*
I was no fan of Ran$burg, but even he didn't piss me off this early in the game. Already I'm feeling a bit duped by Ardi$. (First hint: The guy is entirely too tan.) How has the man lied? Let me count the ways...
Election night Ardi$ said, "I have no one in mind for the open at large seat."
What he really meant: "I have my buddies Shadid (who endorsed Manning)and Rep. Leitch working hard to overturn the law in order to get Jacob appointed to the council."
Ardi$ told the JPStar, "Anyone interested in the seat should submit a resume and letter to the mayors' office."
What he really meant: "Poor suckers. I have my buddies Shadid and Leitch working to overturn the law and get an amendment so that I can appoint Jacob to the council."
Upon learning that 18 candidates had applied for the position, Ardi$ told the WEEK T.V., "I think that the cream will rise to the top."
What he really meant: "I know the foam will rise to the top."
Ardi$ said, "I will be speaking with all the candidates this week."
What he really meant: "Poor, stupid Bastards. They actually think they have a chance."
Ardi$ said: "I wanted the new law so that the council would have the opportunity to consider all 18 candidates."
What he really meant: "Bow to me. I am all powerful. I greased the wheels of Springfield so that I could appoint Jacob to the council."
Look for more lies as the decision becomes official. Watch. It will be something to the effect of, "The Council was most comfortable with Jacob because of his strong business experience and his devotion (i.e., checks written) to the community."
What he really means: "Hee. Hee. I don't have to fund raise in four years!!! My campaign is paid for!!! My contacts in Springfield are secure! I am the master and commander of Peoria!!!"
Polly predicts the vote on Jacob will be 9 to 1 with Sandberg the only dissenter. (The more the things change the more they stay the same.)
It is possible, because Council Wanna-Be Angela Anderson endorsed Manning in the last election, that the vote will be 8 to 2, but highly unlikely. George Shadid also supported overturning the liquor license law and Shadid endorsed Manning. Being the heavyweight, there is no way that Manning is going to snub Shadid. Someone stick a fork in Anderson. By now she's gotta be done. Although vastly unqualified for office, you gotta feel a bit bad for her.
To re-cap: Ardis said one thing to the public, "Everyone will be considered." But was actually pulling strings with big wigs in secret. Hmmm.... who does THAT sound like?
Wednesday, June 8
Meet Your New At Large Councilman... George Jacob
I sat up in bed in the middle of the night and realized I had broken the first rule of Peoria politics: Follow the money.
Clearly the new law allowing liquor license holders to sit on the City Council was done for Peoria. The timing is WAY too obvious. No one tried to hide this fact, in fact, Leitch was happy to own up to it. (When the time comes, remind me to vote Shadid and Leitch out of office.)
Pat Sullivan would have been a good at-large council person, he has done a lot for riverfront development and was even willing to divest from his popular bar. I thought for sure that long time friend Ardis would gift him his seat.
But since when has doing good, being good, and wanting to do more good counted for crap in Peoria?
Follow the money.
Of course they are going to choose the guy who was given his business by Daddy. Of course they're going to choose someone who hasn't done anything for the community except write checks. The biggest hint was Leitch. Follow the money. Follow the campaign money.
So, welcome Mr. Jacob, we look forward to you furthering your beer distribution business at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Suckers.
Clearly the new law allowing liquor license holders to sit on the City Council was done for Peoria. The timing is WAY too obvious. No one tried to hide this fact, in fact, Leitch was happy to own up to it. (When the time comes, remind me to vote Shadid and Leitch out of office.)
Pat Sullivan would have been a good at-large council person, he has done a lot for riverfront development and was even willing to divest from his popular bar. I thought for sure that long time friend Ardis would gift him his seat.
But since when has doing good, being good, and wanting to do more good counted for crap in Peoria?
Follow the money.
Of course they are going to choose the guy who was given his business by Daddy. Of course they're going to choose someone who hasn't done anything for the community except write checks. The biggest hint was Leitch. Follow the money. Follow the campaign money.
So, welcome Mr. Jacob, we look forward to you furthering your beer distribution business at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Suckers.
Sunday, June 5
Thigh High Stockings - It's never too early to start!
When I heard about the politician in Alabama who wanted to pass legislation banning cheerleading routines that were deemed too sexy, I scoffed. Old fart. Probably gets a glimpse of a girls ankle and goes googly eyed. But after today I think he might have a point. I'm not prude. I like nookie when I can get it. I enjoy seeing beautiful women too. I don't like government playing parent, that's what parents are for. But after today I'm wondering where all the parents have gone.
I attended my niece's ballet recital today. In the first routine the girls in the number were ages nine through high school. The music/dance was jazz. What were these girls wearing? The costume consisted of pink sequin tube top (strapless), very tight black mini shorts, and to top it off, black thigh high fish net stockings with a seam up the back.
There are only two legitimate places women wear thigh high fish nets: The bedroom or on stage at Big Al's. If full grown women want to sexualize themselves, dandy. Go for it sister - your body, your right. Hell, if my chest was a bit bigger and my ass a whole lot smaller, I might join you. But on nine year old girls? Why are these parents allowing their daughters to be sexualized at such a young age? I was having flashbacks of Jon Benet Ramsey.
I'm not Sandra Fritz mind you. I've been to Big Al's. I felt weird and uncomfortable, but I didn't find it gross or nasty. Frankly the women on stage looked pretty damn bored.
The men at today's show, many of them fathers, looked very uncomfortable. I would be too, if my daughter was strutting around that way in lingerie - regardless of how old she was. There are somethings a parent (or child) should never have to see.
Black, thigh high stockings on elementary students? Are these parents nuts, completely asleep at the wheel, or what?! Maybe this country has been so overexposed to sexuality we don't really take notice anymore even when children are involved. If a little girl is strutting in front of several hundred people in next to nothing, can we really expect that she won't have sex by junior high? Aren't we essentially saying that sex isn't a big deal?
In all honesty, the girls were all incredibly talented and each likely has a future in dance. The dance was sexy, but I was too blown away by the costume to really take notes on how much undulating was occurring. Maybe this is what these women will choose to do on stage or in rock videos later, but at nine it shouldn't be an option.
I think the Alabama politician wanting to abolish sexy cheerleading overstepped the reasonable bounds of government. But Buddy, I sure do see your point. And I definitely feel your pain.
I attended my niece's ballet recital today. In the first routine the girls in the number were ages nine through high school. The music/dance was jazz. What were these girls wearing? The costume consisted of pink sequin tube top (strapless), very tight black mini shorts, and to top it off, black thigh high fish net stockings with a seam up the back.
There are only two legitimate places women wear thigh high fish nets: The bedroom or on stage at Big Al's. If full grown women want to sexualize themselves, dandy. Go for it sister - your body, your right. Hell, if my chest was a bit bigger and my ass a whole lot smaller, I might join you. But on nine year old girls? Why are these parents allowing their daughters to be sexualized at such a young age? I was having flashbacks of Jon Benet Ramsey.
I'm not Sandra Fritz mind you. I've been to Big Al's. I felt weird and uncomfortable, but I didn't find it gross or nasty. Frankly the women on stage looked pretty damn bored.
The men at today's show, many of them fathers, looked very uncomfortable. I would be too, if my daughter was strutting around that way in lingerie - regardless of how old she was. There are somethings a parent (or child) should never have to see.
Black, thigh high stockings on elementary students? Are these parents nuts, completely asleep at the wheel, or what?! Maybe this country has been so overexposed to sexuality we don't really take notice anymore even when children are involved. If a little girl is strutting in front of several hundred people in next to nothing, can we really expect that she won't have sex by junior high? Aren't we essentially saying that sex isn't a big deal?
In all honesty, the girls were all incredibly talented and each likely has a future in dance. The dance was sexy, but I was too blown away by the costume to really take notes on how much undulating was occurring. Maybe this is what these women will choose to do on stage or in rock videos later, but at nine it shouldn't be an option.
I think the Alabama politician wanting to abolish sexy cheerleading overstepped the reasonable bounds of government. But Buddy, I sure do see your point. And I definitely feel your pain.
Saturday, June 4
New Generation of Leadership My Ass!
*
I especially love this part: "Leitch said Friday that he proposed the amendment at the urging of Peoria attorney and lobbyist Matt Jones on Ardis' behalf, so the mayor and other council members could enjoy the flexibility of considering all 18 candidates."
Seems to me that having an old law (designed to prevent abuse) overturned so that a friend can vote with you on the council is a rather Ran$burg type thing to do.
From Today's Journal Star:
Holding your liquor (license), public office too Governor signs exemption that opens door to some Peoria council candidates
Saturday, June 4, 2005
BY MATT BUEDEL
OF THE JOURNAL STAR
PEORIA - Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed legislation Friday allowing some public officials to hold liquor licenses, which would give some Peoria City Council candidates the right to retain their licenses if chosen to fill a vacant at-large seat.
Senate Bill 945 changed existing law to permit people with a "direct interest" in the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol to become members of city councils or county boards, though mayors, board presidents and law enforcing public officials still can't hold liquor licenses.
Officials who do hold licenses will be banned from voting on liquor-related matters under the new law.
Three of the 18 candidates for the City Council seat vacated by Mayor Jim Ardis after he won election in April have liquor licenses and under the old law would have had to give them up if chosen to fill the seat.
Those candidates are Mary Ardapple Dierker, owner of Apple's Bakery Northside Market, George Jacob, president of Brewer's Distributing Co., and Patrick Sullivan, a Peoria developer and owner of Kelleher's Irish Pub.
Sullivan on Friday dismissed the notion that the three received any special treatment and called the original law outdated. He said the exclusion of people who have liquor licenses from public office makes them "second-class citizens."
"I do what I'm supposed to do," he said. "Anyone in the world can run for office. . . . Why am I being punished?"
Asked if he would have given up his license if he was chosen for the vacated council seat, Sullivan said, "Yes."
"I feel that strongly about this city," he added.
Jacob and Ardapple Dierker could not be reached Friday afternoon.
Dan Gillette, who unsuccessfully ran for the 5th District Council seat in April and is vying for the open at-large seat, said the change to state law doesn't impact the selection process for a new council person.
"I don't want to say it's right and I don't want to say it's wrong," he said. "I think the best man will win the job."
Several other candidates could not be reached for comment Friday.
State Sen. Terry Link, D-Lake Bluff, proposed the Senate bill May 19. State Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria, sponsored the bill in the House and proposed an amendment that made the bill effective as soon as the governor signed it.
Leitch said Friday that he proposed the amendment at the urging of Peoria attorney and lobbyist Matt Jones on Ardis' behalf, so the mayor and other council members could enjoy the flexibility of considering all 18 candidates.
Ardis, who didn't return phone calls Friday afternoon, has said he and the council should fill the position by early July.
So... Ardis pulled Leitch's strings so he and the council could consider all 18 candidates.
I don't think so.
Try one candidate.
Good buddy Pat Sullivan.
I especially love this part: "Leitch said Friday that he proposed the amendment at the urging of Peoria attorney and lobbyist Matt Jones on Ardis' behalf, so the mayor and other council members could enjoy the flexibility of considering all 18 candidates."
Seems to me that having an old law (designed to prevent abuse) overturned so that a friend can vote with you on the council is a rather Ran$burg type thing to do.
From Today's Journal Star:
Holding your liquor (license), public office too Governor signs exemption that opens door to some Peoria council candidates
Saturday, June 4, 2005
BY MATT BUEDEL
OF THE JOURNAL STAR
PEORIA - Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed legislation Friday allowing some public officials to hold liquor licenses, which would give some Peoria City Council candidates the right to retain their licenses if chosen to fill a vacant at-large seat.
Senate Bill 945 changed existing law to permit people with a "direct interest" in the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol to become members of city councils or county boards, though mayors, board presidents and law enforcing public officials still can't hold liquor licenses.
Officials who do hold licenses will be banned from voting on liquor-related matters under the new law.
Three of the 18 candidates for the City Council seat vacated by Mayor Jim Ardis after he won election in April have liquor licenses and under the old law would have had to give them up if chosen to fill the seat.
Those candidates are Mary Ardapple Dierker, owner of Apple's Bakery Northside Market, George Jacob, president of Brewer's Distributing Co., and Patrick Sullivan, a Peoria developer and owner of Kelleher's Irish Pub.
Sullivan on Friday dismissed the notion that the three received any special treatment and called the original law outdated. He said the exclusion of people who have liquor licenses from public office makes them "second-class citizens."
"I do what I'm supposed to do," he said. "Anyone in the world can run for office. . . . Why am I being punished?"
Asked if he would have given up his license if he was chosen for the vacated council seat, Sullivan said, "Yes."
"I feel that strongly about this city," he added.
Jacob and Ardapple Dierker could not be reached Friday afternoon.
Dan Gillette, who unsuccessfully ran for the 5th District Council seat in April and is vying for the open at-large seat, said the change to state law doesn't impact the selection process for a new council person.
"I don't want to say it's right and I don't want to say it's wrong," he said. "I think the best man will win the job."
Several other candidates could not be reached for comment Friday.
State Sen. Terry Link, D-Lake Bluff, proposed the Senate bill May 19. State Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria, sponsored the bill in the House and proposed an amendment that made the bill effective as soon as the governor signed it.
Leitch said Friday that he proposed the amendment at the urging of Peoria attorney and lobbyist Matt Jones on Ardis' behalf, so the mayor and other council members could enjoy the flexibility of considering all 18 candidates.
Ardis, who didn't return phone calls Friday afternoon, has said he and the council should fill the position by early July.
So... Ardis pulled Leitch's strings so he and the council could consider all 18 candidates.
I don't think so.
Try one candidate.
Good buddy Pat Sullivan.
Friday, June 3
You've Come a Long Way Baby.... Not!
*
The statistic of the day, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.
The statistic of the day, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.
The median earnings of full time, year around Male workers in Peoria:What would native Peorian, Betty Freidan say? Surely not that Corporate Peoria is benefiting from exploiting its' female employees.
$40,879.00
The median earnings of full time, year around Female workers in Peoria:
$25,642.00
Thursday, June 2
Make Your Checks Payable to...
The next time you pay taxes consider the following:
Peoria's current total amount of financed debt: $119,833,038.00No small bills, please.
Your share: $1,061.07
Your family's share
(assumes a household of 2 adults, 2 children): $4,244
If Peoria buys the water company:
Peoria's debt: $371,833,038.00*
(*Assumes purchase price of $220,000,000.00 + financing cost of $32,000,000.00)
Your share: $3,294.42
Your family's share
(assumes a household of 2 adults, 2 children): $13,169.69
(figures based upon 2000 census info)
Who's The Boss? Local 50, Of Course!
*
I thought the firefighters' take over of Peoria was complete upon the recent elections of Ardis, Manning, and Van Auken to City Council. I was naive. Why stop at the City Council when you can take make your boss whine like a little girl? Blago is getting ready to sign a bill that will allow firefighters to run for city elections.
From today's Journal Star:
The article goes on to state that the people wetting themselves at the prospect of this bill becoming law are firefighters themselves, specifically, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association.
From the same article:
I have two questions:
Why couldn't an elected firefighter just abstain from all votes involving the Fire Department? After all, Blago is getting ready to sign a bill that would allow liquor license holders to be elected to city council as long as they abstain from votes involving liquor. There are A LOT of votes involving liquor. There are not nearly as many as votes before the council regarding the Fire Department.
Secondly, why does Chief Modglin fear the prospect of his subordinates having a seat on the Council? Aren't these guys all brothers? Why would a firefighter vote for anything that could jeopardize the safety, well being, and salaries of his fellow firefighters? Makes one wonder about the relationship between the guys fighting the fires and the guys in the administration. Is it possible firefighters view the Chief as someone more in the City's pocket than on their side?
My concern with having city employees or liquor license holders in public office is the same. What if more than one gets elected? In the case of those with liquor licenses it is a real possibility that more than one could be elected. Alcohol issues come before the council at every session. If more than one member has to abstain, ties and deadlocks become likely.
What if you have a ascme city employee, a police officer, and a firefighter on the council? That would be a lot of abstentions and result in a lot of odd votes and decisions - ones that do not reflect the views or the best interests of average Peorians. If you think this possibility is far fetched, think again.
Remember that Unions are very involved in elections. Ask Ardis, Manning and Van Auken how crucial it is to have the firefighters in your (campaign) corner. It is in the realm of possibility that Unions would have their very own members holding office as well as the support of those on the council whose campaigns they financed.
I like the idea of cops, city employees and firefighters in local government. I prefer the idea of the "Average Joe" in office than another MBA or lawyer. However, the council was specifically designed with eleven members, in part, to keep ties and deadlocks to a minimum. If we want to allow any citizen (regardless of his day job) an opportunity to run for office, great, all the better. But serious thought must be given to the re-structuring of local government. In the current legislation under consideration, I don't see anything that would counter potential new abuses.
I thought the firefighters' take over of Peoria was complete upon the recent elections of Ardis, Manning, and Van Auken to City Council. I was naive. Why stop at the City Council when you can take make your boss whine like a little girl? Blago is getting ready to sign a bill that will allow firefighters to run for city elections.
From today's Journal Star:
If Gov. Rod Blagojevich signs House Bill 1338, Tony Ardis, president of Peoria's firefighters union, could run for a seat on the City Council alongside his brother, Mayor Jim Ardis. But he wouldn't.
"First off, one Ardis on the council is plenty," Tony Ardis says jokingly.
The article goes on to state that the people wetting themselves at the prospect of this bill becoming law are firefighters themselves, specifically, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association.
From the same article:
"Technically, the city manager is my boss, but the council is his boss," said Peoria Fire Chief Roy Modglin, who opposes the bill.
I have two questions:
Why couldn't an elected firefighter just abstain from all votes involving the Fire Department? After all, Blago is getting ready to sign a bill that would allow liquor license holders to be elected to city council as long as they abstain from votes involving liquor. There are A LOT of votes involving liquor. There are not nearly as many as votes before the council regarding the Fire Department.
Secondly, why does Chief Modglin fear the prospect of his subordinates having a seat on the Council? Aren't these guys all brothers? Why would a firefighter vote for anything that could jeopardize the safety, well being, and salaries of his fellow firefighters? Makes one wonder about the relationship between the guys fighting the fires and the guys in the administration. Is it possible firefighters view the Chief as someone more in the City's pocket than on their side?
My concern with having city employees or liquor license holders in public office is the same. What if more than one gets elected? In the case of those with liquor licenses it is a real possibility that more than one could be elected. Alcohol issues come before the council at every session. If more than one member has to abstain, ties and deadlocks become likely.
What if you have a ascme city employee, a police officer, and a firefighter on the council? That would be a lot of abstentions and result in a lot of odd votes and decisions - ones that do not reflect the views or the best interests of average Peorians. If you think this possibility is far fetched, think again.
Remember that Unions are very involved in elections. Ask Ardis, Manning and Van Auken how crucial it is to have the firefighters in your (campaign) corner. It is in the realm of possibility that Unions would have their very own members holding office as well as the support of those on the council whose campaigns they financed.
I like the idea of cops, city employees and firefighters in local government. I prefer the idea of the "Average Joe" in office than another MBA or lawyer. However, the council was specifically designed with eleven members, in part, to keep ties and deadlocks to a minimum. If we want to allow any citizen (regardless of his day job) an opportunity to run for office, great, all the better. But serious thought must be given to the re-structuring of local government. In the current legislation under consideration, I don't see anything that would counter potential new abuses.
Wednesday, June 1
If Only All Criminals Were This Stupid...
From today's Peoria Journal Star.
Peorian pleads guilty to stealing vehicle
PEORIA - When police returned a stolen Pontiac Grand Prix to a local car dealership, it didn't take them long to figure out who took the vehicle.
That's because Charles T. Fehil, 34, had left documents from his probation officer and the Illinois Department of Corrections inside.
Fehil, whose court record lists addresses in Peoria and Pekin, pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle and was sentenced to seven years in prison.
According to Peoria County Circuit Court records, police were contacted by the OnStar satellite navigation system that the 2004 car was missing. Police found it outside a house in the 1500 block of South Western Avenue and returned it to Neil Norton Cadillac-Pontiac, 3815 N. War Memorial Drive. There a service technician found the court papers identifying Fehil.
Police found the car in front of the house Fehil was living in at the time. When questioned by police, he confessed to taking the car, court records indicate.
With credit for 18 months already served in Peoria County Jail and "good-time" credit Fehil could get out of prison in about two years.
Peorian pleads guilty to stealing vehicle
PEORIA - When police returned a stolen Pontiac Grand Prix to a local car dealership, it didn't take them long to figure out who took the vehicle.
That's because Charles T. Fehil, 34, had left documents from his probation officer and the Illinois Department of Corrections inside.
Fehil, whose court record lists addresses in Peoria and Pekin, pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle and was sentenced to seven years in prison.
According to Peoria County Circuit Court records, police were contacted by the OnStar satellite navigation system that the 2004 car was missing. Police found it outside a house in the 1500 block of South Western Avenue and returned it to Neil Norton Cadillac-Pontiac, 3815 N. War Memorial Drive. There a service technician found the court papers identifying Fehil.
Police found the car in front of the house Fehil was living in at the time. When questioned by police, he confessed to taking the car, court records indicate.
With credit for 18 months already served in Peoria County Jail and "good-time" credit Fehil could get out of prison in about two years.
Supreme Court: Too Little, WAY too late.
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously over turned the conviction of accounting/consulting firm Arthur Andersen. Three years after the original verdict, The Court concedes serious errors were made.
Andersen used to employ 28,000 people. Today they employ about 200 (most of them are involved with litigation). Ironically, Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice, when the SEC decided to finally do something about Enron. The conviction came after it was revealed Andersen shredded documents from its Enron files. About one ton's worth. One ton. At first, that seems like a whole lot of paper. However, Enron was Andersen's biggest client and Enron was, at the time, the world's seventh largest energy company. One ton is the equivalent to a small two door compact sports car. Moreover, the charges were alleged against a few managers in Andersen's Houston office, not the entire company, which had firms nationwide. Surely prosecutors knew that a conviction would put Andersen as a whole out of business, as so many people were financially devastated when Enron collapsed. Enron resulted in America's biggest bankruptcy, which took down even more than just the company, its 5,000 employees, and investors when it went belly up.
We still anxiously await the convictions of Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling.
Personally, I think Andersen was guilty as hell in its relationship with Enron. That isn't the point. The point is that the wheels of justice can turn so slowly in this country that justice doesn't arrive until the defendant no longer exists. I know we are talking about one court, 12 people, deciding a multitude of the nation's most important cases. However, when the financial well being of nearly 28,000 people are involved, you would think it could get bumped up on the court's "To Do" list.
Even more troubling is the fact that there was not one dissenting vote in overturning the conviction, the decision came only one month after finally hearing the case, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was apparently so appalled with the original verdict that he wrote the eleven page decision himself.
Remember when Bush and Gore were whining about whose turn it was to play president after the 2000 election? The Supreme Court reaction back then was quite swift. In fact, the arguments and decision were carried live, over radio, which before had never been done.
I haven't thought of the 12 top justices in this country as just another pack of glory hound politicians, but now I'm starting wonder.
Andersen used to employ 28,000 people. Today they employ about 200 (most of them are involved with litigation). Ironically, Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice, when the SEC decided to finally do something about Enron. The conviction came after it was revealed Andersen shredded documents from its Enron files. About one ton's worth. One ton. At first, that seems like a whole lot of paper. However, Enron was Andersen's biggest client and Enron was, at the time, the world's seventh largest energy company. One ton is the equivalent to a small two door compact sports car. Moreover, the charges were alleged against a few managers in Andersen's Houston office, not the entire company, which had firms nationwide. Surely prosecutors knew that a conviction would put Andersen as a whole out of business, as so many people were financially devastated when Enron collapsed. Enron resulted in America's biggest bankruptcy, which took down even more than just the company, its 5,000 employees, and investors when it went belly up.
We still anxiously await the convictions of Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling.
Personally, I think Andersen was guilty as hell in its relationship with Enron. That isn't the point. The point is that the wheels of justice can turn so slowly in this country that justice doesn't arrive until the defendant no longer exists. I know we are talking about one court, 12 people, deciding a multitude of the nation's most important cases. However, when the financial well being of nearly 28,000 people are involved, you would think it could get bumped up on the court's "To Do" list.
Even more troubling is the fact that there was not one dissenting vote in overturning the conviction, the decision came only one month after finally hearing the case, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was apparently so appalled with the original verdict that he wrote the eleven page decision himself.
Remember when Bush and Gore were whining about whose turn it was to play president after the 2000 election? The Supreme Court reaction back then was quite swift. In fact, the arguments and decision were carried live, over radio, which before had never been done.
I haven't thought of the 12 top justices in this country as just another pack of glory hound politicians, but now I'm starting wonder.
Pam Adams Just Doesn't Get It
Journal Star columnist Pam Adams can't decide if she likes Oprah. She can't figure if she is a sellout or an inspiration. She can't decide if, by interviewing celebrities and covering topics such as "The Best Apron, The Best Cookie, The Best Sandwich" Oprah is betraying her background by primarily using her powerful platform to cater to white women.
In the whole race and equality debate there is one event that seems to be overlooked. Victory. Not complete, 100% victory, no. There are still stupid, hateful people on the planet. There are still some who are simply "ignorant" and have not been educated as how to best judge a person's worth. (Hint, it isn't the content of pigment in their skin, Jackass.)
Yet, ugly, overt racism has taken a huge beating. Not just in words, but in deeds. Many (no, not all) white people think nothing unusual in having a black boss, professor, doctor, or Secretary of State. But in this country the real proof is in the pocketbook. White women want to be like Oprah.
They want to wear the same clothes, eat the same food, read the same books and they are ready and more than willing to spend a lot of money in order to do so. In this country, that is power. White women take Oprah's advice, and embrace her wisdom. Mothers flock to the television, baby in one arm, basket of laundry in another, to listen to child rearing and marital advice from someone who has no children and isn't married. They buy cookbooks, diet books, and exercise advice from someone who isn't a size two. There is no white counterpart.
However, Pam Adams remains ambivalent about Oprah. Is a black talk show host that promotes recipes and celebrities really furthering the cause?
Are you kidding me?
It isn't like Oprah hasn't taken on many tough issues, including race, during her reign as America's talk show diva. If her show was comprised only of make overs, movie clips, and fashion shows it would still have a lot of value. The Oprah Show is proof that huge strides have been made.
I am part of a generation and socio-economic class that was raised to not to judge people by their color. It was as inherent in our upbringing as "brush your teeth", "eat your vegetables", and "look both ways before crossing the street." It was further enforced in the media and by Hollywood, watching hit shows like Sesame Street, Different Strokes, and The Cosby Show. Claire Huxtable was the ideal for many preteen girls. She was a successful lawyer, a great mom, beautiful, and yes, wealthy. The fact that she was black and rich didn't seem improbable.
After leaving the nest it has been frustrating, to say the least, to learn that many of my African American contemporaries have been raised to distrust and seemingly isolate themselves whenever possible from whites. It often feels like one side is anxious to embrace the other, while the other side is saying, "Lets keep to ourselves. We've been burned before." I can't say that such feelings are not justified, I know they most certainly are. I question their productivity.
I can already hear the voices of protest. "How do you like it?" Well, "What goes around comes around." And, of course, "You haven't experienced near the hurt and rejection we have." All valid. All true. To some extent, even deserved.
My biggest concern is what the future holds for the children that Generation X is now raising. If one side wants to embrace the other only to be rebuffed with hurt and bitterness, what will the rejected side teach today's children? I don't believe today's thirtysomething white Mothers will be teaching overt racism, but something more along the lines of, "Well, Honey, they just don't like us, and there's not a lot we can do about it."
If this nightmare becomes reality, won't that preclude the possibility of anymore black talk show hosts, secretaries of state, bosses, or newspaper columnists? I believe there are dangers by not claiming and not celebrating hard won victories. By not declaring victory in the war against overt racism, subversive racism will flourish.
Regarding Oprah's immense popularity, Adams asks, "why and why now?" Simple. Oprah Winfrey is honest, funny, strong, charming, entertaining and smart as hell. The fact that she is black does not dampen our admiration and respect for her. Frankly, if Oprah says an apron is good, I believe her. I am more willing to fork over extra money for an apron she recommends than one, say, Peter Jennings might recommend.
Pam, the wealthiest and arguably the most powerful woman in America is black. Rejoice!
In the whole race and equality debate there is one event that seems to be overlooked. Victory. Not complete, 100% victory, no. There are still stupid, hateful people on the planet. There are still some who are simply "ignorant" and have not been educated as how to best judge a person's worth. (Hint, it isn't the content of pigment in their skin, Jackass.)
Yet, ugly, overt racism has taken a huge beating. Not just in words, but in deeds. Many (no, not all) white people think nothing unusual in having a black boss, professor, doctor, or Secretary of State. But in this country the real proof is in the pocketbook. White women want to be like Oprah.
They want to wear the same clothes, eat the same food, read the same books and they are ready and more than willing to spend a lot of money in order to do so. In this country, that is power. White women take Oprah's advice, and embrace her wisdom. Mothers flock to the television, baby in one arm, basket of laundry in another, to listen to child rearing and marital advice from someone who has no children and isn't married. They buy cookbooks, diet books, and exercise advice from someone who isn't a size two. There is no white counterpart.
However, Pam Adams remains ambivalent about Oprah. Is a black talk show host that promotes recipes and celebrities really furthering the cause?
Are you kidding me?
It isn't like Oprah hasn't taken on many tough issues, including race, during her reign as America's talk show diva. If her show was comprised only of make overs, movie clips, and fashion shows it would still have a lot of value. The Oprah Show is proof that huge strides have been made.
I am part of a generation and socio-economic class that was raised to not to judge people by their color. It was as inherent in our upbringing as "brush your teeth", "eat your vegetables", and "look both ways before crossing the street." It was further enforced in the media and by Hollywood, watching hit shows like Sesame Street, Different Strokes, and The Cosby Show. Claire Huxtable was the ideal for many preteen girls. She was a successful lawyer, a great mom, beautiful, and yes, wealthy. The fact that she was black and rich didn't seem improbable.
After leaving the nest it has been frustrating, to say the least, to learn that many of my African American contemporaries have been raised to distrust and seemingly isolate themselves whenever possible from whites. It often feels like one side is anxious to embrace the other, while the other side is saying, "Lets keep to ourselves. We've been burned before." I can't say that such feelings are not justified, I know they most certainly are. I question their productivity.
I can already hear the voices of protest. "How do you like it?" Well, "What goes around comes around." And, of course, "You haven't experienced near the hurt and rejection we have." All valid. All true. To some extent, even deserved.
My biggest concern is what the future holds for the children that Generation X is now raising. If one side wants to embrace the other only to be rebuffed with hurt and bitterness, what will the rejected side teach today's children? I don't believe today's thirtysomething white Mothers will be teaching overt racism, but something more along the lines of, "Well, Honey, they just don't like us, and there's not a lot we can do about it."
If this nightmare becomes reality, won't that preclude the possibility of anymore black talk show hosts, secretaries of state, bosses, or newspaper columnists? I believe there are dangers by not claiming and not celebrating hard won victories. By not declaring victory in the war against overt racism, subversive racism will flourish.
Regarding Oprah's immense popularity, Adams asks, "why and why now?" Simple. Oprah Winfrey is honest, funny, strong, charming, entertaining and smart as hell. The fact that she is black does not dampen our admiration and respect for her. Frankly, if Oprah says an apron is good, I believe her. I am more willing to fork over extra money for an apron she recommends than one, say, Peter Jennings might recommend.
Pam, the wealthiest and arguably the most powerful woman in America is black. Rejoice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)