Category: Chicago

Two in Chicago won’t see July 4

July 4, 2008
ChicagoChicagolandCivil LibertiesLegalPhilosophicalRant
0 Comment

I guess I don’t understand the charm of handguns.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Two people were shot, one in the head in the Loop late Thursday as thousands of people streamed out of downtown after the city’s Fourth of July fireworks display and the Taste of the Chicago.

Both shootings occurred about 10:40 p.m. roughly a block apart, Chicago Fire Department spokesman Larry Langford said.

This is as good as time as any to reflect once again on the proliferation of guns in our society.  The clock has only recently passed the midnight hour here in Chicagoland, and already two are dead.

I spoke with a local member of our police force yesterday evening.  I asked him, informally, what he thought of last week’s Supreme Court decision striking down the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.  Did he think there should be more gun control?

He said, as I might have expected, that the current laws should be enforced.

And I agree.

The problem in our society is not that we have too many guns.  It’s that we use them too many damn times.  We need to control ourselves.  We need to find more effective ways of handling conflict.  We need to learn how to channel the rage we feel sometimes.

Yes, the answers lie in the schools, in the media, in the churches, in the family, in the neighborhoods, in congress, in state legislatures…, and many other places as well.

But the answer to gun violence begins the next time any one of us feels angry, and every time after that as well.

One of the Good Guys was Shot Today

July 2, 2008
ChicagoChicagoland
0 Comment

Officer Richard FrancisOfficer Richard Francis left us today. A 60-year-old Vietnam War combat veteran, the first Chicago police officer shot to death in the line of duty since 2002, Francis died today as he struggled with a mentally ill woman who grabbed his gun and shot him in the head.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Francis, a 27-year police veteran, was alone on patrol in a squad car when a CTA bus driver flagged him down.

The CTA driver was worried about a woman at a bus stop who became verbally abusive when the eastbound bus stopped on Belmont to let passengers out.

The driver did not open the doors and honked the horn to flag down Francis, who stopped to help, Belmont District Cmdr. John Kenny said.

The woman struggled with Francis and grabbed his revolver, shooting him once. She was shot after threatening the officers who responded to Francis’ call for backup, police said.

“Police said.” The journalist’s disclaimer that everything is alleged at this point.

And it is.

The only thing that is not alleged today is that Officer Richard Francis, 60, is dead.

Mayor Daley said Francis’ death is a “sad reminder of how much gratitude we owe to the men and women of the Chicago Police Department.”

Amen, Mayor. Amen.

“It’s a tragic loss for his family. It’s a terrible loss for the Chicago Police Department,” police Supt. Jody Weis said outside the hospital. “It’s a stark reminder of what the dangers that the officers of this department face every day.”

And “Amen” again.

Again from the Sun-Times:

“I don’t think he would ever quit,” said a lifelong friend, Tom Casey. “They’d have to force him off.”

[…]

“Before he was married, he would volunteer to take holidays so the cops with families could take time off,” Casey said. “That’s the type of guy he was.”

And again from friend, Tom Casey:

Francis preferred to work at night, when there was more action, Casey said. He started in the East Chicago District where Cabrini-Green is located.

“It was a rough neighborhood, but he liked it,” Casey said.

Francis married his wife, Deborah, about 10 years ago, Casey said.

“The children weren’t biologically his, but he raised them,” said Barbara Rehn, who lives across the street. “He called them his ‘kids’ and they called him ‘dad.’ ”

From Susan Fracek:

“I have two siblings who are Chicago Police officers,” said Susan Fracek, who lives near Francis’ home. “It’s incredibly hard.”

“He was a wonderful guy,” she said.

“It was hard to believe he was a cop,” added Casey. “His demeanor was so calm and polite and funny. Knowing this guy, he was probably trying to help this woman.”

They seem so cold sometimes, the police. We slow down when we see them driving near us, watch carefully in the rear view mirror if they’re following us.

But they’re human. All of them.

Today, one of them breathed his last.

And he’s gone forever.

One of the good guys was shot today.

He died.

And we are less for it.

Supremes explode on right to bear arms

June 26, 2008
AmericaChicagoChicagolandConstitutionLegal
0 Comment

Thursday’s decision by the United States Supreme Court protecting an individual right to own a gun for personal use is good news for some, but downright frightening for those who worry about the ever escalating gun violence in the Chicaogland area and the rest of the country.

First, the New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.

The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a fresh round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country.

Next, Mayor Daley via the Chicago Tribune:

An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Washington D.C. handgun ban “a very frightening decision” and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago’s ban.

That challenge was not long in coming. Hours after the high court’s ruling was made public Thursday, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sued the city and the mayor in an effort to overturn Chicago’s quarter-century ban on handguns.

…

“We think we’re such an improved society,” [Daley] added. “The rest of the world is laughing at us.”

The London Times Online broadens the perspective a bit:

Professor Laurence Tribe, a leading expert in constitutional law said that “regretfully, and speaking as a liberal scholar” the Second Amendment did appear to support an individual right to possess guns.

“The more important point is how far that right can be regulated,” he told The Times. It would still be possible for states to impose limits on carrying concealed weapons, regulate the sale of firearms and stop certain categories of people — including the mentally ill or those with criminal records — from owning guns. “I’m not persuaded that more people will die,” he said. “The cause and effect is much more complicated. What we will see is all sorts of challenges and litigation. This will be a lawyers’ bonanza.”

Asked if England and Wales — where there were 50 deaths through gun crime in 2005 compared with 12,352 gun-related murders in the US — could teach America a lesson, he said: “We come from a much more violent culture, one in which it would be much more difficult to enact and enforce a complete ban. Whatever the law, we’re not going to become England.”

What an astounding contrast: 50 deaths through gun crime in England and Wales in 2005, compared with 12,352 gun-related murders in the US.

The 157 page split opinion, another lengthy and loquacious product the Roberts court is famous for, does not claim the Second Amendment is unlimited, “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.” However, the decision does extend to trigger-locks:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

The split vote:

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

Scalia parses the Second Amendment:

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

…

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

So the right to bear arms is not granted for the purpose of creating a “well regulated Militia.” Indeed, the majority do not seem to want any regulation at all.

Which arms are permitted? Here again, Scalia rambles on for pages, reflecting on the historical meaning of what the words “bear arms” might mean. Is this right limited to the military? Does the phrase mean we have the right to bear arms that existed in the 18th century?

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

That’s a rather broad interpretation. So Scalia narrows it down a bit:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

Scalia references Pennsylvania and Vermont for historical justification to separate the phrase “right to bear arms” from “a well regulated militia”:

Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization.

Leaving no room for wiggle, Scalia’s opinoin is laced with rebuttals to the opinions of the dissenting justices. Scalia strongly rebukes Justice Stevens’ minority opinion:

JUSTICE STEVENS thinks it significant that the Virginia, New York, and North Carolina Second Amendment proposals were “embedded . . . within a group of principles that are distinctly military in meaning,” such as statements about the danger of standing armies. Post, at 22. But so was the highly influential minority proposal in Pennsylvania, yet that proposal, with its reference to hunting, plainly referred to an individual right. See 2 Documentary Hist. 624. Other than that erroneous point, JUSTICE STEVENS has brought forward absolutely no evidence that those proposals conferred only a right to carry arms in a militia.

Back to the Chicago Tribune:

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

In the long run, Scalia’s marked lack of ability to get to the point may very well be the greatest weakness of this decision. His attempt to write an all-encompassing history of weaponry weakens his argument, raising more questions than it answers, and may very well open the door for thousands of loopholes that could allow Chicago to keep its ban on handguns.  Chicago’s legal officials seem confident, at least for now:

“We are confident that this does not invalidate Chicago’s ordinance at this point,” said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city Law Department.

Still, the decision is a victory for the pro-gun lobby, and “a very frightening decision,” to quote Mayor Daley, for the rest of us.

Three young women were shot…

June 23, 2008
ChicagoChicagolandEconomyPhilosophicalRant
0 Comment

The sad news from today’s Chicago Sun-Times:

Three young women were shot and wounded while sitting on a porch early Sunday on the South Side.

Officers responded to a person shot at 2:20 a.m. at the 2900 block of East 87th Street and found three females, 16, 18 and 20, who were shot on a porch, according to South Chicago District police.

Were you expecting to hear they died? I was too, when I first read the headlines. I was expecting more bad news.

The girls are listed in fair but “stable” condition.

This is bad news. We have a serious problem with guns in this country. I will not be naive and suggest that we ban guns. That discussion will go nowhere, and I don’t believe it will ever happen.

Rather, we must explore the reasons we shoot each other. We can talk about poverty. We can talk about drugs. We can talk about domestic violence, and gangs, and lack of family values.

And we should. We should seriously have numerous discussions about all of these things.

But the fact remains that we have a serious problem with violence in this country. This is the most violent country in the world outside a war zone, and even then there’s room for competition.

We have to ask ourselves why it is so easy for us to kill each other — or die trying.

‘Unflappable’ Todd Stroger gets an angry earful

June 18, 2008
ChicagoChicagolandDemocratic News
0 Comment

Cook County Board President Todd Stroger finally met with taxpayers in the northwest suburbs Monday, and it wasn’t pretty.  Some elected officials in the area had threatened to secede from Cook County in the face of Stroger’s $426 million tax hike.

The Chicago Tribune tells the story, and it must have been quite a scene, with a state Senator chiming in (He’s a Republican, but, these days, that doesn’t matter):

Many in the audience listened politely, but they were there to show their anger.

“We are now starting to feel that we are now starting to get gouged,” said state Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), who introduced legislation that would make it easier for Palatine to secede from the county. “Do you really understand the competitive disadvantage you’re putting the northwest suburbs to?”

Palatine is looking at seceding from Cook County.  The Chicago Trib. calls this a long shot, and I’m sure it is.  But, wow.  Talk of secession in Illinois merits attention, even in a state already inundated with so many overlapping governmental bodies that even the most radically liberal and staunch conservatives weep trying to figure out where respective jurisdictions begin and/or end.

Back to the Chicago Trib.:

The secession movement in Palatine was a long shot at best, but it illustrated a belief by some suburbanites that Stroger wasn’t serving them and didn’t understand the economic harm a sales tax creates in border towns where shoppers can cross into another county for lower rates.

At Monday’s meeting at Harper College, the crowd applauded when Nancy Golemba, 48, of Inverness, said, “I think Cook County represents the residents of Chicago.”

As someone writing from the south suburbs, I applaud Nancy Golemba’s comment.  We have lived in Chicago’s shadow for far too long.  The Cook County Board should represent, well, Cook County.  But all too often, Chicago gets the nod when it comes to the board defining policy.

Stroger, who remained unflappable, said “people don’t trust politicians . . . and that’s they way this job works.”

He also said people near a county or state line sometimes get pinched by a sales tax increase.

Easy for Todd Stroger to say.  Someone else gets “pinched” while Chicago grows.

Well, that’s been happening far too long already.

It’s not that we don’t trust politicians, President Stroger.  In fact, we elect them in our respective suburbs.

Many just don’t trust you.

R. Kelly has a mole on his back

June 6, 2008
ChicagoChicagolandLegalStrange
0 Comment

R. Kelly actually had an expert testify about the mole on his back:

R. Kelly‘s mole returned to the forefront of his child pornography trial on Thursday, as a forensic video analyst testified the blemish on the R&B star’s back is not identical to the dark mark seen on the man in the sex tape.

The mole has emerged as the surprise crux of the singer’s defense in the three weeks since testimony began. From the onset, his attorneys have told the jury that the caterpillar-shaped mark along Kelly’s spine would clear him of the crime.

Ugh. There are many things I didn’t need to know about R. Kelly, and I certainly didn’t need to know, nor could I have cared less, that Kelly has a mole on his back.

He could’ve had the bloody thing removed in his doctor’s office sometime over the past six years this trial has been delayed.

In addition to Kelly claiming he’s not the guy, the defense is also claiming the girl is not the girl:

Shonna Edwards, 27, said she was formerly in a singing group with her cousin, who prosecutors allege is the underage girl in the tape. The group toured throughout Europe in the late 1990s, she said.

“Was the female in the [sex] tape your cousin?” asked defense lawyer Ed Genson.

“No, she definitely wasn’t her,” Edwards said.

Similar words from an uncle later on.

On the other hand, the fiance of the prosecution’s star witness reportedly wanted $300,000 to keep her quiet:

Jack Palladino — a private investigator best known for being hired by Bill Clinton to track down women he’d been linked with — testified Thursday that the fiance of the prosecution’s star witness wanted a $300,000 payoff to keep the witness quiet.

The star witness, Lisa Van Allen, testified Monday that she had engaged in threesomes with R. Kelly and the underage girl who allegedly appears in a sex tape with the singer.

So, R. Kelly’s not the guy, the girl is not the girl, but Lisa Van Allen might have kept quiet about the whole thing for a few bucks? Everyone’s bending over backwards to drag each other further into the mud.

Mr. Kelly may be innocent — and he is, right now, innocent until proven guilty. But we need to remember what this is really about: the awful reality that an underage girl may have been horribly violated. If she was, we don’t need another sexual predator driving around the south suburbs of Chicago looking for his next conquest.

Rezko convicted – all eyes on Blagojevich

June 4, 2008
ChicagoChicagolandLegal
0 Comment

From the Chicago Tribune:

A federal jury today convicted developer Antoin “Tony” Rezko of corruption charges for trading on his clout as a top adviser and fundraiser to Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

And there you have it in one sentence: Rezko – Blagojevich, Blagojevich – Rezko.

Barack Obama, who once counted Rezko as a friend, commented also:

“I’m saddened by today’s verdict,” Obama said Wednesday. “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform. I encourage the General Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future.”

The Chicago Sun-Times links Blago and Rezko:

A federal jury in Chicago convicted Rezko this afternoon on 16 of 24 charges he faced in a political corruption trial that cast a harsh light on the Blagojevich administration.

It’s only a matter of time until we hear the words “Blagojevich” and “indictment” in the same sentence. That will be a sad day for Illinois, but it’s coming.

Pfleger Pflummoxes with Pfustian Prelection

June 2, 2008
Barack ObamaChicagoChicagolandElectionsHillary ClintonRantReligionStrange
0 Comment

Archbishop George must have turned Cardinal red.

What was the Rev. Michael Pfleger thinking? Was he jealous of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Did he really want to make his debut on the world stage on You Tube?

Pfleger’s rant was juvenile and sad:

”I really don’t believe it was put on,” Pfleger said. ”I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine! I’m Bill’s wife, I’m white, and this is mine! I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’ And then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama,’ and she said, ‘Oh, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’ ”

Mimicking Clinton mopping tears, Pfleger added, “She wasn’t the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying.”

Cardinal George clamped down:

“To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Fr. Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning, will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all Catholic priests.”

Pfleger apologized:

“I apologize for the words that I chose. I apologize for my dramatization that was, for many people who do not know me, simply typical dramatics I often use in sermons,” said Pfleger, reading from a statement as nearly two dozen church leaders surrounded him. “I apologize for anyone who was offended and who thought it to be mockery, that was neither my intent, nor my heart.”

What is truly sad in all of this is, Pfleger is a good man. He is. And we desperately need a dialog on race in this country. White entitlement is real, but Hillary Clinton is not running because she feels entitled. That’s just silly. Hillary is doing something historic, and she should stay there as long as she pleases.

But the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats, whether they support Clinton or Obama not, will support Obama in November.

Pfleger will, well, pfade. He’ll be a priest again, and that is as it should be.

Barack Obama resigned his membership at Trinity, and that’s probably a good thing for now. Republicans are salivating, but that is only temporary. Only Democrats are having a dialog on race — and every other social issue, for that matter. Republicans embrace social issues and “compassion” once every four years, tops.

Look, McCain/Bush2 will no doubt fill the stage at the Republican Convention with every minority and minority child he can find in the Republican ranks, but that will be an artificial statement.

It’s still time for change. That’s the only constant in this election cycle.

Want to be a witness at the R. Kelly trial?

May 28, 2008
ChicagoChicagolandLegalStrange
0 Comment

This could be your chance to make the big leagues.  After six years of lurid publicity, the defense has suddenly unearthed a surprise witness.  After six years of delays, the defense claims a witness called them today, for the first time.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times:

Testimony from a woman who says she had a sexual encounter with R. Kelly and an underage girl could be undermined by another witness in the singer’s child pornography trial who claims to know damaging information about the woman.

The judge abruptly halted proceedings Wednesday about an hour before the woman, who is from Georgia, was set to testify that she had an encounter with both the R&B superstar and the female who is depicted in a sex videotape at the heart of case. The Georgia woman also was expected to tell the jury that the woman was a minor at the time of the video recording.

The show will go on.  I’m just a bit surprised at this development.  How likely is it that a new witness no one apparently knew about would call the very day this woman was set to testify?  That’s downright uncanny, as if this witness, a man, had some kind of sixth “R. Kelly” sense.

The defense appeared to be as shocked as well:

“We never knew about the witness until 9 a.m. [Wednesday],” defense attorney Sam Adam Sr. said. “The witness called us.”

Want to be a witness at the R. Kelly trial?  Apparently there are still openings.

This one ain’t over until R. Kelly sings.

Dwight Welch knows how to spend your money, C.C. Hills

May 13, 2008
ChicagoChicagolandDemocratic NewsPhilosophicalRant
0 Comment

With one grand jury investigation currently investigating the use of Country Club Hills firefighters to demolish a pool house at the home of Mayor Dwight Welch, the Sun-Times reports Mayor Welch continues to turn his nose up at the taxpayers of Country Club Hills with a $27,000 weekend training seminar for “some aldermen, department heads and city employees.” The seminar was held at the The Abbey Resort, billed as “Only Full Service Resort And Spa On The Shores Of Lake Geneva [sic],” according to their Internet ads.

$27,000.

Welch defended the expense.

“That was the deal, $27,000. We [rented] a room for [each] person. If they were married, they could bring their husband or wife. That’s like it is on any convention. . . . It’s not like we were going to some exotic place,” Welch said.

The seminar was conducted by Dr. Paul Craig, according to the Sun-Times. Craig is “a senior fellow in the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Public Affairs in Champaign.”

Country Club Hills spent $1,447.50 to bring Craig along, “$1,000 for the seminar, $187.50 in travel expenses, $60 for meals and $200 for lodging.”

That leaves $25,552.50 for the remaining members who attended.

I know Dr. Craig. He’s worth every penny they spent on him and more. If anyone can help a politician find his soul, it’s Dr. Craig. He’s extremely well-read, perceptive, and, most of all, ethical.

But the student needs to be open to the lesson.

Look, this just all smells bad.

When the news about the demolition of the pool house first came to light, one Country Club Hills resident, Robert Darnell, expressed his support for Mayor Welch, “Mayor Welch has done such a good job, I can not say anything bad about him,” Darnell, 73, said.

That’s admirable. Not everyone was so impressed:

One 67-year-old woman, a 20-year resident, said Welch “gets all kinds of perks,” and joked that firefighters “can paint my deck and back porch. I can’t tell you my name. If I did, they’d be out tomorrow, tearing down my garage,” she said.

What are residents saying now? Is a weekend at a luxury hotel and resort acceptable to the taxpayers of Country Club Hills?

Too often, public officials start to believe they’re royalty, pampering themselves, spending taxpayer dollars as if it was their own.

$27,000 for a weekend away?  Did they really need to go to Wisconsin, to a luxury resort?

Nero wouldn’t bat an eye.