Todd Stroger Doesn’t Like Them Poll Numbers

From the Sun-Times:

Embattled Cook County Board President Todd Stroger blasted a new poll showing he’s in third place in the four-way race for his job.

A Tribune poll of what has been described as 500-plus likely voters shows Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown leading the pack in next month’s Democratic primary with 29 percent of the vote followed by Chicago Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) at 20 percent. Stroger is next with 14 percent and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District President Terrence O’Brien garnered just 11 percent.

“I think it is inaccurate,” Stroger told the Sun-Times today.

“I’ve been here for three years. The Tribune has been trying to sink me for all three years. So I can have a balanced budget when everybody else is struggling, I can keep the hospital system open. I can help 25,000 people change their mortgages and keep their homes, but that’s not good enough,” Stroger said, using an all-too-familiar refrain about how the media is biased in its coverage of him.

Well, that’s one way to handle bad numbers: deny they exist.

Unless Stroger pulls a George W. Bush and fixes the election, I don’t see him surviving the primary.  He certainly does not have my vote. I’m leaning toward Dorothy Brown right now.

I’m looking forward to writing about “former Cook County Board President Todd Stroger.”

Roethlisberger Sacked Five Times in First Half Against Cleveland (…so far)

Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has been sacked five times so far in tonight’s game against Cleveland.  The last sack was on 3rd and 19 facing a paltry three-man Brownie rush.

My favorite fan post right now on NFL.COM’s Game Center is from panther440:

Steeler fans, trade those terrible towels in on a new Sham Wow
absorb 400% more tears !

Oh, the pain.

Browns are up 6-0 with 2:54 to go in the first half.

UPDATE: Browns just scored on a 10 yard run by Chris Jennings. The drive ran 8 plays, 74 yards in 3:35.  Browns are up 13-0 with 41 seconds left in the first half.

The Steelers look slow offensively.  Steeler defense just has not shown up yet.

Quinn to Sign Reform Legislation on Anniversary of Blagojevich Arrest

Gotta give Pat Quinn credit for having a sense of humor.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Gov. Pat Quinn says he will sign into law the state’s first-ever limits on campaign contributions on Wednesday — exactly one year after his predecessor and onetime ally Rod Blagojevich was roused from bed and arrested on federal corruption charges.

Quinn acknowledged today that the campaign reform measure is “not perfect,” but said it’s a crucial first step.

“It’s substantial progress and I think it’ll make a great difference in making elections more competitive in Illinois and more open,” Quinn said this afternoon following an appearance before the Tribune’s editorial board.

The law would for the first time set limits on how much donors can give to political campaigns, though powerful legislative bosses get a pass on some restrictions. The law won’t impact next year’s elections since the money restrictions don’t go into effect until 2011.

Quinn’s signature would mark the end of a nearly year-long battle following Blagojevich’s arrest to limit the amount of money that flows into elections. Quinn vetoed an earlier version of the bill this summer after public push-back from reform groups, who have signed on in support of the latest measure in an effort to put some form of limits on the books.

Quinn said he decided to sign the bill on the anniversary of Blagojevich’s arrest to encourage citizens to look back on the past year and the changes that have been implemented since Blagojevich’s ouster.

Irony, thy name is Blagojevich.

Evidence Stolen in Blagojevich Case

I’d like to let this go without comment, but, well, it’s Blagojevich.

Evidence stolen from his attorney’s office?

From the Chicago Tribune:

Chicago police were investigating a burglary at the offices of attorneys for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich in which at least one computer containing undercover recordings from the sweeping corruption case was stolen, sources said.

The break-in took place about 4 a.m. at the law offices of Sam Adam and his son, Sam Adam Jr., in the 6100 block of South Ellis Avenue, police and Sam Adam Jr. said.

Contrary to early statements by a police News Affairs officer who referred calls regarding the burglary to the FBI, the FBI is not involved in the investigation, FBI Chicago office spokesman Ross Rice said in a statement.

The burglars set off an alarm but escaped the area. Investigative sources said there are no suspects.

Chicago police said eight computers and a safe were taken from the office, but they could not say what information the computers contained.

"It could be a happenstance burglary. All leads will be followed," said Chicago Police Deputy Supt. Steve Peterson.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago declined to comment on the incident or the theft of evidence in the case.

It is unclear if the burglary could delay Blagojevich’s trial scheduled for June.

This just sounds too convenient.

Swiss Slam Islam, Vote to Ban New Minarets

Minarets

I just can’t wrap my head around this one.

The Swiss, who already guarantee freedom of religion in their constitution, passed a Constitutional ban on the construction of new minarets.

Somehow, some way, minarets were linked with political activism by the right wing in Switzerland.

From the New York Times:

In a vote that displayed a widespread anxiety about Islam and undermined the country’s reputation for religious tolerance, the Swiss on Sunday overwhelmingly imposed a national ban on the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques, in a referendum drawn up by the far right and opposed by the government.

The referendum, which passed with a clear majority of 57.5 percent of the voters and in 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, was a victory for the right. The vote against was 42.5 percent. Because the ban gained a majority of votes and passed in a majority of the cantons, it will be added to the Constitution.

The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

The Swiss government said it would respect the vote and sought to reassure the Muslim population — mostly immigrants from other parts of Europe, like Kosovo and Turkey — that the minaret ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.”

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the justice minister, said the result “reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies.”

While such concerns “have to be taken seriously,” she said in a statement, “The Federal Council takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies.”

The primary purpose of a minaret is "to provide a vantage point from which the call to prayer (adhan) is made," according to Wikipedia. "Minarets also function as air conditioning mechanisms: as the sun heats the dome, air is drawn in through open windows then up and out of the minaret, thereby providing natural ventilation."

Swiss Anti-Minaret Campaign Poster

The secret to the success of this vote is the trashy campaign waged by the Swiss weird right. According to the NYTimes:

Campaign posters depicting a Swiss flag sprouting black, missile-shaped minarets alongside a woman shrouded in a niqab, a head-to-toe veil that shows only the eyes, starkly illustrated the determination of the right to play on deep-rooted fears that Muslim immigration would lead to an erosion of Swiss values.

In a recent televised debate, Ulrich Schlüer, a member of Parliament from the S.V.P., said minarets were a symbol of “the political will to take power” and establish Shariah, or religious law.

He also claimed that Switzerland already suffered from thousands of forced marriages.

Some analysis from Al Jazeera:

Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Bern, the Swiss capital, said: "There is concern in Switzerland undoubtedly about what is being seen as the spread of radical Islam, but the Muslim community here has always been regarded as fairly moderate.

"They were saying that they wanted to see this proposal defeated, so I’m sure it is a real shock to them that at the moment we are seeing that most of the people here have voted in favour of [the ban]."

After the official results were known, far-right politicians celebrated, while the government sought to assure the Muslim minority that a ban on minarets was "not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture".

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Switzerland’s justice minister, said the result "reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies".

"These concerns have to be taken seriously … However, the Federal Council takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies," she said.

Farhad Afshar, who heads the Co-ordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland, said that "the most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote."

Supporters of the ban say minarets represent the growth of an alien ideology and legal system that have no place in the Swiss democracy.

"Forced marriages and other things like cemeteries separating the pure and impure – we don’t have that in Switzerland, and we do not want to introduce it," Ulrich Schlueer, co-president of the Initiative Committee to ban minarets, said.

Therefore, there’s no room for minarets in Switzerland."

But Switzerland’s Muslims have said that the referendum is fuelling [sic] anti-Islamic feeling in the country.

"The initiators have achieved something everyone wanted to prevent, and that is to influence and change the relations to Muslims and their social integration in a negative way," Taner Hatipoglu, the president of the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Zurich, said.

Muslims in Switzerland say they are frightened by the vote, and the apparent rise of anti-Islam hatred.

What would have happened if the Swiss had put a referendum on the ballot to ban the construction of new steeples for Christian churches? Imagine the outcry that would ensue if an anti-steeple initiative made it to ballot in the United States…

White House Party-Crashers Met Obama; Secret Service is Sorry (Really…)

In a photo released by the White House, President Obama greeted Michaele and Tareq Salahi, right, at his first state dinner on Tuesday.

The Secret Service is sorry.

Really, really sorry.

Michaele and Tareq Salahi, the Virginia couple who crashed President Obama’s first state dinner, met President Obama.

From the New York Times:

President Obama and his wife, Michelle, had a face-to-face encounter with the couple who sneaked into a state dinner at the White House this week, White House officials acknowledged on Friday. The revelation underscored the seriousness of the security breach and prompted an abject apology from the Secret Service.

A White House spokesman said that the couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi of Virginia, met and shook hands with the president and the first lady in the receiving line in the Blue Room, as the Obamas greeted each of their 400 invited guests Tuesday night before moving to a tent on the South Lawn for dinner.

That disclosure coincided with a statement from the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, saying that his agency was “deeply concerned and embarrassed” by the events. Secret Service officials said the agency wanted to interview everyone connected with the episode, including the Salahis, and had not ruled out criminal charges.

“The preliminary findings of our internal investigation have determined established protocols were not followed at an initial checkpoint, verifying that two individuals were on the guest list,” Mr. Sullivan said.

“Although these individuals went through magnetometers and other levels of screening, they should have been prohibited from entering the event entirely,” Mr. Sullivan said. “That failing is ours.”

Again, in our post-9/11-security-hyped world, this just blows me away. After all, the Secret Service didn’t take office for the first time last January.

Will the Catholic Church in D.C. Stop Feeding Homeless Over Gay Marriage?

I hope Allison Kilkenny’s conclusions are off-base regarding the decision of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington to stop "social service programs" in the District of Columbia because of gay marriage.

From the Huffington Post:

A few days ago, I wrote about Goldman Sachs’s transition from a bank holding company into a public relations disaster machine. I argued that Goldman’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, has been behaving like he wants to be attacked by a ferocious mob.

Now, it appears the Catholic church is determined to unseat Blankfein in the "Inexplicably Evil Organization Most Disconnected From Real People" category.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Yup, that’s right. If gay folk can marry, the Catholic church refuses to feed the homeless.

Well, that all seems very reasonable. After all, the state would force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages, and celebrate the beastly unions, right?

Kilkenny offers a postscript to her article, "In the original article, I wrote that Jesus condemned homosexuality. However, that’s not true. The condemning homosexuality bit is written in Leviticus. Sorry, Jesus." Acutally, Jesus said nothing at all about sex or sexuality beyond his comments regarding marriage fidelity and divorce.

The Washington Post appears to support Kilkenny’s conclusions:

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can’t do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem."

This debate over same-sex marriage is so incredibly heated right now. I understand that the Catholic Church does not support same-sex marriage. How can they possibly use this one issue to justify turning their backs on those very people Christ calls us to serve?

According to the Post article, council members in D.C. don’t seem phased:

The church’s influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

"They don’t represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

This from council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large):

"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many people back in the 1950s and ’60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God."

Allow me to quote Amos the prophet, "Thus says the LORD: For three crimes of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke my word; Because they sell the just man for silver, and the poor man for a pair of sandals. They trample the heads of the weak into the dust of the earth, and force the lowly out of the way." (Amos 2:6-7)

More here from the Washington Post.

Roger Ailes for President, and Fox will Film the End of the World

Roger Ailes laughing to the end.

When I first heard the other day that Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, was considering a run for the office of President of the United States, I had a bit of a chuckle. It would be quite amusing to see him run, and watch Fox "news" anchors trip all over itself trying to flaunt or break federal election laws as they trip all over themselves campaigning for him.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews flirted with a run for the U.S. Senate, but abandoned the run shortly after rumors of his campaign first began circulating last December. The issue? Campaign finance questions relating to Matthews position on MSNBC’s Hardball. Would he be able to keep his coveted job as a news anchor and political commentator while running for the senate? Would MSNBC face legal issues if Matthews remained on the air while campaigning?

No doubt. And no doubt Matthews could have taken a leave of absence from his job, or just quit, if he really wanted to run.

At any rate, Matthews never did run, and I’m glad. We need more Hardball.

A candidacy by Roger Ailes bothers me for different reasons.

Yes, the White House had its fun this week dissing Fox, but they really need to dial it down now. I’m not going waste time analyzing the flaws of Fox. However, knowing that anything at all can happen in a political campaign, I was momentarily concerned about a potential run by Ailes.

Then I remembered this from 2006.

David Friend’s book, Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11, received incredible reviews, and Friend’s website has become a focal point for people’s memories and reflections.

What has escaped the attention of many when the book was published was a disturbing quote in the book from Roger Ailes. Friend asked him, "What was the significance of two billion people being able to watch the same thing at the same time on September 11?" Ailes’ response was extremely disturbing:

"The implications from a television standpoint are simply that: When the end of the world comes, we’ll be able to cover it live until the last camera goes out. I believe I mean it literally. If you can witness something like [9/11] by two billion people, live, then there’s nothing that can’t be covered. And if we get into a world war, with nuclear weapons, I assume we’ll be covering it live."

"It’s horrifying to think about. But maybe God set it up that way. You can either figure out how to live in freedom…and hope, or you can watch yourselves burn to death. Nine-eleven is a warning shot that says: Look, this can go either way. It’s your choice, folks."

There you have the heart and soul of Robert Ailes. Does he really believe that the end is near, and Fox News will somehow be blest to cover the final battle? When pressed as to whether he really meant that we would all be watching the Apocalypse live on FOX, Ailes responded, "I believe I mean it literally."

Would an Ailes Administration work to fashion public policy to bring us to the brink, the Final Battle, attempt to lead us to Armageddon?

You betcha. Roger "literally" answered that for us.

Cowboys Should Have Hired Hank Hill to Design Stadium

From ESPN:

Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher was firm in his stance Saturday that the jumbo videoboard at Cowboys Stadium presents “a lot of issues” and the NFL’s competition committee that he co-chairs is expected to have a conference call in the near future to discuss the problem.

Titans backup punter A.J. Trapasso hit the large video screen that hangs over the field during the third quarter of the $1.2 billion stadium’s inaugural preseason game Friday night. There was confusion because the officiating crew apparently did not see the ball strike the board. Fisher threw his red flag, asking for a replay, even though the play was not reviewable.

“It wasn’t [reviewable] last night … not sure about the future,” Mike Pereira, the NFL’s vice president of officiating, said via a text message.

The Cowboys would have been better off letting Hank Hill design the stadium.

More here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/

Neil Hayes Takes Blackhawks’ Patrick Kane to Task

It didn’t take long for the Sun-Times’ Neil Hayes to put Chicago Blackhawks’ Patrick Kane in his place.  At 20-years-old, Kane is facing a felony charge allegedly over a $0.20 dispute with a 62-year-old Buffalo cab driver.  According to police, the driver claims he was roughed up enough to have had his glasses broken.

I’ll let Hayes speak first:

Now one of the franchise’s poster boys, one of the ‘‘core’’ players the team is determined to build around, is arrested for roughing up a cabbie who couldn’t produce exact change after Kane gave him $15 for a $13.80 fare. That’s right, Hawks fans, your millionaire, high-scoring forward — who is due a lucrative contract after next season — is accused of becoming unhinged when a cab driver couldn’t find two dimes to rub together.

Let’s hope there are facts in this story that have yet to surface and will cast Kane in a less humiliating light. Otherwise, this could be the most worrisome offseason development of all for the Hawks. If true, how can anyone defend such idiotic behavior from someone so prominent in the organization?

Only two things can prevent Kane, Jonathan Toews, Kris Versteeg and other young players from becoming cornerstones: injuries or their inability to mature on and off the ice. That Kane would be accused of something so asinine does not mean that this will be the first of many such incidents. Kane has been a model citizen to this point, as far as anyone knows, and probably deserves the benefit of the doubt for that reason. The Hawks declined to comment publicly until more facts are known. Kane’s mother, when contacted by the Sun-Times, did the same, which is probably wise. But this is not a good sign.

No, it’s not a good sign.  The Blackhawks need to comment.  The ‘Hawks need to tell us that this type of alleged behavior is not fitting for a member of their organization.  The ‘Hawks need to send a message loud and clear to other young people — and adults — that this is not the way to handle a petty dispute.

“No comment” isn’t enough.

Hayes again:

The bottom line is, good as he is, Kane has to improve markedly for he and the Hawks to be the player and team they aspire to be. There are better ways to build strength, toughness and refine his all-around game than playing enforcer with cab drivers three times his age at 4 a.m. after a night on the town.

Kane reportedly has entered a plea of not guilty. If this case goes to trial, those who believe he is less star than product of NHL rule changes meant to encourage more speed and scoring might suggest he show the jury his career highlights to prove he is incapable of causing bodily harm. Then again, he could’ve avoided the whole ugly episode had he uttered three simple words that every millionaire athlete should use in such situations: Keep the change.

Absolutely.

Look, young people act stupidly sometimes.  So do adults.  But a millionaire allegedly roughing up a cab driver over $0.20 takes entitlement to a whole new level.

Step up, kid.  You’re not the man yet.