another terrorist
attack to be as important as a Plame outing.
This kind of hypocrisy and selective outrage isn't new to either party: Republicans didn't like special prosecutors, independent counsels and the like when they were probing Republican scandals, such as Watergate and Iran-contra. Some decided they liked them after all when they went after President Bill Clinton. Now they don't like them again. And vice versa for Democrats.
But one party's hypocrisy doesn't cancel another's. Any leak that breaks the law and endangers national security is grievously wrong. I said so in an October 2003 column criticizing the Bush administration for stalling an investigation of the Plame leak. But now a strange silence has overcome Democrats and much of the media. From them there are no more, as far as I can tell, passionate denunciations of this leak. No more letters to the U.S. attorney general urging an investigation; no more calls for congressional hearings; no more berating journalists for being stooges of leakers; no more allegations of criminality. The only calls to be heard from Democrats are for congressional hearings on the surveillance program, hearings that our enemies will find useful.
From this, we must assume that they are more worried about risking the life of one CIA agent than of a couple of hundred million Americans.
Among them is Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who put on one whale of an arm-waving portrayal of Foghorn Leghorn on the Senate floor. In a statement later, Byrd slipped out of his comic role by irresponsibly accusing President Bush of assuming "unchecked power" that is "reserved only for kings and potentates."
Other Democrats routinely refer to the surveillance as if it were randomly directed at "Americans," without mentioning that the surveillance, as far as we know, is of people who are confabbing with Al Qaeda. This crucial omission is the result of either ignorance or demagoguery. Some in the media, in turn, routinely allow Democrats to get away with this. Or grotesquely compare wiretapping with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Or praise the New York Times for its wonderful "scoop," forgetting all about the thousands of stories they did casting a dark shadow on Bush for the Plame leak.
The hysteria generated by partisans and media has overcome reason, facts and the law. Never mind that John Schmidt, associate attorney general under Clinton, explained in an informative Chicago Tribune op-ed piece why Bush has the legal and constitutional authority to approve the taps. That "every president since FISA's [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] passage has asserted that he retained the power to go beyond the act's terms." Never mind that other legal scholars, on a non-partisan basis, have said that whatever FISA says, the president retains that power under the Constitution. That four federal appeals courts have upheld the president's power to wiretap to gain foreign intelligence--which the present case is about--without warrant.
Reputable scholars, lawyers and judges all agree that this issue is complex, with finely tuned arguments and complicated precedents on both sides. None of them is so reckless as the Byrds and media commentators who state, without reflection and with partisan purpose, that such wiretaps are illegal and unconstitutional.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
For all of those hypocrites intent on ferreting out traitors
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune, January 2, 2006
"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I've seen in all my years of government." --Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), regarding an intelligence leak that has endangered national security.
The leak, Schumer said, has "undermined our national security," and if the facts are true, "it is clear that a crime has been committed."
Schumer was not alone. Other senators, including Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), lined up to demand that the Bush administration, Congress and Dick Tracy's crime stoppers ferret out the traitor and hand him over for caning. Because of this kind of leak, they warned, someone could die.
But the leak that drew their foregoing ire wasn't the one about the warrantless wiretapping of people in America who chat with Al Qaeda. It was directed at whoever disclosed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, in an alleged White House conspiracy to damage the reputations of the opponents of the Iraq war. Among the many things this might tell us is that Schumer doesn't regard preventing another terrorist
attack to be as important as a Plame outing.
This kind of hypocrisy and selective outrage isn't new to either party: Republicans didn't like special prosecutors, independent counsels and the like when they were probing Republican scandals, such as Watergate and Iran-contra. Some decided they liked them after all when they went after President Bill Clinton. Now they don't like them again. And vice versa for Democrats.
But one party's hypocrisy doesn't cancel another's. Any leak that breaks the law and endangers national security is grievously wrong. I said so in an October 2003 column criticizing the Bush administration for stalling an investigation of the Plame leak. But now a strange silence has overcome Democrats and much of the media. From them there are no more, as far as I can tell, passionate denunciations of this leak. No more letters to the U.S. attorney general urging an investigation; no more calls for congressional hearings; no more berating journalists for being stooges of leakers; no more allegations of criminality. The only calls to be heard from Democrats are for congressional hearings on the surveillance program, hearings that our enemies will find useful.
From this, we must assume that they are more worried about risking the life of one CIA agent than of a couple of hundred million Americans.
Among them is Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who put on one whale of an arm-waving portrayal of Foghorn Leghorn on the Senate floor. In a statement later, Byrd slipped out of his comic role by irresponsibly accusing President Bush of assuming "unchecked power" that is "reserved only for kings and potentates."
Other Democrats routinely refer to the surveillance as if it were randomly directed at "Americans," without mentioning that the surveillance, as far as we know, is of people who are confabbing with Al Qaeda. This crucial omission is the result of either ignorance or demagoguery. Some in the media, in turn, routinely allow Democrats to get away with this. Or grotesquely compare wiretapping with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Or praise the New York Times for its wonderful "scoop," forgetting all about the thousands of stories they did casting a dark shadow on Bush for the Plame leak.
The hysteria generated by partisans and media has overcome reason, facts and the law. Never mind that John Schmidt, associate attorney general under Clinton, explained in an informative Chicago Tribune op-ed piece why Bush has the legal and constitutional authority to approve the taps. That "every president since FISA's [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] passage has asserted that he retained the power to go beyond the act's terms." Never mind that other legal scholars, on a non-partisan basis, have said that whatever FISA says, the president retains that power under the Constitution. That four federal appeals courts have upheld the president's power to wiretap to gain foreign intelligence--which the present case is about--without warrant.
Reputable scholars, lawyers and judges all agree that this issue is complex, with finely tuned arguments and complicated precedents on both sides. None of them is so reckless as the Byrds and media commentators who state, without reflection and with partisan purpose, that such wiretaps are illegal and unconstitutional.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Intelligent Design and Science
What's so scary about intelligent design?
By Dennis Byrne,
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 2005
Here is a question for scientists who ridicule intelligent design, yet say they believe in God: When you pray, is it to a God who just sat around and watched the universe spring into existence all by itself?
Or did God give himself something to do, and thus, here we are?
It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us. Scientists, of course, would vehemently deny that they are in any way trying to tell people of faith what kind of God they should believe in. But they need to honestly admit that this battle between evolution and intelligent design is a two-way street:
People of faith should not be directing scientists how to do their work and scientists ought to be more thoughtful and respectful about how their work complicates or complements the world of belief. Science as well as theology, philosophy and religion have legitimate claims to exploring and discovering answers to the Big Question: How did we get here, and why?
Some things science just can't explain. Such as the mystery of how a perfect creator turned himself into one of his less-than perfect creations--a man--but still remained perfect. Based on faith alone, millions of people celebrate that inexplicable miracle on Christmas.
Scientists, in fact, can't explain a lot of things, and that's no knock on scientists. It's because a lot of answers cannot meet the scientific standards of observation, experimentation, replication and verification. But it's also no reason that any subject of scientific interest cannot also be explored by theology, philosophy and religion. Yet the fight between intelligent design and evolution is popularly framed as an effort by theologians, philosophers and the faithful to impose their unscientific conclusions on science. Perhaps a few dominators do, but most of us do feel the need to reconcile what science and faith tell us--about our world and us.
The reality today is that when theology, philosophy or religion dares to examine the Big Question, its practitioners find themselves increasingly bumping heads with scientific claims of exclusive competence. This is wrong. Neither science nor theology has the right to tell the other to butt out of this quest. In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.
Centuries ago, science on one hand and philosophy, theology and religion on the other were separated--to the relief of those who correctly believed that the church had gone too far in using dogma to block scientific advances. Exploring reality through the prism of science requires one form of knowledge, while discovering and refining our understanding of God and his presence in the world require another. Now that pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point that science and philosophy, and
theology and religion are regarded, by some, as mortal enemies. The idea of unified knowledge has come on hard times. Few people are exploring how the two approaches can help each other. That science is rushing toward a unified theory that "explains everything" is not a reason to abandon non-scientific ways to approach a comprehensive understanding of everything.
This requires an admission that there is a higher level of knowledge beyond science alone or theology alone. Vast areas of knowledge are open to those who realize that just as a branch of physics examines the "first principle of everything," so does metaphysics. Or that cosmology and theology are on the same coin,
just on different sides.
We should approach the Big Question with awe and humility, not ridicule and self-certainty. With excitement and optimism, instead of division and the kind of cynicism that rejects the possibility of parallel or complementary explanations.
To leave students without a perspective of how philosophy, theology and religion help bring us to an understanding of "all things," is as wrong as denying students the understanding that science brings.
Philosophers and theologians may--must, actually--rigorously examine the scientific theory that random chance explains everything. A denial of that right and responsibility rises from the same spirit of arrogant certitude that haunted Galileo.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
By Dennis Byrne,
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 2005
Here is a question for scientists who ridicule intelligent design, yet say they believe in God: When you pray, is it to a God who just sat around and watched the universe spring into existence all by itself?
Or did God give himself something to do, and thus, here we are?
It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us. Scientists, of course, would vehemently deny that they are in any way trying to tell people of faith what kind of God they should believe in. But they need to honestly admit that this battle between evolution and intelligent design is a two-way street:
People of faith should not be directing scientists how to do their work and scientists ought to be more thoughtful and respectful about how their work complicates or complements the world of belief. Science as well as theology, philosophy and religion have legitimate claims to exploring and discovering answers to the Big Question: How did we get here, and why?
Some things science just can't explain. Such as the mystery of how a perfect creator turned himself into one of his less-than perfect creations--a man--but still remained perfect. Based on faith alone, millions of people celebrate that inexplicable miracle on Christmas.
Scientists, in fact, can't explain a lot of things, and that's no knock on scientists. It's because a lot of answers cannot meet the scientific standards of observation, experimentation, replication and verification. But it's also no reason that any subject of scientific interest cannot also be explored by theology, philosophy and religion. Yet the fight between intelligent design and evolution is popularly framed as an effort by theologians, philosophers and the faithful to impose their unscientific conclusions on science. Perhaps a few dominators do, but most of us do feel the need to reconcile what science and faith tell us--about our world and us.
The reality today is that when theology, philosophy or religion dares to examine the Big Question, its practitioners find themselves increasingly bumping heads with scientific claims of exclusive competence. This is wrong. Neither science nor theology has the right to tell the other to butt out of this quest. In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.
Centuries ago, science on one hand and philosophy, theology and religion on the other were separated--to the relief of those who correctly believed that the church had gone too far in using dogma to block scientific advances. Exploring reality through the prism of science requires one form of knowledge, while discovering and refining our understanding of God and his presence in the world require another. Now that pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point that science and philosophy, and
theology and religion are regarded, by some, as mortal enemies. The idea of unified knowledge has come on hard times. Few people are exploring how the two approaches can help each other. That science is rushing toward a unified theory that "explains everything" is not a reason to abandon non-scientific ways to approach a comprehensive understanding of everything.
This requires an admission that there is a higher level of knowledge beyond science alone or theology alone. Vast areas of knowledge are open to those who realize that just as a branch of physics examines the "first principle of everything," so does metaphysics. Or that cosmology and theology are on the same coin,
just on different sides.
We should approach the Big Question with awe and humility, not ridicule and self-certainty. With excitement and optimism, instead of division and the kind of cynicism that rejects the possibility of parallel or complementary explanations.
To leave students without a perspective of how philosophy, theology and religion help bring us to an understanding of "all things," is as wrong as denying students the understanding that science brings.
Philosophers and theologians may--must, actually--rigorously examine the scientific theory that random chance explains everything. A denial of that right and responsibility rises from the same spirit of arrogant certitude that haunted Galileo.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Take a bow.
Just saw a Green Bay Packer defensive back flex his muscles for the crowd after knocking the stuffing out of a Seattle receiver. The only problem: the receiver caught a pass for the first down. This has gotten out of hand: A defender strutting his stuff like he had just done something great, when the other team advanced the ball. What is it with these jamokes?
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Profiling the Texas Barbarian
Paul Berman, writing in the Nov. 28 & Dec. 5 New Republic (“The Anti-Anti-Americans”) puts his finger on why the mention of President George W. Bush sends his haters here and in Europe rushing to the vomitorium.
“…[E]verything about the new president, each strange tic and motion—the street thug’s swagger, the inability to compose his face into a civil expression, the problem with alcohol, the apparent lack of formal education, and so forth—conjured in Europe the worst of clichés about Texas barbarism.”
“…[E]verything about the new president, each strange tic and motion—the street thug’s swagger, the inability to compose his face into a civil expression, the problem with alcohol, the apparent lack of formal education, and so forth—conjured in Europe the worst of clichés about Texas barbarism.”
Just another job
Richard Cohen, in a Nov. 24 Washington Post op-ed column, seems bothered that military veterans are honored on…Veterans Day.
Nov. 11 used to recognize the First World War’s Armistice Day. When it was switched to Veterans Day, it came to mean “something so amorphous it’s hard to say what or who is being celebrated,” Cohen wrote. Heros? No. Combatants? No. “So, it’s just anyone who served in the military. Yes, that’s it. Is it any wonder no one much pays any attention—or for that matter, notices that the day lacks an apostrophe?”
My brother, Bill, pays attention. Every Veterans Day (with or without the apostrophe), he calls to thank me, for my non-heroic, non-combatant military service. He figures that you don’t have to die or receive a Congressional Medal of Honor to be deserving of the nation’s gratitude.
I confess, I like to get the calls, but honestly, I didn’t much care to be in the Navy and I didn’t like the Vietnam War, raging at the time. I can’t claim any special valor, because if I had not volunteered, I would have been swept up in the draft. I was never shot at and never saw the enemy. No special medals were awarded for any of it, although everyone in service during time of war got what we called a “gedunk” medal—meaning that it was as common as the candy bars and other goodies in the ship’s store.
About the same time, Cohen apparently was doing “some post-graduate work” at Fort Dix, N.J. and Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., according to his biography. I don’t know if he was proud or upset at having several years yanked from his life for mandatory national service—something that today’s “entitlement” generation can’t begin to understand. Few of us brag about such service, fully aware that such humility becomes all of us.
But Cohen’s putdown of veterans is undeserved. The draft ripped hundreds of thousands of young men away from lovers, families, friends and careers into an alien world of being told to go here or there, to do this or that, much of which was unpleasant, distasteful and even dangerous. Six people died on board or in the ocean nearby in my 15-month tour aboard a destroyer, from accidents in peaceful waters. Today’s volunteers, while not goaded by a draft breathing down their necks, deserve to have a day recognize them, even if they didn’t happen to be ordered to stand next to a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Nov. 11 used to recognize the First World War’s Armistice Day. When it was switched to Veterans Day, it came to mean “something so amorphous it’s hard to say what or who is being celebrated,” Cohen wrote. Heros? No. Combatants? No. “So, it’s just anyone who served in the military. Yes, that’s it. Is it any wonder no one much pays any attention—or for that matter, notices that the day lacks an apostrophe?”
My brother, Bill, pays attention. Every Veterans Day (with or without the apostrophe), he calls to thank me, for my non-heroic, non-combatant military service. He figures that you don’t have to die or receive a Congressional Medal of Honor to be deserving of the nation’s gratitude.
I confess, I like to get the calls, but honestly, I didn’t much care to be in the Navy and I didn’t like the Vietnam War, raging at the time. I can’t claim any special valor, because if I had not volunteered, I would have been swept up in the draft. I was never shot at and never saw the enemy. No special medals were awarded for any of it, although everyone in service during time of war got what we called a “gedunk” medal—meaning that it was as common as the candy bars and other goodies in the ship’s store.
About the same time, Cohen apparently was doing “some post-graduate work” at Fort Dix, N.J. and Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., according to his biography. I don’t know if he was proud or upset at having several years yanked from his life for mandatory national service—something that today’s “entitlement” generation can’t begin to understand. Few of us brag about such service, fully aware that such humility becomes all of us.
But Cohen’s putdown of veterans is undeserved. The draft ripped hundreds of thousands of young men away from lovers, families, friends and careers into an alien world of being told to go here or there, to do this or that, much of which was unpleasant, distasteful and even dangerous. Six people died on board or in the ocean nearby in my 15-month tour aboard a destroyer, from accidents in peaceful waters. Today’s volunteers, while not goaded by a draft breathing down their necks, deserve to have a day recognize them, even if they didn’t happen to be ordered to stand next to a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)