Schakowsky on Countdown
ArchPundit
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
2009
Quote of the Day
“I don’t think this defendant in all honesty … fully understands the position he finds himself in,” said U.S. District Judge James Zagel.
He never has, he never has.
Small Fixes, Big Safety Gains
There is some good in Chicago:
Many Chicago streets are not designed for cyclists, said Sadowsky, and need engineering changes, such as more lighting, fewer parked cars and lane adjustments to reduce collisions.
And particular intersections present safety issues, Sadowsky said. The one where Fabeck was killed has an overpass.
Another problematic intersection with heavy congestion is Kedzie Boulevard and Armitage Avenue, he said. There were two deaths resulting from bike-car collisions within a year: Amanda Annis, 24, and Blanca Ocasio, 19.
The alliance has worked with the CTA to reduce congestion at that intersection by moving a bus stop from the east side of Kedzie to the west, said Sadowsky.
“We also removed parking on Kedzie,” Sadowsky said. “There was a sign that was too close to the intersection that made it difficult for cars turning to see pedestrians and cyclists,” he said adding that there are ongoing discussions with aldermen to put a bicycle lane on Kedzie Boulevard between North Avenue and Palmer Boulevard.
This level of cooperation never would have happened in years past. It still needs improvement, but one of the most positive aspects is that the alliance is able to provide CTA and the city relatively low cost fixes. The Active Transportation Alliance is doing excellent work. One thing I’d suggest for their web site is some explicit links to road safety courses for cyclists. They are immensely helpful in teaching people who commute safety.
Oh, and they are hiring so those out there looking for a good progressive job–take a look.
Blagojevich Denied Permission to Travel to Costa Rica
CHICAGO (CBS) ? District Judge James B. Zagel said NO to giving former Gov. Rod Blagojevich permission to travel to Costa Rica for TV show.
Blagojevich appeared in court at 11 a.m. Tuesday, asking for permission to travel to Costa Rica to appear on the NBC reality program “I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here,” which will be filmed in June.
Blagojevich was ordered to surrender his passport when he was hit with federal corruption charges, so he asked U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel for permission in which he said no.
That said, Eric Zorn came up with the best arguments to let him go:
1. He’ll make money for his legal defense.
NBC won’t say how much, but every dollar he earns is one we won’t have to pay.
2. He’ll humiliate himself.
Assuming Your Honor did not see the first American version of this program when it aired in 2003 and that your law clerks have better things to do, I took the liberty of researching that sorry moment in broadcast history.
Contestants assembled in an Australian rain forest and had to perform various unpleasant stunts as part of the competition.
For example, Melissa Rivers had to place insects, worms and rats into her transparent clown pants.
Alana Stewart had to use only her teeth to remove tokens from tanks containing such creatures as cockroaches, spiders and an angry opossum.
Downtown Julie Brown had to sit in a tank of leeches, and “Stuttering John” Melendez had to wade through a swamp populated by snakes and eels. (See the entire rundown at What awaits Blago in the jungles of Costa Rica? )
Who wants to see Blagojevich engaged in such grotesque self-abasement? I believe I speak for the vast majority of Illinoisans when I say, we do.
3. He might not come back.
Yes, technically, the infinitesimal risk that he’d flee or try to fight extradition back to the United States is a reason not to let Blagojevich go to Costa Rica.
But come on. How great would it be if he never came back? We’d save millions not having to try and possibly imprison him. And his punishment—permanent exile—would fit his alleged crimes well enough for most of us.
Number 3 is growing on me.
Today’s Tosser: Illinois Review
It’s so painful to read this garbage:
Communist dictator Fidel Castro siezed power by force fifty years ago and never faced the voters in an honest election since. He now likes to pretend to be “retired” so that little brother Raul can call himself “El Presidente” de Cuba. Yet that didn’t stop Fidel from recently receiving a delegation of gullible U.S. House members and telling them to please ask President Obama how Fidel can help him. In a typical minimalist and bland nobody is really bad on the Left statement, President Obama wonders aloud if the government of Cuba could please stop stealing a hefty percentage of US currency that is sent to Cubans from their relatives in the US.
Here are some things the Castro brothers could do if they are really interested in improving relations with western democracies. They could release more than 200 political prisoners including more than forty librarians whose only crime was to ask that a wider selection of western books could be displayed on their shelves. Too subversive said Fidel, go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, and we might let you out in ten years if we feel like it. So much for human rights and due process in Cuba.
Actually western democracies generally have formal relations with Cuba. One can see the embassies Cuba keeps in countries around the world and embassies or such in Cuba
Most of the world figured out a long time ago that the US policy towards Cuba didn’t work. The embago has been in place for 47 years and it has accomplished….what?
During the Cold War it made some sense. However, now it is a long failed policy that despite all empirical evidence of its failing, the right wants to continue.
What will destabilize the Castros and the current regime is economic engagement. Instead of an unproductive embargo, the way to bring greater freedom to the Cuban people is to open up economic activity and flood the island with dollars and visitors. It won’t be immediate, but after 47 years of failure, I’m not sure what the rush would be. Showing people freedom and a better way of life will bring about change much faster.
Daily Dolt: Illinois Review
Stupid or lying—who knows at this point.
Now we know what last Friday’s national public school “Day of Silence “ was really all about. It was to get us all prepared for intellectual duct tape over our mouths when it comes to certain topics.
A Congressional vote is expected this week that would eventually silence any and all criticism of sexually-controversial behavior by making the exercise of free speech about the issue a “hate crime”.
A markup vote on the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is expected in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. The measure (H.R. 1913) is sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), and would add 30 sexual orientations (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association) to the list of classes federally- protected from the so-called “hate crimes”.
Criticizing incest, for example, would be a federal crime with the passage of HR 1913. Incest would be added as another federally-protected sexual orientation.
It’s hard to imagine the level of idiocy to write this in relation to this bill.
Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person–
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
IR’s fundamental problem is that they don’t understand the concept of aggravating circumstance in the law. No speech is outlawed by this law, motivation as demonstrated potentially through speech can be an aggravating circumstance to an already existing violation of the law.
The utter stupidity of claiming that this law leads to criminalizing speech is so staggering it’s hard to comprehend.
All that said–go IR, go–circle ’em up and keep firing at your best candidate.
Daily Dolt: Mark Kirk
Even more disturbing from Progress Illinois
KIRK: I think that the decision to raise taxes by 50 percent in Illinois is political suicide. It’s sort of like, in the Navy, when you see a guy charge a machine gun nest, you say he’s the bravest guy in the world right until he got shot. And I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes by that degree.
Unfortunate
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Better Know a District - Illinois' 18th - Aaron Schock | ||||
|
||||
The unfortunate part? Schock did a pretty good job. A little stiff, but that’s probably a good thing when are 26.
Today’s Tosser: Mark Kirk
CHICAGO – Congressman Mark Kirk is standing by his earlier comments that Illinois residents “are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes” as much as Gov. Pat Quinn is proposing.
Kirk says the many people facing unemployment don’t need a tax increase. Quinn has proposed a graduated income tax increase to help fill an $11.5 billion deficit.
Kirk appeared in Chicago on Thursday to introduce legislation increasing funds to target illegal arms smuggling. The Republican also says an increase in suburban heroin overdose deaths is linked to the underground drug and arms trade with Mexico.
Kirk says he’ll decide by early May whether to run for governor against Quinn.
As I said earlier, I’ve made the initial mistake before. Hyperbole doesn’t sound that crazy because in your mind it’s just a joke or exaggeration for effect, but when it suggests violence, it’s not okay to stand by the statement. It really wasn’t a big deal until he stood by it. Now, it’s a real problem.
Rich points out the essential problem:
As I’ve been telling people in comments, if Kirk believes this sort of language is perfectly acceptable and not irresponsible, then he ought to go ahead and make it a part of his campaign routine and see how that works for him.
Hint: It won’t.
…Adding… A commenter notes…
Can he imagine how quickly a student at school would be hauled down to the office if a student announced at school “Students are ready to shoot anyone increasing the homework load by that extent”?
Now do you get it?
And if you still don’t, substitute “student at school” with “employee at work” or some such thing.
There are thousands of ways of expressing very real anger at taxes in Illinios and not bring up violence. Kirk just refuses to do that.
Teabagging Photos
From yesterday are right here