Statement from Mayor Emanuel on the Loss of Chicago Blues Legend Magic Slim
“We have lost a blues legend, Magic Slim. Like the story of Chicago itself, Magic Slim’s life was defined by persistence and perseverance. Born in Mississippi to sharecroppers, Slim lost his right pinky finger in a cotton gin, forcing him to give up on piano, but never on music, and he taught himself to play guitar on a one-string instrument he made by nailing a piece of wire to the wall. From that one string he developed a sound that would help define the blues forever. A member of the Great Migration, Slim came to Chicago for a new life and a career in music. And what a career he had. Ultimately he would become a legend of Chicago Blues, finding his place among names like Muddy Waters and Howlin’ Wolf. Chicago has lost a dear friend today; but we are grateful for the decades of music we gained from Magic Slim’s life.”
* Check out this hot jam from 1974 at Chicago’s 1125 Club, which was at 59th & May. Yeah, baby…
* I’m really not sure why the two legislative Republican leaders sent a letter to the governor and the Democratic leaders outlining what they see as the budget pressures facing the state, demanding immediate action and then ending it this way…
Burdened by a wave of murders, dissension over proposed school closings and perhaps his own hard-ball image, Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s job-approval rating has taken a big hit in recent months, according to a new Crain’s/Ipsos Illinois Poll.
Negative attitudes toward the mayor are significantly higher in suburban and downstate areas than in Chicago proper. That may not be surprising, given Mr. Emanuel’s fierce focus on his extensive agenda for Chicago. But there is slippage among city voters, too.
Overall, according to the survey of 600 voting-age Illinois residents, 50 percent say they at least lean toward disapproval of his performance as mayor, versus only 19 percent who somewhat or strongly approve, or lean toward approval. That’s a margin of 31 percentage points. […]
Specifically, just 2 percent of Chicagoans surveyed said they strongly approve of the mayor’s job performance, with 12 percent somewhat approving and 5 percent leaning that way. At the opposite end, 13 percent strongly disapprove, 9 percent somewhat disapprove and 13 percent lean toward disapproval.
* OK, first, this is a poll of residents, not even registered voters.
* Second, while the statewide results may actually be valid, the Chicago subset is just way too small to make any sort of claim about the mayor’s poll ratings.
Chicago’s population is 21 percent of the state’s. So, if the poll was properly balanced, that would mean only about 126 people were polled. That’s a margin of error of about 9 percent.
There’s just no way to make a realistic judgment about a situation based on that small of a polling universe. Period.
* From Crain’s…
The Crain’s/Ipsos poll is a representative survey of voting-age Illinois residents conducted over the Internet. Ipsos validates the sample against offline data sources such as telephone surveys to ensure the accuracy of its weighting. The survey has an accuracy margin of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points statewide, with higher margins in sub-regions, such as Chicago or its suburbs.
Internet polling gets a bad rap, but it is picking up some admirers. Even so, a purely Internet poll is kinda radical.
* A coverage sample…
* Rahm Emanuel: Liked by Few, Loved by Fewer: Labor insiders call the drop in Emanuel’s numbers “horrendous.”
* Poll: Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s approval rating slipping
* Emanuel Struggling With Approval Ratings In IL & City Proper
* Rahm Emanuel’s allies dismiss negative Internet poll on mayor: John Anzalone, a political pollster who has done work for state Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama, said when Crain’s internet poll last fall showed Emanuel with an approval rating of 37 percent in Chicago, Anzalone’s firm had the mayor at over 52 percent.
*** UPDATE *** I should’ve known to check Drudge. So, with a hat tip to a commenter…
Kelly boasted a double-digit lead over the field in Hutchinson’s internal polling — an automated survey taken before she exited the race, according to a source familiar with it.
Subscribers know more about recent polling.
Also…
Kelly has been on the air as well, and Halvorson’s fundraising has not been strong enough to answer on the airwaves. But while television is central to any modern campaign, this race is about getting bodies to the polls in the middle of the Chicago winter.
Beale’s team is counting on his Chicago base as the only candidate hailing from the urban part of the district. His team is betting on loyalty and turnout from a base of senior citizens — but local strategists say it’s unlikely he can win.
“They [voters] have to have a compelling reason to turn out for you, and that’s a totally different campaign model than a presidential year or any year when there’s anything else on the ballot,” a Chicago Democratic strategist said. “You have to take a different approach when you’re the only race on the ballot.”
But even luck has been on Kelly’s side. She drew the top slot on the ballot. Halvorson will be third from the bottom.
* Meanwhile, there’s been an attempt to try to link Mayor Emanuel to Kelly’s race. For instance…
The mayor was asked why he’s “giving the appearance” that he’s not involved in the race to succeed Jackson, who plead guilty Wednesday to years of illegal campaign spending.
“Because I’m not endorsing anybody. That’s why. Because it’s not an appearance,” Emanuel said.
Pressed on whether he’s making phone calls on Kelly’s behalf, the mayor said, “No. … I said upfront I was gonna stay out of this race. The voters will pick. But I want to be clear about one thing: Whoever wins has to be on Team Chicago.”
Delmarie Cobb, a political consultant to Ald. Anthony Beale (9th), doesn’t buy it. She thinks there’s a wink-and-a-nod between Emanuel and Bloomberg.
“I don’t think Mayor Rahm Emanuel would be running congressional campaign ads for someone in New York and dictating who should be the next congressman in New York City without the permission of Mayor Bloomberg,” Cobb said.
“It’s hard to fathom that Mayor Bloomberg is inserting himself into this campaign and he’s meeting with no resistance from City Hall.”
As evidence of Emanuel’s behind-the-scenes involvement, Cobb pointed to the tangled web of relationships among the players in the 2nd District.
Cheryl Whitaker is the wife of Obama pal, Dr. Eric Whitaker. Former Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, one of the first politicians to endorse Kelly, who served as Giannoulias’ chief of staff, is one of Obama’s basketball buddies.
Obama’s former campaign strategist David Axelrod, who is tweeting on Kelly’s behalf, is Emanuel’s former White House colleague and friend of 30 years. And Bloomberg is a close friend of Chicago’s mayor.
“If Robin Kelly were in the middle of the circle, you would have the White House, Giannoulias, Axelrod, Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Emanuel — all these people with an ongoing relationship. It just defies logic that, somehow, all of these people are involved in the race, but they’re not talking to each other” about it, Cobb said.
That’s some conspiracy theory. Bloomberg spent money all over the country last year. I doubt he asked permission to do so anywhere else.
This, by the way, is Axelrod’s alleged tweet on behalf of Kelly…
In IL-2, wonder if Debbie Halvorson would be cryingfoul if Toi Hutchinson had gotten out and backed HER? Very doubtful!
* You can watch today’s House hearing on concealed carry live right here…
…Adding… I’ve put together a ScribbleLive thingy. Blackberry users click here…
* Scheduled to testify today…
Dr. Karen Sheehan Lurie Children’s Hospital
Illinois Restaurant Association
Alderman Willie B Cochran
Rev. Michael Pfleger Ceasefire
Toni Preckwinkle Cook County
Dr. Paula Bradich Second Amendment Sisters
NRA Lawyer NRA
Garry McCarthy City of Chicago
Paul Castiglione Cook County State’s Attorney
Camiella Williams Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Val Rendel Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Forrest Claypool CTA
Jeanna Wrenn PACE
Jordan Matyas RTA
Laura Calderon Illinois Public Transportation Association
Rob Hoffman River Valley Metro
Sui Moy Chicago Citizens for Change
Maria Pike Chicago Citizens for Change
Yolan Henry Chicago Citizens for Change
Christine Fenno Moms Demand Action
Nicole Moms Demand Action
Amy Moms Demand Action
Todd Vandermyde NRA
For well over 30 years, whenever the subject of gay rights came up in the Illinois General Assembly, legislators ran away in droves.
The excuses were always the same.
Homosexuality is immoral, so religious businesses owners shouldn’t have to hire a gay person, or serve a lesbian in his restaurant, or sell one of “those people” a home. The state shouldn’t “condone” this immoral act by passing such a law.
Besides, they said, Illinois just wasn’t ready to provide the same protection for gays as everybody else.
It’s been a long road.
Way back in 1819, a year after Illinois became a state, a law was passed setting the criminal penalty for sodomy between two males at 1 to 5 years in prison, plus 100 to 500 lashes with a whip and a fine of up to $500.
In 1845, the state kind of evolved a little and removed the flogging and the fine. But the Legislature also increased the prison term to one year to life.
Yes, life.
That penalty was “softened” in 1874 to 10 years maximum behind bars, with no minimum imprisonment specified.
In 1919, a minimum of one year in prison was added to the penalty, where it remained in the statute books until 1961, when Illinois finally repealed its sodomy laws, the first state in the union to do so.
And the world did not end.
The issue of gay rights didn’t surface in the General Assembly until the late 1970s. But no gay-rights bill ever received more than 15 percent of the vote in the Illinois Legislature until 1991, when 40 House members and 21 senators voted for a bill. That was far short of the 60 and 30 needed to pass both chambers, but times were starting to change.
By 1998, things had progressed so far that Republican gubernatorial candidate George Ryan won some liberal Chicago wards because his Democratic opponent Glenn Poshard opposed gay rights.
Even so, no gay-rights bill ever made it to Ryan’s desk.
Conservative Republicans controlled the state Senate and the bill went nowhere. They did pass a bill protecting motorcyclists against discrimination, which Ryan used his amendatory veto powers to rewrite into a gay-rights bill. His proposal died.
When the Democrats won control of the Senate in the 2002 election, gay-rights proponents thought their path to victory looked clear. But it took more than two years before the Senate went along with the House and approved a gay-rights bill.
And the world did not end.
Not only that, but not a single legislator lost a re-election campaign based on a vote for that gay-rights bill.
Six years later came the civil unions bill.
Oh, how our world would surely crash if gays were allowed to legally consummate their relationships, we were told.
The bill passed in January of 2011 and was signed into law. No legislator who voted for civil unions lost in the next election.
The only serious consequence of the civil unions law was that the state stopped giving Catholic Charities’ adoption program any taxpayer funds after the group refused to place children in the homes of gay civil union couples. Otherwise, the world kept spinning.
Now, it’s gay marriage. And the gnashing of teeth and predictions of imminent demise are all around us.
The Senate passed the bill with one Republican vote. The House will likely pass it this spring sometime.
Facing a free-speech outcry, an Illinois lawmaker decided Thursday to pull the plug on anti-bullying legislation he introduced to require website managers to pull down anonymous, hate-filled Internet posts if they were requested to do so.
A measure sponsored by state Sen. Ira Silverstein (D-Chicago) would have made website administrators, upon request, to remove comments by any anonymous posters unless those people attached their names to their posts and confirmed their Internet Protocol addresses and home addresses.
The plan called the Internet Posting Removal Act, which Silverstein introduced earlier this month, was inspired by anti-bullying legislation that surfaced in New York but died in that state’s legislature last June.
“I’m going to kill the bill,” Silverstein said Thursday afternoon after the legislation drew national attention and provoked criticism from Internet free-speech advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Earlier in the day, before deciding to mothball his legislation, Silverstein explained its motivation.
“It really has to do with cyber-bullying,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times. “The Internet is a great thing, and everyone is for it. Saying something is one thing; but once you put it on the Internet, it’s there forever.”
Silverstein said his intention wasn’t to clamp down on free-speech rights and that he merely was looking for a way to stop hate speech, particularly if it was directed at children or teen-agers.
Ignoring that the bill makes no attempt to avoid the obvious dormant commerce clause issues inherent when a state tries to regulate what has to be on all Internet websites, and ignoring that New York tried the same thing last year with nothing to show for it, and ignoring that the average Internet user probably doesn’t know how to find their IP address (you can here), and ignoring that IP addresses are dynamically assigned on most ISPs and therefore one’s presence at a given IP address does not actually help to identify a person, and ignoring that the definition of "anonymous poster" does not include the critical ingredient that a poster be anonymous, and ignoring that the same State Senator also sponsored a bill to prevent disclosure of identities of firearm owners in Illinois (leading to the pithy critique "guns don’t kill people; comments do") – the entire premise of this bill is fundamentally repugnant to the First Amendment and may actually harm those that it is likely intended to help protect.
This is hardly the first battle in the "nymwars," and the obvious unconstitutionality of this bill will come as no surprise to those that have been following along. First Amendment doctrine has long held that, in the words of the Supreme Court, "[a]nonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind," and that "an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." The courts that have looked at this in the context of anonymous posting online have rightly noted that First Amendment concerns play with equal force on the Internet, and that "[a]nonymous internet speech in blogs or chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering." To force identification of the originator of a comment “upon reques” without any limitation is just the Talley v. California case replacing each instance of the word "pamphlet" with the word "blog;" it is painfully unconstitutional.
But more importantly, there are very, very good reasons for opposing forced identification for all online speech. As danah boyd noted in one very influential blog post, the "real names policies" that are imposed on platforms like Facebook and Google Plus (with some qualifiers) – while usually done with the intent of increasing civility by forcing identification – can actually levy the greatest harm against the vulnerable persons and groups that such policies are intended to help. There are many people who have a desire to speak out on issues affecting their lives that simply cannot do so under their real names out of fear of harassment, abuse, or physical harm: think of a high school student who secretly gay, a victim of domestic abuse, a whistleblower at a government or corporation, or the victim of an oppressive government. We desperately need these people speaking out as much as they need to speak, and the thought of forcing them to provide their names and address or face deletion is unconscionable.
* 9:13 am - I just got a call from the NRA claiming that the full Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request for an en banc hearing of the recent ruling by a three-judge panel that Illinois’ public gun carrying laws are unconstitutional. Madigan wanted all of the appellate judges to hear the case. Not gonna happen.
AG Madigan’s next step - if she decides to take it - would be to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
More when I know more.
* 9:18 am - The order denying Madigan’s en banc rehearing motion is here, including a dissent by four out of the circuit’s ten presiding judges.
In so many public settings, carrying and using firearms present lethal risks to innocent bystanders. Yet when people go about their daily lives in public places, they have no choice about whether to consent to the dangers posed by firearms in public. We can all choose whether to visit homes where firearms are present.
To illustrate the dangers posed by lawful use of firearms in public, consider a deadly confrontation on the streets of New York City in August 2012, when police confronted an armed man who had just shot and killed another man. The police officers were well trained in both how to shoot and when to shoot and not shoot. The officers fatally shot the gunman, but the officers’ many shots also wounded nine bystanders.
I intend no criticism of the officers, who confronted an urgent, dangerous situation that few have experienced first-hand. We will always need armed police officers, and some harm will be unavoidable despite their training, skill, and experience. But consider how much worse the situation on the crowded streets of New York might have been if several civilians, without the officers’ training but carrying firearms lawfully, had tried to help with their own firearms.
Unless the Supreme Court is prepared to embrace the view attributed to it by the panel majority, that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not depend on “casualty counts,” 702 F.3d at 939, we should not assume that the logic of Heller extends naturally and without qualification to firearms in public.
* I’ve been thinking that it was a pretty smart move by the NRA not to get involved in the 2nd Congressional District on behalf of Debbie Halvorson.
Why? Well, the group has been assiduously courting African-American state legislators to vote for a concealed carry bill. Helping nominate a white Democrat in a black-majority congressional district might not go down too well with the Legislative Black Caucus, after all.
Besides, Mayor Bloomberg’s millions of dollars worth of TV ads have made it pretty clear that Halvorson is pro-gun. He’s educating the NRA’s base without the NRA spending any money.
* But the Illinois State Rifle Association has decided to jump into the race at the last minute…
“Just because I want to have an honest discussion of how we deal with the entire culture of violence, I’m being attacked,” added Ms. Halvorson, who does support universal background checks for gun buyers. “To ban one more firearm, all that’s going to do is harm the law-abiding citizen.”
Forced into an awkward spot between not feeding the fire against her and keeping Second Amendment-supporting voters engaged, Ms. Halvorson has said that she has not sought support from any gun groups in this election, despite holding steadfast on her positions.
Still, the Illinois State Rifle Association started fighting back on her behalf on Wednesday, sending out a direct mailer to thousands of its members living in the district asking them to vote for Ms. Halvorson, according to Richard A. Pearson, the association’s executive director.
“We can’t let that go unanswered,” he said of the advertising campaign against her. His group had planned to endorse Ms. Halvorson in a news release on Thursday, but decided not to at the last minute, Mr. Pearson said, though he would not explain why.
Discuss.
* Related…
* Kelly defends against ethics allegations in Jackson Jr. race
* As I’ve often said, a bill is just a bill, particularly at the start of session, when all sorts of weird ideas are introduced. There’s no sense in getting all fired up about silly legislation which is obviously going nowhere. I try to avoid posting articles about particularly goofy bills because I know doing so is mostly an empty exercise.
A recently introduced bill in the Illinois state Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online.
My initial response…
What?
Are you freaking kidding me?
* So, before I knew it, I was surfing frantically to the General Assembly website.
A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and address are accurate.
All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.
I eventually took a deep breath and reminded myself of my own advice. But I still couldn’t stop myself from posting about this legislation.
Sorry for breaking my rule here. But, man, if this isn’t the most intrusive Internet bill ever introduced in Illinois, I don’t know what is.
I normally wouldn’t write much about the retirement of a Springfield lobbyist. But I’m going to make an exception in the case of Dave Vite, who announced this morning that he’s retiring on Dec. 31 after 36 years as president and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association.
He’ll be succeeded by Rob Karr, IRMA’s current executive vice president.
Mr. Vite is one of those guys who nicely maneuvered on both sides of the aisle in the Capitol. Earlier than most — and I’d put Illinois Manufacturers’ Association chief Greg Baise in the same category — he realized that even business groups would have to move a little bit as the state steadily became more Democratic.
It worked. Even though IRMA’s campaign war chest was a lot smaller than those of other groups.
* Some of the accolades in the press release announcing Vite’s retirement…
“The retail community in Illinois has had no greater champion than David Vite over the past 36-years. His poise, intelligence and persistence made him that rare forceful, yet likeable advocate, whose effectiveness was incomparable. The retail community in Chicago is so important to our economy and IRMA will always have a voice in Chicago on these issues.” - Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
“IRMA has been a great partner with me in rolling back the sales tax hike. Dave Vite and his team are tireless advocates for retailers in Cook County. I’m proud to call Dave a friend and they are in good hands with Rob Karr and Tanya Triche.” - Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle
“I wish to congratulate David Vite on his retirement. In the 30-years I’ve known him, David has always handled himself with the utmost professionalism demeanor and his knowledge and expertise is why IRMA has the high-quality reputation it has in this state. Without a doubt, IRMA will continue to be the voice for retailers in this state with Rob Karr leading the way. Our door will always be open to retailers because of IRMA.” - House Speaker Michael J. Madigan
“I’m proud to call David Vite a good friend, ally and fierce campaigner. Retailers in this state have been fortunate to have Dave Vite as their advocate as he has built an industry model of how to do it right. We’ve worked with IRMA on countless issues at the capitol that have improved the business climate for retailers in this state. IRMA is a force to be reckoned with and that won’t change when Rob Karr takes over next year.” - Senate President John Cullerton
“We’ll miss David Vite and his advocacy for retailers, but I wish him and his family the best in his much deserved retirement. IRMA is one of the most impactful organizations in the state and that won’t change with Rob Karr leading them next year. I’ve been proud to work with them on so many critical issues in this state and I look forward to continued collaboration with IRMA in years to come.” - Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno
“David Vite has been a friend for a number of years and I congratulate him on his retirement. IRMA is one of the most vocal and active business groups in the state and they are a difference maker. Rob Karr’s selection as President is the perfect choice as he’s spent the past 20-years learning from the best. Retailers are lucky to have IRMA championing their issues in Springfield.” - House Republican Leader Tom Cross
* And a photo of Vite sent in by one of his “friends”…
About 1,500 unionized workers at the Illinois Department of Transportation and other agencies received raises last month, even though their union is still negotiating a new contract with the state.
The workers, members of General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Local 916, received 3 percent wage increases Jan. 1, Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration confirmed.
The raises were awarded even though the contract covering the workers expired June 30 and a new agreement has not been negotiated. The Teamster raises were awarded at the same time as negotiations with the largest state employee union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, have ground to a halt and the union has advised members to prepare for the possibility of a strike.
Abdon Pallasch, spokesman for Gov. Pat Quinn’s budget office, said there is a different climate surrounding negotiations with the Teamsters.
“With the Teamsters, productive bargaining continues,” Pallasch said. “In AFSCME, negotiations continue, but it’s been our argument all along that they really haven’t made many meaningful concessions.” […]
Although the Teamsters contract expired June 30, the same time as AFSCME’s contract, Pallasch said it has been renewed through April.
Rank-and-file members of the state’s largest employee union packed a conference room in a state office building Wednesday to hear the latest update on stalled contract talks.
With the possibility looming of a strike by 40,000 members of the state workforce, the hour-long session was among dozens being held around the state in recent days by members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union. […]
On Wednesday, Gov. Pat Quinn, who terminated the state’s contract with AFSCME in November, told reporters he hopes to avert a walkout.
“We’re negotiating. Everybody understands it’s a tough time economically for our state. I’m hopeful that we can get a good agreement that’s good for the taxpayers and good for the workers who work so hard for the public,” the governor said at an event in Springfield. […]
The governor said Wednesday that he has not told top aides to begin preparing for the possibility of a work stoppage. But, he said the state will be ready if a strike is called.
Premium-free health insurance for retired state workers is not a protected pension benefit, lawyers for the state argued in court Wednesday.
As a result, they said four lawsuits challenging a state law imposing such premiums should be dismissed.
Attorneys trying to overturn the law said the benefit is protected.
“The constitution prohibits the state from welshing on deals with its employees,” said Springfield attorney John Myers.
A ruling in the case is not expected for several weeks.
* And despite the criticism, I don’t think the governor meant what some think he meant…
Gov. Pat. Quinn said Wednesday that a long-awaited early inmate release program is starting “right now.”
“We’re carrying it out right now,” Quinn told reporters during a news conference in Springfield. “We had to follow the blueprint that’s outlined in the law, and I think we will do very well if we go forward right with that.”
The governor, however, may have spoken too soon.
The agency in charge of implementing the program still has not begun awarding credits for reduced prison time and does not have a set timetable to begin letting nonviolent inmates out of Illinois’ overloaded prison system. Illinois Department of Corrections spokeswoman Stacey Solano said officials continue to review inmate files.
Actually, they have started implementing the bill. Reviewing the files is the beginning of that implementation.
Citing studies confirming tanning beds are medically-proven to be carcinogenic to humans, State Sen. Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) introduced legislation Feb. 15 to protect minors from the potentially deadly effects of sunless tanning beds.
“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of developing melanoma due to tanning bed use increases by 75 percent for people under age 35, and the British Medical Journal agrees the earlier people start tanning, the greater the risk they will develop skin cancer,” Radogno said. “There are plenty of safe tanning alternatives available, and there is absolutely no need for young people to take this unnecessary health risk.”
Senate Bill 2244 would prohibit minors age 17 and younger from tanning in sunless tanning beds. Currently minors 14 to 17 are allowed to tan if they can provide a parental signature. However, this would be restricted if Radogno’s legislation is signed into law.
“Just as we don’t give children the option to smoke, they shouldn’t be allowed to tan indoors—which medical studies show is a dangerous, and even deadly, practice,” said Radogno, who noted that in 2009 experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, moved tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer risk category—the same classification given to arsenic and mustard gas. “The light from indoor tanning beds is considered a Class 1 carcinogen, and many respected medical experts agree sunless tanning does increase the risk of cancer.”
A proposal to ban the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car was endorsed in a House committee Wednesday.
“A hand-held cellphone is a huge distraction while driving a car,” said state Rep. John D’Amico, D-Chicago, who sponsored the legislation.
Drivers using a hand-held cellphone are eight times more likely to be in an accident, he said, and California experienced a “dramatic” drop in accidents when that state adopted a similar ban.
Illinois already bans texting while driving, and 76 communities across the state have some restrictions on use of hand-held cellphones while driving, which was one reason a Verizon representative testified in favor of the measure. In the current situation, Illinois cellphone customers do not know where they might get ticketed, the Verizon representative said.
In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings. More than 600 of these shootings proved fatal. Is that “very rare”?
The total number of Americans killed and wounded by gun accidents exceeds the total number killed or injured in fires.
The number killed in gun accidents is 20% higher than the total number killed in all U.S. civil aviation accidents.
In 2011, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted to ban drop-side baby cribs because these cribs have been blamed for “dozens” of infant deaths over the entire previous decade. The 600+ accidental gun deaths in any single year amount to 50 dozen.
Back when the Centers for Disease Control were allowed to do gun research, they found that American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries.
The Centers for Disease Control reserve the term “very rare” for accidental deaths from vaccines, the number of which is zero, or close to it. If more than 600 people a year were dying from vaccines, we’d have a national uproar, if not a revolution.
In one of the more unusual expenditures, Jackson Jr. also used campaign money in part to buy two mounted elk heads for about $8,000 from a Montana taxidermist.
The elk heads were later sold to an undercover FBI agent posing as an interior designer, and the money from the sale was wired to Jackson Jr.’s personal account, according to the court documents. Sandi Jackson oversaw the transactions in August last year, according to the court documents.
In March 2011, Jackson Jr. traded emails with a Montana taxidermist about a pair of mounted elk heads. Over the next several weeks, a person identified in court papers only as Person A received money with which to purchase the elk heads for Jackson Jr. (Person A has been identified by Crain’s Chicago Business as Jackson’s onetime campaign treasurer Terri Harris, who now goes by the name of Terri Jones.) Jackson Jr. gave Person A $3,000 in cash, money he has said was given to him by family members. Another $4,000 was given to Person A from Jackson’s campaign, in two checks whose memos indicated they were payments “for Data Reconciliation” and “for Data Entry & Cleanup.” Person A later sent two checks to the taxidermist in Montana, who shipped the elk heads in April to Jackson’s Congressional office.
Fast forward to July 2012. A month earlier, Jackson had reportedly collapsed at his home in Washington D.C., and subsequently took a medical leave of absence from Congress. (After an initial news blackout, it was revealed that Jackson was receiving treatment for bipolar disorder.) On July 23, Person A contacted the taxidermist again, asking if the taxidermist knew anyone who would want to buy the elk heads, or, alternatively, someone who could build crates in which the heads could be stored. A month later, Person A got a call from an undercover FBI employee posing as an interior designer interested in buying the heads.
Over the final week of August 2012, Person A and the undercover FBI employee negotiated the sale of the heads. They settled on a price of $5,300, which Person A told the FBI employee to wire straight to one of Jackson’s personal accounts. According to the court documents, it was Sandi Jackson who, knowing the elk heads had been purchased with campaign funds, had them moved from Washington D.C. to Chicago, and then directed Person A to sell the elk heads for less than the original purchase price, and to have the money wired to Jackson Jr.’s account.
“They have called this the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act,” said state Rep. David Reis, R-Ste. Marie, “but I think they should call it the Religious Persecution and Marriage Unfairness Act.
“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.”
Reis urged those at the rally to tell legislators “to protect the institution of marriage in Illinois, and that they have civil unions and we don’t want any more.”
Pastor Richard Giovannetti of the Standing in the Word Ministries of Morris, told the crowd that “when we have gay marriage we are going to enslave millions of people back into a lifestyle that we know that God can set them free from.”
Pastor Linda Jernigan, who said she was “a former lesbian” who now operates a ministry in the Chicago area, asked repeatedly, “Did you know that God can deliver homosexuals?”
She said it was “a chosen behavior” and that “if you allow God, He can change your behavior.”
“Don’t believe the lie,” she said, “that homosexuality is a civil right. It is not a civil right. Homosexuality is a choice.”
Their concerns ranged from morality to intricate questions on religious freedom to the basic laws of human nature.
“It’s a plumbing issue, it comes down to basic plumbing,” said David Webster of Washington, as he stood outside Gordon-Booth’s office. He borrowed the plumbing idea from David Zietlow, an engineer and member of Grace Presbyterian, who wore a necklace of male and female pipe fittings.
Many insisted they had nothing against homosexuality, that they were there strictly to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. But Robert Stine, a retired Peoria doctor, inadvertently touched on how much attitudes have changed about homosexuality when he said, “In fifty years it’s gone from being a felony to political, legalized status.”
Brian Elsasser of Princeville, a Peoria County Board member who rode on one of the buses organized by the Peoria diocese, said, “I pray and I love all humankind, no matter what they do. But that doesn’t give us the right to take an institution, which was ordained by God, and change it in Illinois.”
* Meanwhile, the only Senate Republican to vote for gay marriage has been hit with robocalls…
State Sen. Jason Barickman’s vote last week to allow same-sex marriages in Illinois has infuriated some conservative groups, including Family PAC, a Chicago-based group that already is calling for his resignation.
In robocalls to constituents in Barickman’s conservative district north of Champaign, the group urged voters to call Barickman’s office to register their anger.
“Was Barickman representing you, or the Chicago homosexual community?” asked Sandy Rios of Family PAC in the automated call. “Call Barickman today and tell him you’ve cast your last vote for him, and ask him to resign.”
* But Barickman was actually doing opponents a favor…
Barickman, a 37-year-old attorney who joined the Senate in January after beating state Sen. Shane Cultra, R-Onarga, last year, said he decided to vote “yes” after helping draft an amendment to the legislation that is designed to protect churches from reprisals if Illinois becomes the 10th state in the nation to allow gays to marry.
“It’s a vote that I understand that some have varying opinions on, but I feel that I voted in the correct way,” Barickman said. “The language in the amendment preserves those religious liberties that are so important to so many people.”
* From a lobbyist who worked with Barickman on the bill’s rewrite…
The original bill that came out of [Senate Executive Committeee] in lame duck session provided that:
* No church or religious institution could ever be required to solemnize a marriage in conflict with its beliefs. (This provision remains intact in the new bill.)
* Churches/religious institutions did not have to make any facility available for a same-sex wedding if the facility’s “primary use” was for religious purposes.
A facility qualified for this protection if:
* It was only occasionally open to non-members and did not charge money for their admission, and
* It was never open to the general public.
SB10, as passed, provides that anything deemed a “religious facility” does not have to open its doors for a same-sex marriage. This means that under no circumstances can the following types of facilities be required to hold a same-sex wedding:
* Sanctuaries
* Parish halls
* Fellowship halls and similar facilities.
“Religious facilities” do not include:
* Hospitals
* Businesses
* Schools
* Social service organizations
If a building has multiple uses, the test is applied on a “room by room” basis. For example, a gay couple cannot be barred from a hospital. But if the hospital had a chapel, that chapel could not be forced to host a gay wedding.
* The latest released results from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute poll. Pay attention to those income tax results…
The introduction to the various options for pension reform was read to each respondent: “As you may have heard, the state of Illinois has an unfunded pension liability of about 96 billion dollars. Some say this liability will grow rapidly as more people reach retirement age, and will hurt the state’s ability to fund other services, such as education, public safety, and roads. Others say that pensions are a binding contract between the state and its employees, and can’t be altered or reduced. I’m going to read some proposals that state officials have made to fix the pension liability. For each, please tell me whether you favor or oppose that proposal.”
1. Would you favor or oppose a proposal to suspend retirees’ annual cost of living increase for six years?
6. Would you favor or oppose a proposal to increase the share that Illinois school districts pay for their employees and to reduce the amount that the state pays?
7. The state of Illinois has a budget deficit of about 4 billion dollars. I’m going to read three statements that people have made about how to fix the deficit, and ask you which one comes closest to your views? If you haven’t thought much about the issue, just tell me that.
First is . . .
Illinois’ public programs and services have already been reduced significantly. We can only fix the problem by taking in more revenue, such as a tax increase.
Next is . . .
The state takes in plenty of money to pay for public services but wastes it on unnecessary programs. We can fix the problem by cutting waste and inefficiency in government.
Third is . . .
Illinois’ budget problem is so large it can only be solved by a combination of budget cuts and revenue increases.
Results:
More Revenue 7.5%
Cutting Waste and Inefficiency 54.7%
Combination of Budget Cuts and Revenue Increases 28.8%
Haven’t thought much about it 4.5%
Other/Don’t know 4.5%
8. Do you favor or oppose a proposal to make permanent the recently passed temporary state income tax increase?
“The results show the people of Illinois are aware of the problems in their state funded pension systems and of some actions which could be taken by state government,” said John S. Jackson, a visiting professor at the Institute.
“There’s a general feeling that state employees are going to have to take some losses in their pension plans, but a majority of people in Illinois is not supportive of draconian measures. There is majority support only for incremental changes to the pension system,” Jackson said.
The poll also shows strong opposition to raising taxes, making the 5 percent income tax permanent or expanding the list of items subject to the state sales tax. Instead, voters support cuts to state spending to balance the budget.
* And…
There were 45.1 percent favoring [the cost-shift] proposal and 42.6 percent opposed. Perhaps not surprisingly, the most support for this proposal was in Chicago where almost half of the respondents (49.1 percent) supported it with the next highest in the suburbs, where 48.6 percent supported. Downstate areas outside the city and suburbs were the regions with the most opposition. Only 36.6 percent favored it while 48.8 percent opposed or strongly opposed.
