Category: Legal

Barack Obama’s Speech at the Democratic National Convention

Barack Obama at the 2008 Democratic Convention

Barack Obama accepts the Democratic Nomination for President in Denver. (Photo: BarackObama.com)

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
“The American Promise”
Democratic National Convention
August 28, 2008
Denver, Colorado

As prepared for delivery

***

To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation;

With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.
.
Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest – a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours — Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia – I love you so much, and I’m so proud of all of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart – that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That’s why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women – students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors — found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments – a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he’s worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land – enough! This moment – this election – is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: “Eight is enough.”

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we’ll also hear about those occasions when he’s broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives – on health care and education and the economy – Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made “great progress” under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors – the man who wrote his economic plan – was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a “mental recession,” and that we’ve become, and I quote, “a nation of whiners.”

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don’t believe that Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn’t know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It’s not because John McCain doesn’t care. It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.

For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps – even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own.

Well it’s time for them to own their failure. It’s time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President – when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job – an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton’s Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She’s the one who taught me about hard work. She’s the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she’s watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don’t know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

What is that promise?

It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who’s willing to work.

That’s the promise of America – the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.

That’s the promise we need to keep. That’s the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.
.
Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington’s been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he’s said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don’t have that chance. I’ll invest in early childhood education. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I’ll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America’s promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our “intellectual and moral strength.” Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can’t replace parents; that government can’t turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that’s the essence of America’s promise.

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America’s promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That’s not the judgment we need. That won’t keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice – but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don’t tell me that Democrats won’t defend this country. Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans — Democrats and Republicans – have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.

So I’ve got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose – our sense of higher purpose. And that’s what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise – the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that’s to be expected. Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what – it’s worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me. It’s been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us – that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I’ve seen it. Because I’ve lived it. I’ve seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I’ve seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I’ve seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they’d pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I’ve seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It’s a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours – a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln’s Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could’ve heard many things. They could’ve heard words of anger and discord. They could’ve been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead – people of every creed and color, from every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

“We cannot walk alone,” the preacher cried. “And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

(PRNewsFoto)


Mayor Daley Needs a News “Pool Boy”

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass reported Friday that Chicago’s airport operations boss Dave “Pool Boy” Ochal threw his political weight around last week when his neighborhood faced a power outage:

Ochal’s Far Northwest Side neighborhood was without power for two days in the summer heat. Neighbors dug into their own pockets to pay for emergency generators and shipped their elderly, including some who required oxygen therapy, to live with friends and family who had power. Then neighbors said they witnessed a political miracle Wednesday night:

A Commonwealth Edison truck pulled up at Ochal’s house in the 5400 block of North Paris Avenue.

The ComEd crew—two workers and a foreman—wore badges signifying they were detailed to O’Hare International Airport. With astonished neighbors watching, the crew delivered a big, fat electric generator to Ochal’s home.

It took only one day for him to resign.

Ochal had quite the reputation for working the system. According to Kass, in 2000 Ochal installed a built-in pool without permits. The pool swamped his neighbors backyards, “flooding their lawns and basements, shorting out appliances and blowing a ComEd transformer.”

Sounds like it was quite the scene last week when Kass went to interview the man he refers to as “Pool Boy.” When he knocked on Pool Boy’s door, his wife said he didn’t live there.

“There’s no Ochal here!” she said.

This truly astonished the neighbors. Then we went next door and around back, to see the fabulous pool and fabulous generator from that side. The camera guy was setting up his equipment, and just then, a little voice came from over the fence.

“Is this legal? Is this legal?”

It was Dave “Pool Boy” Ochal who popped up from behind the fence, his head up there like an angry jack-in-the-box.

Pool Boy couldn’t see me right off, standing there.

“Dave!” I shouted. “Pool Boy! It’s me, your friend, John.”

The realization on his face was poetic, if poetic looks like a slice of boiled ham in the moonlight.

Ochal’s head started to disappear behind his fence.

“Pool Boy!” I yelled. “Don’t go. It’s me, John. Don’t you want to talk?”

He didn’t.

Ochal resigned from his $159,144-a-year-plus-political-muscle position Friday.

ComEd has some questions to answer as well. While apparently not in the practice of delivering generators to customers’ homes, they did in this case.

Mayor Daley, interviewed in Beijing, sounded stupified:

When asked about the matter by a Tribune reporter in Beijing, Daley said, “It’s just plain stupid. It’s bad judgement. You know…..I mean why? It’s just bad judgement.”

Stupid for getting caught, perhaps, Mayor?


Teen Gets 8 Years Over Pot: Legalize It

I haven’t written much about drugs in our society, but I’m using a story in the Sun-Times to start putting down some thoughts.  I’d appreciate any reader feedback on this one especially.

Remember, this happened in Texas.  No, I do not in any way condone what this 18-year-old man did.  However, it shows we’re not far from Nancy Reagan’s infamous War on Drugs.

A teenager shown on a video coaxing his 2- and 4-year-old nephews into smoking marijuana was sentenced Thursday to eight years in prison.

Demetris McCoy, 18, pleaded guilty to two charges of injury to a child/causing bodily injury and agreed to testify against his co-defendant, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported online Thursday.

Does this merit eight years in prison?  In light of the following, perhaps it does:

Drug tests showed the youngsters had marijuana and cocaine in their bodies. When the video was made, the children’s mother was sleeping in another room, police have said. She was not arrested.

Somehow these little ones came across cocaine, and that scares me.  Yes, this 18-year-old in Texas was wrong.  My question is, would he have done this today at all if Nancy Reagan had taken us down a different path twenty-eight years ago?

I wonder where we would be today if, instead of declaring a War on Drugs in 1980, Nancy Reagan had declared war on a legal system that punishes drug offenders instead of treating them for the medical problem they have.

That’s right.  We’re treating drugs punitively.  “Three strikes and your out” works great in baseball, but this simplistic mantra has become our de facto manner of treating drug use.  Why not treat drug abuse as a medical problem?

I know this may seem like a stretch, but indulge me a bit.

What if we declared a War on the Common Cold?  Wouldn’t we all feel like we were doing something positive?  What if we locked anyone up who had a cold?  Wouldn’t that solve the problem of this nefarious virus that we can’t kill, but must tolerate until it decides to go away?

No, that would be silly.

There was a time in human history, however, when that was precisely our response to illness.  We didn’t know any better, perhaps.  But today, we do.

I know what I’m saying sounds absurd, but if we had begun to shift our thinking in 1980, followed a new paradigm when it comes to drugs, I wonder where we would be now.  What if, instead of arresting alleged offenders, sending them to jail for a few days or prison for a few years, we had begun to treat drug abuse as a medical issue?  Would we have more than one in 100 adults in the United States in jail or prison today?

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second, according to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.

Our final solution in the War Against Drugs was to incarcerate.

How did that work out?

We need to seriously consider the legalization of marijuana.

No, sorry, I don’t smoke it.  I’m not interested in smoking it, but I’m convinced we’re solving little to nothing about the proliferation of drugs in our society by throwing kids in jail, seizing automobiles, requiring community service, and building more prisons.

Am I suggesting that drugs should be a free-for-all, available on every corner?

No.  We already have that.

The problem is, it’s so damn easy to write another law or pass another ordinance.  In fact, it requires no thought at all to throw a kid in prison, treat him or her like a wild animal in a cage, and wonder why we’re not winning the “War Against Drugs.”

We’re not winning because “war” is the wrong paradigm.

We need to completely rethink our response to the problem of drugs in our society, and we all have to rethink this together.


Mayor Daley’s Firm Stance Against Guns

Despite news that some suburbs are crumbling before the Supreme Court’s recent liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is standing firm.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Mayor Richard Daley was adamant Friday about Chicago’s intention to defend its handgun ban in court, despite news that a second area suburb was likely to repeal its ordinance next week.

The second suburb, Morton Grove, is set to repeal its first-in-the-nation handgun ban next week. Wilmette has already suspended its handgun ordinance.

In typical Daley-esque fashion, Hizzoner was adamant:

“Morton Grove can do anything that it wants,” Daley said at an unrelated news conference.

“I don’t look at this lightly—that, ‘Oh, because the Supreme Court’s done it we’re just gonna dismiss it and all of a sudden people can arm themselves,’” he said.

Daley’s concern is for the men and women on the front lines.  He’s also concerned about the proliferation of firearms in society.  When do we say enough?

From the Sun-Times:

“You have to look at a new ordinance in order to protect firemen and policemen going to the scenes of people who have armed themselves in their home. … We serve and protect. We’re not supposed to lose our lives … Morton Grove can do anything they want. What I’m saying is you have to look at the first- responders and how it’s gonna jeopardize their lives.”

The mayor’s laundry list of questions does not stop at the safety of first-responders. He wants to know just how far the Supreme Court is prepared to go to protect the 2nd Amendment.

“It’s just not allowing people to arm themselves. How many guns do you have — 50, 60? Can they have a .357 Magnum? Can they have ammunition that will go through a wall? What is the liability of the owners? … Do you have to have insurance if you have a gun? How much ammunition can you have if there’s a fire? If a fireman is going to your home and you have 40 weapons and 1,000 rounds, do we have a responsibility to notify all the neighbors?” Daley said.

Daley is considering drafting yet another ordinance, taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s recent split decision.

I’ve criticized this man before, but I admire his tenacity.  It may just take this mayor to stare down the Supremes.  I’ll bet they blink first.


John Ray’s Box of Human Bones

I really don’t get this guy at all.

Park Forest resident John Ray still has his box of human bones.

Recall Ray’s tale of how he came by the remains:

Ray said he bought the grisly collection, albeit accidentally, at an estate auction in Shipshewana, Ind. There he bought a tattered, 150-year-old book titled “The History of the American Indian.” Packaged with the book was a cardboard box layered in duct tape.

“The dealer said, ‘Wait till you get home to open it up,’ ” Ray said of the box. “He said, ‘You’ll really be pleased with it. It’s like a little gift from Santa Claus.’ ”

But Ray said he didn’t wait until he got home. When he got to his car, Ray split the box open with a pocketknife. To his shock, the book was packaged with the bones. He marched back to the dealer, who refused to take back the “gift.” The dealer claimed to have bought the remains at a separate estate auction earlier in the year.

According to the Southtown Star:

Ray, who claims he’s kept a box of human bones in his Park Forest residence since 1982, said he plans to take a few bones to Indiana’s LaGrange County Sheriff’s Department in the next few weeks.

The next few weeks?  Does this man really care that he has the remains of a human being in a box in his home?  Or is it about him?

Ray said he hoped to start the process this week by digitally photographing all the bones and sending the photographs as well as their lengths and proportions to the LaGrange County Sheriff Department.

Afterward, Ray said he would deliver the bones to the department in person.

“Those bones being buried wherever they belong would be a great ending to this story – whatever direction it heads,” Ray said.

I don’t get this at all.  How do you walk around your home for 26 years with a box containing the remains of a human being?  If someone sold you a box of human bones, wouldn’t you call the police — immediately?  Was this person the victim of a homicide?

My disquietude with this grisly tale only heightened the other day during a chance encounter with John Ray.  As I was walking my dog around the neighborhood, Ray was outside.

He approached me and asked, “You been reading about me?”

All I could think of was that box of bones nearby somewhere inside his residence.

“I’m wondering who keeps a box of bones in their house for 26 years?” I said.

“You want to talk about it?” he asked.

“John, I’m walking my dog.”

“Oh, okay.”

No, I did not want to “talk about it.”

A credible source in Park Forest reports that Ray is writing a “screen play” about the bones.

Sounds like it’s all about him.  In 26 years, the Park Forest police have no record of a call for service about these remains.  Only recently was Ray concerned enough to come forward.

Ray recently told the Southtown Star, “Whoever this kid is, he deserves better.”

No kidding.


Man Keeps Human Bones in Box for 26 Years

This one is just too strange to pass up.

According to a report in the Southtown Star, a man in Park Forest, IL, has kept “a disorganized heap of crusty human bones” in a box for 26 years.

According to the report, John Ray claims he bought the box of human remains in 1982:

It was the year Ray said he bought the grisly collection, albeit accidentally, at an estate auction in Shipshewana, Ind. There he bought a tattered, 150-year-old book titled “The History of the American Indian.” Packaged with the book was a cardboard box layered in duct tape.

“The dealer said, ‘Wait till you get home to open it up,’ ” Ray said of the box. “He said, ‘You’ll really be pleased with it. It’s like a little gift from Santa Claus.’ ”

But Ray said he didn’t wait until he got home. When he got to his car, Ray split the box open with a pocketknife. To his shock, the book was packaged with the bones. He marched back to the dealer, who refused to take back the “gift.” The dealer claimed to have bought the remains at a separate estate auction earlier in the year.

But Ray never called the police, until recently.  According to the story, he waited to call the police to avoid trouble.  “I did put it off,” Ray said. “I was a teacher, I was afraid.”

Ray claims he called the police after he retired from teaching in 2001, but they never called back — a claim Park Forest Police dispute:

Park Forest Deputy Chief Mike McNamara said he doesn’t know whether Ray phoned the department but that people who do find bones should call police.

“We would probably contact the crime lab, and they would take it,” McNamara said. “It depends if it was an ancient skeleton – sometimes they take them to an archaeologist to examine.”

Ray may be in for more trouble, according to Bob Nale, former president of the South Suburban Archaeological Society:

“There are some fairly stringent laws, and some of them are being enforced with some big-size penalties,” Nale said. “Then there’s the other option – take them out in a field and bury them deep.”

The Illinois Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act instructs anyone who discovers human remains to report the incident to the coroner within 48 hours or face misdemeanor charges.

The Illinois attorney general’s office points to state statute prohibiting the sale of body parts.

Under the law, anyone who buys or sells a human body or any part of a human body is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for the first conviction and a Class 4 felony for subsequent convictions.

According to a second report, a local funeral home has offered to bury the remains, but Ray is “weighing the option.”

Ray said the estate auction dealer told him the bones belonged to a boy who claimed to be one of the last Delaware Indians. The boy was beaten to death at a bar, Ray said the dealer told him while refusing to take back the bones. Ray said he does not know the dealer’s name.

McNamara suggested Thursday that Ray turn the bones over to Shipshewana police.

“If this was a homicide, and the bones are 40 to 50 years old, they would have an open case on it, and they’d have evidence to solve the case,” McNamara said.

Who keeps a box of human bones for 26 years?

Unbelievable.


Race in America: The Transplant Gap

The Chicago Tribune has an extraordinary piece on the disparity in treatment between African Americans who suffer from kidney failure vs. just about everyone else in America:

With transplant lists growing, it can be daunting for a person of any race to get a life-sustaining kidney. But many African-Americans face additional hurdles—whether it’s piecing together insurance to cover expensive anti-rejection drugs or searching for loved ones healthy enough to serve as living donors.

The result is a glaring racial disparity in which many black kidney patients remain on dialysis, a treatment associated with lower quality of life and higher death rates.

African-Americans account for 37 percent of people receiving dialysis but make up only 19 percent of the transplant population, according to the United States Renal Data System, a government database.

Think our healthcare system isn’t broke?

I know.  Republicans and our other friends on the right will say that we all have to do our part, provide for ourselves, and the private market and charities are somehow supposed to respond and pick up the slack, miraculously insure everyone.  Wealth is supposed to “tricke down” as Ronald Reagan once dreamed.  Cut taxes, and people have more to give away.

Except they don’t give away.  The rich get the tax breaks and buy more yachts.  Government has to step in to make sure people find the basic treatment they need.

I’ll grant that the United States Constitution does not say we have a right to privacy — except for those rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.

But we do have a right to life.


Two in Chicago won’t see July 4

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.


Government Snoops on Celeb. Passports: Happy Independence Day!

This story from The Washington Post (in block text) is presented with appropriate passages from The Declaration of Independence (italics).  Enjoy.

Government workers repeatedly snooped without authorization inside the electronic passport records of entertainers, athletes and other high-profile Americans, a State Department audit has found. One celebrity’s records were breached 356 times by more than six dozen people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The audit, by State’s inspector general, was prompted by the discovery in March that three of the department’s contract workers had peeked at the private passport files of Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain and that a State Department trainee had examined the file of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

The report documented a widespread lack of controls on the personal data of the 127 million Americans who hold passports, finding numerous “weaknesses, including a general lack of policies, procedures, guidance and training.” The State Department had maintained that its system worked when the candidates’ passport breaches were discovered.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

The audit also suggests that some workers were motivated by fascination with the private lives of celebrities, none of whom were identified. One employee told investigators he simply liked looking up the records of professional basketball players.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Investigators found that 20,500 government workers and contractors had access to the electronic system that maintained the records. Most of them worked for the State Department or the Department of Homeland Security.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Privacy Act violations could result in misdemeanor penalties or fines if workers disclosed personal information to a third party not authorized to receive it.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

Another law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, could result in criminal penalties for unauthorized access to government computer systems.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

You get the idea.

Happy Independence Day!  Do yourself a favor and read the Declaration of Independence sometime today.

And look forward to a great Indepencence Day on January 20, 2009.


Supremes explode on right to bear arms

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.