Not giving up
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I told subscribers about this today. You’ll have to subscribe to get all the deets, however. There’s quite a lot left out of this report…
A suburban state senator isn’t backing down from efforts to oust the beleaguered Illinois GOP chair, who supports gay marriage, at Saturday’s state central committee meeting in Tinley Park.
Dairy magnate Jim Oberweis, of Sugar Grove, told the Daily Herald Friday that he believes the state central committee will soon begin interviewing potential candidates to replace GOP Chair Pat Brady of St. Charles, though he did not indicate whether there were enough votes to force the chairman’s ouster in the coming weeks. […]
Oberweis reacted strongly on Friday against speculation that an agreement crafted by Brady supporters could be reached and that Brady might exit gracefully and be replaced by state Sen. Matt Murphy, of Palatine.
“It’s going to be determined by the state central committee and not by anybody who thinks suddenly they’ve got a great idea,” Oberweis said.
I talked to Oberweis yesterday and again today. He wants you to know, in no uncertain terms, that he’s not opposed to Republicans supporting gay marriage. He says he just adamantly believes that the state GOP chairman should adhere publicly to the party platform.
* I was also able to confirm yesterday that it was indeed Sen. Oberweis who recently commented on my blog…
Jim Oberweis - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:17 pm:
I have tried to make this clear to every reporter I have spoken to: I believe it is OK for any Republican, including elected officials, to have some differences with the party platform. However, if you are the “CEO” of the state party, it is not OK to lobby against the state party platform. If the State Party Chairman feels so strongly in opposition to the party platform, then he/she should resign from the position as chairman since it will be very difficult for him/her to then lead a unified party. I’m not happy that Mark Kirk or Jason Barickman took a position that differs from our party but that does not mean that they are not good Republicans.
* Oberweis also told me that his political director was upset because I had deleted one of his comments here. I said I didn’t remember deleting the comment, but I delete a lot of them and that maybe it was just held up by my automatic moderation system. So, I went back and looked today and found it. It had, indeed, been held and I didn’t notice, probably because it was posted in the evening and I was out and about by then. Anyway, here it is…
Ben Marcum - Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 8:44 pm: |Edit
Rich,
I must take issue with your characterization of Jim Oberweis backtracking or recalibrating his message on the Pat Brady issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the story about Pat Brady lobbying legislators first broke, Jim’s message has been the same. From day one Senator Oberweis has stated in nearly every interview that this indeed, has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Instead, it is and always has been an issue of corporate governance. You’ve been around long enough to know that most of these reporters have the story written before they even speak with him. I am fully aware of the narrative that Jim is some sort of ultra right wing bigot who hates illegal immigrants and gays. I’ve worked closely with the man for a decade and I assure you it is total myth. I fail to see a link of recalibration or retooling drawn from the Kane County Chronicle quote. Jim has always told reporters that if it had been another issue contrary to the Republican platform his response would have been the same. It could have been Pat Brady supporting Obamacare or Quinn’s tax increase. You later go on to say, “A month after saying it was all about gay marriage, Oberweis told Chicago Public Radio “It has nothing to do with gay marriage.” The Chicago Public Radio quote is COMPLETELY consistent with what he has said from the beginning. I’ve heard him give the interviews. It just is not the case!! With the current legislature being the most liberal in my lifetime, I don’t see how Jim is losing the argument when Madigan still can’t find the votes to pass it. It appears to me like Jim is winning the argument.
Respectfully,
Ben Marcum
Political Director
Friends of Jim Oberweis
19 Comments  
|
*** UPDATED x1 *** Broken Illinois
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Oy…
The Illinois Department of Human Services is struggling to provide services as some workers face caseloads of more than a thousand people.
Michelle Saddler, the agency’s director, said that the department is understaffed. “Many of you have probably heard DHS is behind or DHS has a backlog,” she told a House human services budget committee today. “We at DHS overall need more realistic staffing.” The department is asking for $3.6 billion for fiscal year 2014, the same amount proposed under Gov. Pat Quinn’s budget. DHS is expected to spend more than $3.2 billion this fiscal year. The department was cut by almost $150 million under the current fiscal year’s budget.
Linda Saterfield, director of the division of family and community services at DHS, said some of her caseworkers have caseloads as big as 2,600. “If you calculate that out, that leaves that worker less than 45 minutes over the course of a year to serve that family.” The average caseload in the division, which administers such core safety net programs as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program, averages more than 900 cases per worker. That compares with the year 2000, when the average was just under 250 cases per worker. Saterfield said that one in four residents are served through one of the division’s programs. “Our caseload has grown dramatically, but our staffing levels have reduced so much that we are unable to adequately meet the needs for services,” she said.
Kevin Casey, director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities at DHS, said there are about 11,000 people with developmental disabilities waiting for services in Illinois. He said the wait time can be up to four years. “It really is a struggle to understand how they get from one day to another at times,” Casey told the committee. He said the department does have a plan to reduce the number of people on the wait list over the next few years. Casey told committee members that he would later calculate what it would cost to address the wait list immediately. “It’s a choker of a number. It would take a good deal of money to serve everyone on that waiting list.”
Theodora Binion, acting director of the Division of Mental Health at DHS, said that more than 80 percent of people in need of mental health services are not receiving them. “Eighty percent of the people who need mental health services aren’t getting them? Something fundamentally is wrong with that system,” said Rep. David Leitch, who serves on the committee. Leitch said that he thinks lawmakers should prioritize mental health funding over other requests the department might have. “To overlook this, to me, is quite a crisis. I think we should as a committee take a very hard look [at it] before we add a lot of new employees at DHS and do some of the other things.” Binion said steps are being taken to serve more people through managed care programs. “I think that there are plans afoot to increase the capacity.”
* Oy…
Social service advocates say agencies providing in-home care for seniors could be at risk if additional state money is not set aside to pay them.
The Illinois Department of Aging notified service providers in a letter March 7 that it would soon run out of money to fund the Community Care Program for the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30. Providers say that $173 million is needed to properly fund service through the end of Fiscal Year 2013. Kimberly Parker, the Department of Aging’s spokeswoman, said in an email it was “common knowledge” the legislature did not give the agency enough money to continue to pay providers through the entire fiscal year and that administrators are hopeful additional money could be found. She said that so far, providers have continued to administer services, but without more funding, payment would likely be delayed until the start of next fiscal year.
The program serves mainly lower-income seniors who apply for assistance through the state for home-based long-term care assistance, with everyday needs ranging from preparing meals and running errands to dressing and bathing, according to the agency’s website. The program helps to care for an estimated 80,000 senior citizens in the state. Aside from at-home providers, it also helps to pay for background checks for at-home caregivers, adult day centers that watch elderly clients during the day and a program designed to preventing elderly spouses from being burdened by their spouses in-home care and falling into poverty. To qualify, Illinois residents must be at least 60 years old, the state must determine that they need long-term care and they must have less than $17,500 in assets aside from their home, car and furniture.
* Meanwhile, the mother of a Murray Developmental Center resident confronted the governor this week, and WUIS’ Amanda Vinicky jumped in…
WINKELER: “It is not safe, one size does not fit all…”
QUINN: “Well I understand that.”
Winkeler’s son, Mark, is 28-years-old…
WINKELER: “He functions like a nine-month old, has an IQ of twelve, needs total round the clock care, diaper changing, feeding, clothing.”
Like the kind care she says he gets at Murray.
Winkler says Quinn might realize that if he ever saw it firsthand.
VINICKY: “Governor, actually have you visited Murray Center, or Jacksonville Developmental Center?”
QUINN: “I made a decision based on what I think was right for the people of Illinois, it’s not an easy decision but a necessary one.”
VINICKY: “But did you visit either of them ever?”
QUINN: “No. I have not. I’ve seen plenty of information about it.”
*** UPDATE *** From the governor’s office…
The one-size-fits-all approach is exactly what we are moving away from. Before Governor Quinn took office, Illinois institutionalized more people than any other state. Now we are rebalancing the way the state provides services for people with developmental disabilities and mental health challenges, increasing community care so that families have more choices and people have a higher quality of life.
Whether it be an institution (once Murray is closed, there will be six institutions left Illinois); community care (which is proven to provide a higher quality of life, which is why we have increased community care and are building more capacity every day); or private intermediate care facilities (of which there are 298 across Illinois) — this is the opposite of a one-size-fits-all approach.
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* Related…
* The state of mental health funding in Illinois is ill.
* Illinois lawmakers eye $2.5 bln bond deal to pay bills
* Harris: “We’re not solving the problem” by borrowing $2B to pay old Medicaid bills
* Illinois looks to borrow $2 billion
* House votes to end access to state pension system for part-time board members
25 Comments
|
Question of the day
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A Facebook photo taken during Gov. Pat Quinn’s recent trade mission to Mexico…
* The Question: Caption?
I am fully aware how difficult it will be to keep it clean, but you must keep it clean. And write your posts in English as well. I don’t wanna be using Google Translate all darned day to make sure you’re following directions.
Again, keep it clean.
89 Comments
|
About that polygamy argument
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I didn’t get into this part of Rep. Tom Morrison’s argument today against gay marriage…
If one male and one female is discriminatory, then isn’t limitation of marriage to just two people discriminatory, too? There are men who would like to marry two or more consenting females. Would you define their relationship as marriage, too?
The post was way too long as it was, so I just skipped over that. But some folks are debating it in comments, including the usual social conservative stance that polygamy must be approved if gay marriage is allowed. The commenter “47th Ward” wrote a highly cogent counter-argument…
Plural marriages would require a complete rewrite of the tax code to determine how and who can file as married filing jointly. Divorce laws would need to be amended, including custody and property rights. What if I want to divorce one of my wives, but my other wives don’t want to divorce the other?
The civil, legal understanding of marriage is a two-party, mutually agreed contract. To argue for polygamy you are truly trying to redefine marriage.
Providing for same sex civil marriage brings none of the extra legal issues to the table. The polygamy argument is ignorant and tiresome.
Discuss. And, please, try to be intellectually honest with the rest of us. Arguing in favor of something you actually oppose in order to score some cheap points in a different argument is not cool or welcome.
40 Comments
|
Leading with his chin - Brady’s secret letter
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The News-Gazette interviewed possible Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner…
Rauner also said he was prepared to use the power of the governorship to take on “special interests.”
“We are a state that has been taken over completely by special-interest groups that make their money from government. Unfortunately for us, they’ve taken over a big chunk of the Republican Party too,” he said. “We don’t like to talk about it, but it’s true. And they own the Democratic Party. The folks who make their money from the government — AFSCME and SEIU and the teachers’ unions and trial lawyers, you look at their financial muscle, who they’ve given donations to. They’ve got our taxpayers by the throats and they’re squeezing. They’ve got our schoolchildren by the throats and they’re squeezing them.”
He declined to say specifically how he would take on interest groups.
Um, hmm. Wouldn’t “special-interest groups that make their money from government” also include the companies which have made millions of dollars from investing government pension funds? And wouldn’t that list include Rauner’s former company?
The attack ad basically writes itself.
* More Rauner…
“The governorship in Illinois is a very powerful governorship,” he said. “You can do things with executive order here that many states can’t do. You have an amendatory veto, line-item veto, you’ve got the ability to appoint to key positions that the Legislature wants to have influence in. If you’re a creative negotiator and you’ve got a steel backbone and are willing to play hardball, you can get a lot of stuff done. We’ll be stretching the power of the office. I’ll be stretching the envelope aggressively.”
Executive orders are basically limited to reorganizing state agencies. Lots of governors have done that, and the reorgs have failed more often than not.
And I think it’ll be extremely important for political reporters to get him to say how he will be “stretching the envelope aggressively” if he’s elected governor. If Rauner intends to do unprecedented things with the office, then we definitely ought to know what he has in mind. And if he won’t say, well, that’s also a great attack ad. Fear of the unknown is the worst.
* And Rauner on Bill Brady’s 2010 campaign…
“I don’t think Bill ran a particularly good campaign. Let’s start with that. I think he ran a pretty lousy campaign and he spent virtually no time in metro Chicago,” he said. “You’re not going to win if you don’t show your face. Nobody will outwork me in this campaign.”
* Speaking of Sen. Brady, the likely 2014 candidate sent a confidential letter to his supporters a few weeks ago. In that letter, he defends his losing 2010 race. Click the pic for a larger view…
The full letter is here. There are some poll results and other stuff that you might wanna discuss below.
* And while you’re at it, take a gander at this letter Sen. Brady sent to his colleagues yesterday. Notice the misspelling of Sen. Durbin’s name. It’s also misspelled as “Durban” on the press release, along with numerous other typos. Oops.
19 Comments
|
No data to support sentencing claim
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* WBEZ has an excellent story about how Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s demand that state legislators increase mandatory minimum sentences is not based on actual research. Emanuel, his police chief and others have pointed to New York City’s great success with reducing crime and claim that harsher mandatory minimums are a big reason for that success…
The situation in New York — that’s one of the main “arguments” Emanuel and Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy have repeatedly made over the past few months as they’ve pushed their agenda on gun legislation..
“And just look at New York,” said McCarthy at a press conference this week. “It couldn’t be a clearer example of how to do this. The fact is, where these conditions exist, it’s working. I mean, what research do we need?”
But that’s not what the data shows…
[Frank Zimring is] a professor of law at the University of California Berkeley and author of the book “The City That Became Safe: New York’s Lessons for Urban Crime and its Control.”
“The mandatory minimum punishments, is, if you study the New York experience, beside the point,” said Zimring.
Zimring studied 19 years of data tracking crime in New York. He says in 1990 the city had 2,250 murders. In 2012, it had 419. That’s an astonishing 80 percent drop in murder.
It’s that success that’s being used to justify the mandatory minimum sentences being proposed by Emanuel and McCarthy, but mandatory minimums weren’t signed into law in New York until late 2006.
“That’s after 90 percent of the crime reduction!” said Zimring. “I think that what’s going on is that the superintendent and the mayor in Chicago are under a ‘do something fast political pressure,’ and in my experience, at least, that’s never been good for penal codes.”
Go read the whole thing.
* Meanwhile, Rep. Brandon Phelps is not optimistic at all about the future of concealed carry negotiations…
On Thursday, Phelps said he thinks both sides are as divided as they were at the beginning of the spring session, despite ongoing negotiations over several components of his bill, such as defining where guns couldn’t be carried and whether home-rule units could have local control.
“I don’t know if there’s going to be a compromise, to be honest,” Phelps said. “I just think we’re too far apart.”
* ISRA’s Richard Pearson talked about yesterday’s gun control rally…
Pearson said a mandate to make people report lost or stolen guns “actually makes the victim the defendant” and “actually helps the criminal element.”
Pearson said everything gun control advocates want to do “puts a burden on the law-abiding gun owner and doesn’t do anything to punish the criminal.”
The gun control advocates’ real goal is “to nullify the Second Amendment, to stigmatize gun owners and to culturally isolate them so lawful firearm owners look like some kind of weird fringe group, when that’s not true. Actually, they (the gun control advocates) are the weird fringe group,” Pearson said.
I don’t quite see how reporting lost or stolen guns helps criminals. But I do believe that he’s at least partly right on some things. Focusing on generally law-abiding people when crafting gun control measures is often counter-productive. You end up with people prosecuted for harmless stuff. Focus on the violent criminals. Mayor Emanuel’s proposal to up their sentences may not be based on science, but at least it puts the focus where it belongs.
However, if yesterday’s polling is anywhere near accurate, then the gun control groups are solidly within the mainstream. They aren’t fringe by any means.
* Here’s something that could be useful…
While gun regulation supporters rallied outside, House lawmakers inside the Statehouse voted in favor of a measure that would create a mental health first aid program in which certified trainers could teach members of the public how to recognize and help someone who could be dealing with a mental health disorder or addiction.
Backed by lawmakers who referenced the mental health condition of the shooter in Newtown, the bill passed 105-8. It now moves to the Senate.
Sponsoring Rep. Esther Golar, D-Chicago, told lawmakers to spread the word of this proposal through “town hall meetings and in your newsletters” because people need information about mental health issues in society.
* Related…
* VIDEO: Gov. Pat Quinn at gun control rally
* State police say they need more funding for concealed carry
* Heat continues on gun issues
* Sheila Simon: Let’s find common ground on guns
* Will County Board to take up concealed carry in May
* Illinois US Representatives and Gun Control
* Robin Kelly is sworn in: ‘Today is about a new beginning for the people of 2nd Congressional District’
33 Comments
|
Illinois NAACP backs gay marriage
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From NAACP Illinois State Conference President George P. Mitchell…
“The NAACP was founded 104 years ago in response to the continuing horrific practice of lynching and the 1908 race riot in Springfield.
While the nature of the struggle may change, our bedrock commitment to civil rights and freedom never will and that includes civil marriage equality. The fight for freedom and equality encompasses all mankind.
We live in a democracy. In our democracy we have the benefit of a Constitution which defines the equal rights which we all share and to which we as a nation aspire. The Fourteenth Amendment to that Constitution says, in part, that no state “shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and that becomes a significantly relevant issue.
Just 50 years ago, many states would not recognize a marriage between people of different races. Today, we see marriage equality as a civil rights issue and an extension of that fight. Marriage equality is just that – the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the government. What better evidence than the Fourteenth Amendment.
People of good conscience can disagree on this issue. We deeply respect differences of opinion and conscience on the religious definition of marriage, and we strongly affirm the religious freedoms and ceremonial practices of all as protected by the First Amendment.
But, the NAACP will always stand for full equality under the law.”
According to its website, the state conference has no officers from Chicago. That’s a problem because much of the pushback on gay marriage is coming from Chicago ministers.
* And speaking of the ministers, here’s my Sun-Times column…
There was a time at the Illinois Statehouse when using African-American ministers as political props was all the rage.
ComEd touted support from black preachers to pass a bill to raise its rates. AT&T did the same when it passed a major piece of legislation. Before the national real estate and banking crash, the mortgage industry fought a bill to crack down on excessively lenient home loans by putting black ministers up front.
And though the ministers were obviously just doing a bit of payroll shilling, their state legislators took them quite seriously.
ComEd and AT&T won their fights.
The mortgage industry lost, but only because House Speaker Michael Madigan called in every favor he could think of to pass his bill. But then Gov. Rod Blagojevich used his veto powers to basically gut the measure, so Madigan eventually lost and the industry won.
For whatever reason, the big corporations have mostly stopped recruiting African-American ministers to front their causes.
But there’s a new group called the African-American Clergy Coalition that is trying to make some waves in Springfield, and they’re doing a pretty good job.
The group claims on its website that it exists to provide resolutions to problems “affecting the lives of African-American and other oppressed people.”
Right now, though, the only issue the group is tackling is gay marriage. The ministers are against it. Solidly against it, despite the thick irony of declaring support for the oppressed while fighting to deny civil marriage rights to others.
The pastors are doing a very good job so far of intimidating black legislators into backing away from their previous support. Their push has all but halted the momentum of gay marriage backers, who had high hopes when the state Senate approved the bill in February.
Along the way, some of those ministers have picked up a few bucks. For example, Bishop Larry Trotter of the New Century Fellowship International was paid $1,000 out of the group’s new political action committee for “clergy consulting.” Bishop Lance Davis of the New Zion Christian Fellowship Covenant Church was also paid $1,000 for “clergy consulting.”
So far, the group has reported raising $72,000, all of it from the National Organization for Marriage, which was heavily involved in passing California’s statewide proposition that declared marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. NOM is run by white folks who have recently made outreach to the black community a top priority. Polls have consistently shown that African-Americans are not nearly as supportive of gay rights and gay marriage as whites.
Of that significant NOM cash pile, the African-American Clergy Coalition has so far reported spending just $11,250 to actually air radio ads blasting gay marriage.
They don’t really need the ads. For decades, African-American churches have been at the center of black political life. Candidates, black and white, flock to the churches during election time, seeking a few kind words of praise. What the pastors say generally goes.
This is America and church pastors have the absolute right to weigh in on the issues of the day. The prospect of losing their religious tax exemptions is extremely remote because the IRS almost always gives churches the benefit of the doubt.
But the upcoming gay marriage vote here in Illinois is taking place on a national stage. The pastors need to be very careful to make sure they dot all their “i’s” and cross all their “t’s” because a very bright light may be shone in their direction.
4 Comments
|
Today’s constituent e-mail
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Click the pic for a larger version…
Um, this issue is about marriage between two consenting adults, not pedophilia.
Let’s try to make this clear. To “refuse” an adult the right to marry a nine year old wouldn’t be “discrimination.” It would be preventing statutory rape. It’s defined as statutory rape because a nine year old girl cannot give such “consent” to an adult.
* I talked with Rep. Morrison this morning. He clearly regretted sending the e-mail, which he said he did in haste, adding “I don’t hate anybody,” and saying he wanted to have a “healthy debate” on the issue. He also insisted that he didn’t ever mean to imply that proponents are “advocating for statutory rape.”
Still, some things are just best left unsaid. And when given an opportunity to back down, he wouldn’t.
“If you look at my follow up e-mail, I flesh it out.” Morrison then referenced an article about a nine-year old Saudi girl forced into marriage that he’d read a while ago. “Two years ago we were told, we don’t want marriage, we want legal protections, and furthermore there’s going to be no impact on religious institutions… And less than a year later, Catholic Charities is out of the adoption business, and in the next General Assembly we see SB 10. I think it’s a fair question to ask ‘What is the next thing?… I think that’s the kind of dialogue I want to have with my constituents.”
“Maybe this is a little provocative,” he said, but also claimed that he was being unfairly singled out. “I think the proponents of the bill have to keep the interest level up. That’s why this group sent this e-mail to the media outlets.”
“I apologized to her,” the legislator said. “I invited her to a meeting… This is an attempt to make me look like a bad guy. It’s an effort to paint me in the worst possible light. It’s an attempt to assassinate my character.”
* Rep. Morrison also forwarded me a long e-mail he sent his constituent in response…
Dear [Redacted],
I got an email and phone call tonight from Natasha Korecki at the Chicago Sun-Times. She told me that you were upset by the last email I sent you regarding SB10.
I get hundreds if not thousands of emails everyday, and I do my best to read and personally respond to as many as I can. Sometimes in my haste to deliver, words or thoughts do not translate well.
As you’re well aware, we do disagree on this issue and likely will continue to disagree. That’s OK. I have my strongly felt reasons, and you have yours.
To be clear, however: I do not equate same sex marriage with statutory rape.
The point I was trying to make was this: the state already has certain restrictions on what marriage is. The law itself makes distinctions on who can and cannot marry. For example, one cannot be married to more than one person at the same time. You are not advocating for polyamory (I don’t think), but there are those in Illinois who do. Just google Polyamory Chicago, and see for yourself. They argue that the state is discriminating against their sexual orientation, love, desire to commit, freedom, equality, etc.
The state also defines the age at which individuals may marry. There are groups today that believe young girls ought to be able to marry. Check out the following: (http://jonathanturley.org/2010/02/26/marriage “Saudi Cleric Defends Marriage of Nine-Year-Old Girls and Blasts Human Rights Treaties as the Work of Atheists and Fornicators”). Yes, I find that shocking, too! Saudi Arabia is not Illinois obviously, but would this Saudi Cleric consider IL’s law on marriage to be discriminatory? Probably. I think it’s a fair question to ask. By whose standards do we make our laws? I learned to drive a car at age 10. Was the state prejudicial against me in not allowing me to get a license and drive until I was 16? Why not 15? Why not 12? Why not 10?
So how do we as a society deal with differences of opinion and beliefs on important and emotional issues?
We have a democratic process here. The people’s elected representatives are deciding whether or not our state’s marriage law should be re-defined. Our society is engaged in a healthy debate about that now. You and I can continue to engage in that now, if you wish, either via email, phone call, or in person. In fact, I will be meeting with a Palatine man who is in a same sex civil union later this summer (assuming SB10 still hasn’t been decided by then). You and I could also meet individually or as a group to discuss this.
Changing a law like this is not a light matter. Same sex relationships have been around for millenia, obviously, but codifying marriage as a relationship without regard to gender is a shift of enormous proportions. Interracial marriages have been in existence for millenia, too. Though they were temporarily (in the scope of human history) outlawed in certain jurisdictions, the unions were still of man and woman. That’s why I don’t believe it’s appropriate to say SB10 is analogous with interracial marriage laws, by the way.
Just two years ago, in a lame duck session, the legislature passed a civil unions law. You may believe that it was late in coming, or inadequate, or still discriminatory to same sex couples; you and I haven’t discussed those details so I don’t know. During the debate two years ago, however, the sponsors of the civil unions bill stated that marriage was not their end goal. They also stated that religious individuals and organizations would not be affected if the civil unions law was enacted. We discovered in short order that neither was the case. Same sex marriage is under discussion now, and two large religious-based adoption agencies have had their state contracts cancelled due to religious beliefs. That’s why opponents have real concerns about SB10.
[Redacted name], I don’t seek to intentionally offend or be condescending to anyone, and if I was to you it was unintentional, and I genuinely apologize. If this ever happens again, please do not hesitate to contact my staff or me personally, and I will do my best to respond in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Tom
Discuss.
60 Comments
|
Did the SJ-R get played?
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Appearing in today’s State Journal-Register is a guest column entitled “Marijuana not a safe or effective medicine”…
The marijuana bill the Illinois legislature is considering does away with the Food and Drug Administration process, and the legislature assumes the role of the FDA.
The FDA has concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use and lacks an acceptable level of safety even under medical supervision. The FDA has approved Marinol, which is not smoked, but is marijuana in pill form. […]
This is about whether Illinois citizens want the legislature to decide on how to approve and dispense medicine instead of the FDA. The medical marijuana lobby has put together myths and money that will not make for a safe or healthier Illinois. The proposal endangers our youth, our highways and our workplaces and increases costs for employers and taxpayers. It is bad medicine.
Etc., etc. Go read the whole thing if you want.
* This is how the SJ-R identifies the column’s co-authors…
Peter Bensinger is former administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and former director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Andrea Barthwell is former deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Ah, but that’s only part of the story.
* US News & World Report ran an article about Bensinger a few days ago…
Two of the former Drug Enforcement Agency officials who came out this week urging the federal government to nullify new state pot laws in Washington and Colorado are facing criticism for simultaneously running a company that may profit from keeping marijuana illegal.
Robert L. DuPont, who was White House drug czar under Presidents Nixon and Ford, and Peter Bensinger, who was administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration in the 1970s, today run Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, a company that specializes in workplace drug testing, among other employee programs. Both men signed an open (along with eight other former DEA officials) addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee members this week criticizing the Obama administration for failing to quickly address the new states laws legalizing pot, which are inconsistent with federal law.
* The other co-author, Andrea Barthwell, at one time worked for GW Pharmaceuticals, a company that is marketing Sativex, which is a liquid made from marijuana plants…
GW Pharmaceuticals also announced this week that it had hired former White House Drug Czar Deputy Director Andrea Barthwell in an advisory capacity. As Deputy Director, Barthwell lobbied against legislative efforts to legalize the medical use of whole smoked cannabis by qualified patients. “Having this product (Sativex) available will certainly slow down the dash to make the crude plant material available to patients across the country,” Barthwell told the Los Angeles Times Wednesday.
The pharmaceutical company doesn’t want people smoking weed, they want to provide weed in liquid form and make lots and lots of money.
Barthwell is no longer with the company, but…
Early in Sativex’s development, GW hired Dr. Andrea Barthwell as a consultant to sing the drug’s praises, although she’s no longer in the employ of GM. Barthwell was a deputy drug czar under George W. Bush and is the former president of the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM). In a recent ASAM press release, Barthwell denounced medical marijuana but — significantly — only because it was unregulated by the federal government. […]
The likes of Barthwell and Burr have drawn the ire of supporters for the reform of marijuana laws who believe that they represent the pharmaceutical industry’s goal for medical marijuana: demonize it, prosecute it, shut it down, then grab the market.
So, yeah, to answer the headline, I’m pretty sure the SJ-R got played.
* And I wonder if the Illinois Family Institute knew what was really going on when they scheduled Barthwell, Bensinger and Bensinger’s partner Robert L. DuPont to speak at an April 15th legislative conference…
Truth and Consequences of Marijuana as Medicine
A fact-checked, research-based discussion about marijuana and Illinois
Our speakers will sort fact from fiction about how marijuana impacts health and safety, Illinois youth, drugged driving and the workplace. They will explain what to expect if a medical marijuana law is enacted in Illinois, and how it will dramatically increase use and dependency. Join us to learn the facts.
This FREE conference on marijuana is for elected officials, educators, faith organizations, drug prevention and treatment providers, business leaders, and local governments. A complimentary lunch will be provided.
29 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
   
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|
