Category: Chicagoland

Mayor Daley: The Buck Stops There

Posted on by TL

Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley is an impressive and formidable politician. The man has incredible support in the city and elsewhere throughout the Chicagoland area.

The secret to his success? Govern-by-Whining. And it’s never his fault.

The latest incidents that have left Daley bewildered are the gang-related shootings last week at the Taste of Chicago. From the Sun-Times:

Mayor Daley and a ranking alderman were demanding answers for the gang-related shootings that left one dead and three wounded Thursday night.

And the department itself now acknowledges it needs to do a better job next year.

“I don’t know if he blew it, but I can tell you that there was unprecedented violence at the Taste of Chicago, and it was on his watch,” Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th), chairman of the Police and Fire Committee, said of police Supt. Jody Weis.

Alderman Carothers wants to blame someone for gun violence in Chicago. He and Mayor Daley are “demanding answers.”

Pols love to point fingers. Somebody has to take the fall.  Daley is pointing the finger at Police Supt. Jody Weis.  The Sun-Times again:

The mayor held a heated one-on-one meeting with his new superintendent Monday — followed by at least two sessions that included other agency chiefs — to find out why police were apparently overwhelmed by gangs and crowds at Taste of Chicago.

“It wasn’t quiet,” a mayoral confidante said of Daley’s tone.

It was clear, even to the rookie superintendent, that “things didn’t go as planned” after the shooting of four people — one fatally — as the crowd from the city’s July 3 fireworks and concert was dispersing.

But, Weis was “searching for reasons other than police work” for the violence and, what patrons have called, an “intimidating atmosphere” at this year’s Taste that threatens to destroy a marquee event and burst Daley’s Olympic bubble.

“He was trying to say, ‘We did everything we could’ to control the problems. The response [from Daley] was, ‘Like hell,'” the source said.

“Why weren’t large groups dispersed more quickly? Why did it get to a point where people felt intimidated? In years past, the same groups came to the Taste. But police work was such that the bad guys didn’t get a chance to act out. Why did it get to that point this time?”

When Daley is at his best, he makes it clear there are no easy answers, and there are no easy answers here.  Sadly, Daley’s focus is on the 2016 Olympics, not the underlying problems that contribute to violence.  Why else would he be so upset about shootings at the Taste when this kind of thing happens every day in neighborhoods south of the Loop?  Where has his outrage been hiding?

The police are the first line  of defense, and, all too often, the last line.  But what can we do to lessen the need for this defense?

The problem of violence in America is much more complex than a lack of police. We can’t solve the excessive violence in this country by passing more laws, and we can’t blame the men and women in blue because there are bad guys and gals on our streets. As I’ve said before, we have serious problems 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. We can talk about gangs, why people join gangs.

And we should. We should seriously have numerous discussions about all of these things. We have to realize that we all are part of the gang. Gang members are not the nebulous “others” from Lost. Many leaders of gangs already live among us in the suburbs, outside of Chicago. They take care of their lawns, feed the dog, and run a gang. They are already our neighbors, and we don’t even know it.

We are all part of the problem. We are all part of the solution. The buck stops here, with all of us.

Blaming the police for gang violence is, well, a copout.

Two in Chicago won’t see July 4

Posted on by TL

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

Posted on by TL

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

Posted on by TL

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.

Bill Daley wants to be your governor, Illinios

Posted on by TL

Bill Daley has been talking to all the right people, working to position himself for the 2010 Democratic nomination for governor of Illinois. Brother of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Bill took a shot at the governor’s mansion in 2002. According to the Chicago Sun-Times:

Bill Daley flirted with a race for governor in 2002 only to be bullied out by Ald. Richard Mell (33rd), father-in-law of Gov. Blagojevich.

Mell threatened to dirty up the mayor’s brother with talk of Bill Daley’s divorce and Daley’s stint as president of Amalgamated Bank.

With federal investigators swarming over the Blagojevich administration, the governor’s former fundraiser Tony Rezko now a convicted felon and Mell now estranged from his son-in-law, Bill Daley is apparently looking to scratch his lifelong political itch.

Well, Blagojevich has certainly become quite the itch.

I’m willing to take a look at Daley.

Daley has name recognition in his own right.  He served as Secretary of Commerce in President Bill Clinton’s second administration.  In July 2000 he became chairman of Vice President Al Gore’s presidential campaign.

This man has a respectable history already, and throws his hat into a crowded field.

For years we’ve heard talk that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan was planning a run for governor.  Madigan is exceptional.  I’ve heard her speak on a number of occasions.  While her father is very well-connected, Lisa is not Speaker Mike.

Lisa is not a Todd-Stroger-wannabe, running just because daddy already holds office.  Neither is Bill Daley running because of his brother.

If these two throw their respective hats into the ring, Democrats are in for quite the ride.  Democrats will have two very respectable candidates to consider.

Personally, I’ll probably offer my support to the one who does not go negative first.

Three young women were shot…

Posted on by TL

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

Posted on by TL

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.

Rezko’s Plan for a Third Airport

Posted on by TL

Tony Rezko allegedly tried his hand at starting a “pay-for-play” third airport in Will County.

I had my doubts the first time I read this, but, knowing Rick Bryant, this report is accurate.

Bryant writes in eNews Park Forest:

Two years ago – before Rezko’s indictment and trial – the Congressman and I (as executive director of the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission) were invited to meet with state officials about the third airport, a project we’ve championed for 14 years.

At the time, the governor was running for re-election and facing angry south suburban leaders who were running a massive ad campaign criticizing Blagojevich for reneging on his promise to build the airport.

Feeling heat from his voter base, the governor agreed to have two of his top aides meet with Jackson and ALNAC.

At the last minute, however, there was a change of plans.  Instead of meeting with the Governor’s aides, we would be meeting with Tony Rezko.

So, on Sunday, June 25, 2006, at the Chicago Four Seasons Hotel, Rezko showed up by himself.  He said he could offer gubernatorial support for ALNAC’s airport plan – if the governor were allowed to make key appointments to ALNAC’s Board.

Wow.  It’s worth it to read Bryant’s entire commentary.

To be honest, I tire of the back-and-forth sniping between Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson.  Both are good people.  That’s not the issue.  But both, at times, have postured unnecessarily over the Third Airport, bringing each other down in the process.  Thankfully, Bryant, a top aide to Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., only takes a backhanded slap at Halvorson in this piece.

ALNAC’s model for building the airport comes with built-in accountability and ethics designed specifically to eliminate kickbacks and graft, thus creating 15,000 private-sector jobs at a low-cost airport that will attract low-cost carriers during this challenging economy.

Rezko’s model and the Senate bill would turn ALNAC’s innovative plan to construct a privately funded, publicly accountable, low-cost airport into a taxpayer-funded, pay-to-play, high-cost airport.

Bryant’s point, however, is clear enough: a third airport would be much less expensive and more accountable to the public under ALNAC.

I simply find it astounding that Rezko tried to put his finger in the third airport pie.

Rezko a problem for the GOP also

Posted on by TL

Republicans are salivating with news of Rezko’s conviction. According to the Chicago Tribune, Illinois Republicans opened their state convention vowing to link Governor Blagojevich to all Democrats across the state, including the presumptive Democratic nominee, U.S. Senator Barack Obama. They’re pulling out all the stops, but saying nothing new.

For example, they’re going to run around screaming, “Hussein!” Obama’s middle name, very common in the Arabic world, simply means “good” or “handsome.” According to a wonderful analysis of the name at Salon.com:

Barack Obama’s middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi, Kenya. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the prophet Mohammed, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America’s most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel “The Kite Runner” is Khaled Hosseini.

But in Obama’s case, it is just a reference to his grandfather.

Yes, attacking Barack’s middle name sounds like a great game plan.

Republicans plan to play up Rezko’s conviction and attempt to link Rezko to every Democrat running for office in Illinois.  According to Rick Pearson at the Chicago Tribune, however, Rezko did business across party lines:

Still struggling to recover the relevance it lost amid the corruption investigation and conviction of former GOP Gov. George Ryan, the state GOP also finds itself beset by longtime internal strife. A cadre of conservatives trying to advance their agenda under a reform mantle has clashed repeatedly with old-guard moderates seeking to maintain their control.

Another convention panel recommended former prosecutor Patrick Brady of St. Charles to succeed the embattled Robert Kjellander as the state’s Republican national committeeman, a critical post for fundraising and to serve as an Illinois liaison with the national campaign of presumptive GOP presidential contender U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Kjellander, who is retiring at the end of his term this year, has been a source of controversy over his consulting activities with the state during the Blagojevich years and his own relationship with Rezko.

Illinois Republicans are a shrewd lot. Mess with them, and they’ll import Alan Keyes again to save the day.  Just pray Keyes wasn’t caught in a photo-op with Rezko during his brief stay in the Land of Lincoln a few years ago.

Berwyn makes history

Posted on by TL

Berwyn, IL,  recently joined 13 other cities in Illinois when city officials unanimously decided to include “sexual orientation” to its human-rights ordinance:

The decision brings Berwyn in line with a statewide law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas of housing, public accommodations and employment, which was passed in 2005.

According to the Windy City Times:

The decision brings Berwyn in line with a statewide law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas of housing, public accommodations and employment, which was passed in 2005.

The moment was, typically, full of irony:

[Former board chair Ted] Korbos, one of the organization’s founding members, said that one of the vocal opponents of the sexual orientation clause from 14 years ago showed up to the recent city council meeting, but left in a huff when even Republican alderman approved of its inclusion last week.

Fourteen years ago, one of the main arguments given for voting down the clause was that state law did protect against sexual orientation discrimination. Korbos told Windy City Times that it is “ironic” that today, current Illinois law became an argument to update the Berwyn ordinance.

“It really paved the way,” Korbos said.

And so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut, master of irony, would have said.