iTax protests to create digital headache

There are those who are trying to push the idea that history occurred Wednesday with the tens of thousands of people who showed up outside the Statehouse in Springpatch to express their support for the Pat Quinn-proposed budget balancing plans that include significant tax increases.

I don’t buy it, because I know better. I am very aware of how scripted Statehouse rallies can be. The real tax fight that we should pay attention to may be one that is already taking place. It is the one that people who use the Internet to do their shopping will fight – because they are going to claim that one of their “God-given rights” (I always wondered if their “God” was Bill Gates) is being threatened.

I AM WRITING, of course, about the report in the Chicago Sun-Times that got picked up Wednesday by countless media outlets – one that says the state wants to start applying their sales tax to every single time some kid spends $0.99 on iTunes to buy a song that he then downloads to his iPod.

At the state’s current tax rate, that is about $0.05 per song. But those nickels add up.

They will pile up even quicker for those people who purchase downloads of movies that they can then watch on their computer.

The simple fact is that all those purchases of entertainment by people who prefer to purchase content for whatever electronic device they carry around with them instead of purchasing a physical disc that can be watched over and over and on multiple players (a compact disc or DVD) are going untaxed these days.

THE COMPANIES THAT are selling these downloads contend they are not local companies that should have to worry about parochial taxes. And I’m sure they will argue that it is too complex for them to have to apply the tax rate of every single state or nation around Planet Earth to which they sell their “product.”

What I do know is that the people who prefer buying their entertainment this way consider the lack of taxation to be one of the perks of this method of purchase.

So in the same way that some people think that newsgathering organizations are absurd for thinking that they should be able to charge any kind of fee for access to their websites (“information should be free!,” they will self-righteously argue), they’re going to claim that “taxation” of their downloads of the latest Lady Gaga song or dull-witted Will Ferrell film (although I must admit to enjoying his performance in “Anchorman”) is immoral.

Perhaps the Tea Party types can recruit more members enraged at government for daring to think that a music purchase can be taxed. At least some Republican legislators are going around saying that kids will revolt, and perhaps get their parents to vote against the political people who tried to impose this dastardly deed (heavy sarcasm most definitely intended) of a tax.

NOW I AM not a big fan of taxation (especially after having to compute my tax returns and figure out how much I owe to the government off of my erratic income as a freelance writer). But it is one of those obligations we have to help support our society.

Which is why I think these people are not showing us some legitimate moral cause. They’re just being cheap – like those people who come up with long, convoluted reasonings why they won’t tip the waitress, instead of just reaching into their wallets and coughing up a buck for the woman who busted her butt while serving them a cup of coffee.

I don’t really have a problem with the concept that buying a song off a compact disc is the same as buying one off a digital download, even though officials with TechAmerica Midwest told the Sun-Times they think that an Illinois tax on downloads would inadvertently hurt sales, which would wind up with less-than-anticipated revenues from such a tax.

I might have an easier time buying that line of logic if it weren’t for the fact that Indiana and Wisconsin already have imposed such a tax, as have 17 other states.

SO THE REALITY is that Illinois, instead of somehow threatening to take away the right to untaxed music that these kids think they have, is really lagging behind.

What gives Gov. Quinn?

Why wasn’t this idea looked into before now – a time when our state’s financial problems threaten not only its own operations but those of all the local governments and school districts across the state that rely on state funding to help pay for some of their operations and programs.

I can’t help but think of people who get worked up over this tax as being cheap and ridiculous.

WHEN THEY START flooding Quinn’s office with their e-mails and text messages (probably more of the latter), I’m wondering how outrageous the digital rhetoric will be.

Then again, with the fact that most of the kids who insist on using these as their primary methods of communication can’t spell worth squat, my real question will be whether any of these “complaints” will be at all comprehendable.

-30-

Emanuel for mayor? Fat chance!

Somewhere near the District of Columbia, long-time Washington writer Sally Quinn is feeling a touch of glee. For it seems that silly column she wrote a few months ago that said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel wanted to be mayor of Chicago has a touch of truth to it.

Back then, Quinn wrote in a commentary about Desiree Rogers that implied too many Chicago political people work in the Obama administration that Emanuel was looking for a way out, figuring he’d run for mayor if Richard M. Daley were to decide that he doesn’t want another four years in the 2011 municipal election.

SHE PROBABLY IS the only one pleased. For Emanuel came out this week and said the same thing, using an interview on Charlie Rose’s PBS program to say that “one day” he wants to run for mayor. He made it clear during that interview that he’s not looking to challenge Daley – Emanuel would only run if Daley decides that 22 years in office is enough.

There are those political observers who want to believe that it just might be the case for Daley, who in recent years is getting hit with the same financial struggles that are afflicting municipal officials across the United States.

When combined with the constant instances of corruption and all the other petty aggravation that a mayor has to deal with, they would say that Daley is ready to say, “the heck with it.”

Of course, those people are usually of an ideological bent that doesn’t fully comprehend Chicago or Daley. Either that, or they have never understood how “Dumb-Dumb” Daley ever got elected to begin with. So their talk that Daley is ready to retire reeks of self-interest on their part.

SO I EXPECT Daley to run for another term (extending his time in office beyond that of his father, the late Richard J. Daley, who later this year will be surpassed by his son as longest-serving Chicago mayor), which makes any talk of Emanuel returning to the City Hall scene a moot point.

But what of the idea of “Rahm-bo” returning to Chicago after doing time in the White House? I don’t buy it, mainly because I understand the reality of “up and out.”

That is the phrase used by Chicago political types to refer to local political people who decide to run for a federal government position – usually a seat in Congress. It acknowledges that the federal government technically outranks Chicago city government, while also feeding into the parochial belief that Chicago is the center of the world.

Which means that Emanuel, by not accepting the limits of his political life in the city and desiring something “better” in Washington, is supposed to accept the idea that he no longer belongs here. He is there. What makes Roman Pucinski so unique in Chicago political history is he is one of the few Congressmen who successfully came back to Chicago (to serve several terms as alderman).

HE MAY HAVE to accept that his current job as the man who does the dirty work to make the Obama administration function and achieve all of its high-minded goals is the high point of his career – which has accomplished things that many local political people can only dream about.

It is in that niche that Chicago political observers look to Washington these days and to the large number of Chicagoans working with Obama at the White House and feel a touch of pride. We’d like to think that the successes achieved there reflect well upon our city.

And as for the political failures? We realize that Republican opponents don’t know any better, which is why we have so few GOP-types in Chicago.

The problem is that if Emanuel decides to try to return to Chicago, he’s going to find that all the people who had respect for him and admired him (and even those who detested him, while secretly being pleased he was on their side) will now suddenly detest him and despise him openly.

THE REASON FOR that change of attitude? A lot of local political people who figured that Emanuel got out of the way of their aspirations when he went to Washington will now see him as a threat.

And Emanuel will find out that Chicago political people who think their turf is being threatened can be even more mean and nasty than any of those nitwit Republicans who currently trash his good name in and around Washington, D.C. I'm wondering what kind of reaction he will get on Tuesday when he speaks at the Daley Forum to be held at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

So Emanuel should not be fooled by the polite words offered up by Daley’s press secretary to the Chicago Sun-Times, who said that Emanuel’s mayoral aspirations are a, “laudable aspiration.” If he actually tries to run, we’re going to hear all the political trash talk meant to take him down before he can ever re-establish himself as a Chicagoan.

Rahm will wind up recalling his nasty campaign for Congress in 2002 against former state Rep. (and Chicago Park District attorney) Nancy Kaszak as a pleasant memory between two friends. (Remember the anti-semitic claims that Emanuel was really an Israeli – therefor not a “real” American?)

IF THERE WAS anything I found interesting (and realistic) about Emanuel’s comments, it was his admission that his dream to be Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was “over.” So much for the talk that Emanuel was privately scheming to take back the Northwest Side congressional seat he used to hold so that he could resurrect that dream.

Giving up on the concept of “House Speaker Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.” Is a sign that Emanuel has a touch of reality to him. Realizing that “Chicago mayor” is equally unattainable for him is the next step that Rahm has to take.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The two Chicago metro newspapers should send Charlie Rose a nice gift for him giving them (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/rahm-emanuel-mayor-chicago-richard-daley-election-white-house-chief-staff-barack-obama-president.html) their story for the day (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/2176616,CST-NWS-sweet20.article) out of Rahm-land.

These crazy weekends of violence also are a part of the character of Chicago

Chicago lost at least nine residents Sunday as part of one of the most unfortunate aspects of the city’s character – the occasional outbursts that take place in some of the less visible neighborhoods of our city.

We didn’t have a mass murder or severe accident take place. What we’re talking about is one of those weird convergences that results in a few incidents taking place almost at the same time that throw our city’s crime rate out of whack.

WHAT ALWAYS GETS to me about these weekends, when they occur, is that the incidents are limited to the same neighborhoods. It’s as though we are too accepting of the fact that some people have to live their lives in fear of violence.

By comparison, there also are other neighborhoods where the thought of one violent crime taking place within the local boundaries would be considered a crime wave of historic proportions.

Somebody dies in Englewood? That’s just the way things are. A shooting in Sauganash? That concept is so alien – I don’t know the last time that Sauganash on the Northwest Side had a slaying.

I do know that Englewood on the South Side was one of three neighborhoods where incidents took place that involved people being shot. It was a neighborhood that had multiple incidents. It is part of the reason that the Chicago Tribune reported 7 shot in Chicago on Sunday – then had to use the website Monday morning to update two more people who got shot in the final two hours of the day.

NINE PEOPLE.

That is not a typical Chicago weekend – no matter how much some people who weren’t fortunate enough to be born and raised here want to think so, we don’t get constant mayhem in all corners of Chicago.

In fact, the number of incidents has declined significantly since the days when I was a reporter-type person for the now-defunct City News Bureau of Chicago. Back in the late 1980s, I can recall a city that averaged 2.5 murders per day, and where the “violent weekends” could easily see 20 or so people get killed.

By comparison, only two of the nine people who were shot Sunday wound up dying. That almost makes it sound like this was a not-so-untypical weekend after all. Except that there is something rather wrong about having to think about such violence as being the “norm” that we live with.

NOW I AM not naïve. I realize that whenever one lives in a place with so many people concentrated in one spot, there are going to be more outbursts than one would see if one lives in a place with few people. In short, small-town life.

That concept is just too isolated for me, and I would guess for many of you people who identify with the city of Chicago. So I suppose it does come down to being one of urban life’s trade-offs – albeit one that is sad.

So for those people whose view of Chicago gets restricted to the north lakefront, my point is to throw attention to the neighborhoods of Englewood, Lawndale and Little Village. The latter usually gets its annual moment of attention on or about May 5 when city officials hold the official local Cinco de Mayo celebration.

The other two neighborhoods usually only get their annual moment of glorification on this day when they are the scene of the violent outbursts that some people sarcastically like to think are the evidence of the coming of nice weather.

AFTER ALL, IF people who live in these neighborhoods aren’t cooped up inside anymore to escape the cold, it is only natural they are going to behave badly.

I hope the sarcasm with which I repeat that attitude comes through in full. Because that’s the kind of negative attitude that I’d like to think is unbecoming of our city.

But it is with an attempt of drowning out such a negative attitude that I bring up the names Jerel Love and Amos Dailey Jr. I have never written about either man before, and now I will never get a chance to write about either again. Neither one made it out of their 20s age-wise.

What makes them significant is they are the two men who were shot Sunday night, and were pronounced dead at about 10:30 p.m. Sunday. The Chicago Tribune reported that police think the two men were shot while sitting inside a car as some sort of act of retribution for a streetgang-related incident.

OF COURSE, LOVE’S sister claims he was not a gang member, and in fact worked to try to keep young people out of streetgangs. Which means there probably is no logical reason for what happened Sunday night.

Not that there was any more logical reason for the shootings that took place in other neighborhoods around the city – which left people in conditions ranging from “good” to “serious.” So the next time one talks of the character of Chicago and starts focusing on the Hancock Building, we ought to remember this other, more sobering, part of the city character.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Many of the shootings that took place Sunday and left nine people either dead or injured (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/at-least-7-shot-in-city-on-sunday.html) seem so random, as though (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/2-found-shot-to-death-in-vehicle-on-west-side.html) stray gunfire just naturally flies through the Chicago skies looking for unaware targets.

Obama/Palin political ‘tiff’ lays out nation’s partisan split all too perfectly

We have got a new political “controversy,” courtesy of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who wants us to think that President Barack Obama said something extremely controversial when he spoke recently about our nation’s foreign policy obligations.

She’d like for us to think that Obama said something so incredibly radical that it ought to perfectly illustrate why he was never fit to be a government official of any sort, let alone president.

ALL SHE REALLY did, however, was illustrate the difference between the factions that too many of us fall into when it comes to partisan politics these days.

For the record, Obama made his “controversial” comment at a press conference that brought the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington to a close. He took a question from a reporter-type from Bloomberg Business News who wanted to know if Obama thought he had gained any political “capital” that would give his thoughts more influence in international affairs.

Part of his answer was: “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because, whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower. When conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them.”

That has Palin ticked off, and she used a weekend Washington “appearance” (as in the Illinois town of just over 10,000 people who think of Peoria as the nearest significant city – and which could wind up being the closest that Palin will ever come to setting foot in Chicago) to denounce him. She particularly hates the portion of his line that referred to “whether we like it or not.”

ACCORDING TO THE Associated Press, Palin said, “I don’t understand a world view where we have to question whether we like it or not that ‘America’ is powerful.”

A part of me wants to say she misinterpreted him. But I also have been around enough political types to know that most of them usually do know what a political opponent truly meant – they just don’t care. Palin’s intent was to ratchet up a political point, and she succeeded.

That AP blurb got picked up in newspapers across the country. Which means it turned up on the websites of all those newspapers. Which means it is now all over the Internet. Which means that every nitwit with a desire to comment (including myself) is now making an issue of this.

But when I look at what Obama stated and what Palin retorted, I can’t help but think that this moment illustrates the partisan split that has afflicted our society.

OBAMA WAS TALKING about the U.S. obligation related to our role in the world, while Palin was talking about the U.S. perk related to that same role.

Obama gave a response making it clear that he views the U.S. foreign policy as being a responsibility that our nation must live up to. For if we fail in our obligations, the potential is great for small problems in other parts of the globe to become big problems, and ones that are reaching enough that we get dragged in anyway.

It is a view that says there are consequences to the actions of the United States government. We can cause problems beyond our borders. Which means we need to express a certain caution when we act. We can’t act recklessly, without regard for others.

Now such a thought process definitely offends the isolationists of the world. Because they’d like to think we can cut ourselves off from the interests of other countries. I’m sure they hate the suggestion that we have a responsibility to other parts of the globe – which is the price we pay if we want our nation to have the moral high ground when dealing with international affairs.

YET PALIN’S CRITICISM comes from another perspective.

She likes the idea of the United States having that influence because she likes the idea of being on the side that gets to tell people what they must do. Those isolationists usually are the conservative types who would be inclined to prefer someone ideologically aligned like Palin.

She is appealing to them by trying to say that our nation’s foreign policy is about being in charge when we see it in our interests. But the idea of an “obligation” being thrown into the mix bothers her (and them) because it means there will be occasions when they will be forced to confront issues they aren’t comfortable with.

Heck, it means there will be times the United States will have to throw its weight behind people whom they would prefer to ignore.

EXCUSE ME FOR thinking that this kind of thought makes Palin and her followers the equivalent of the old schoolyard bully, who wants to be able to do what he wants and when (while also having the ability to ignore whatever things are too troublesome).

Which makes me wonder if we ought to truly think of the Obama opposition these days as being those old bullies merely being miffed that life has passed them by, and they’re desperately trying to grasp onto the days when they could “muscle” people into doing what they were told – regardless of how stupid the order was?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Barack Obama talks about our nation’s obligation to the rest of the world (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-conference-president-nuclear-security-summit), while Sarah Palin enjoys the thought of being able to give out orders when it suits her whims (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guZZTwSW93FMmLEsFeBHJDLZoGtQD9F583601) or desires.

Politics and partisanship have been financially rewarding during the past year (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7601668/Barack-Obama-and-Sarah-Palin-are-enriched-by-cosy-political-media-complex.html) to both Obama and Palin.

Campaign wants to live in its own world – Is that reason enough to vote ABB?

I read Friday of a new feature on the website maintained by the Colorado Springs Gazette newspaper – one where readers can set things up so that reader comments from people who bother them will not turn up when the check out the website.

There are those who think it is a scary trend of the future. People can isolate themselves so thoroughly from anyone who does not agree with themselves that they can literally pretend the opposition doesn’t exist – and have that false belief reinforced by their “newspaper.”

BUT AS ONE who has watched political campaigns in recent decades, the idea of political people going out of their way to ignore the opposition is not new at all.

While the point of any political campaign is to persuade as many supporters to turn out and vote while discouraging opposition members from bothering, the trend these days is for campaigns to behave in ways that are meant to solely appeal to the supporters.

Because, after all, the opposition doesn’t really exist. So why bother catering to them, or doing anything meant to appease them? You might run the risk of turning off the people you are counting on to be your campaign’s ideological base.

The classic campaign in that mode when it comes to electoral politics in Illinois is the 1998 bid of Peter Fitzgerald for U.S. Senate.

FITZGERALD WAS A state senator who didn’t exactly have the most likeable personality, and he wasn’t the least bit blue-collar (his family owned a bank, although they managed to sell and become significantly wealthy long before economic conditions would put him in a situation similar to what is being endured these days by Democratic Senatenominee Alexi Giannoulias).

He wasn’t someone who could really relate to the masses. If Fitzgerald had been let loose to commingle amongst the Illinois population, there’s a good chance that Carol Moseley-Braun’s more charming personality would have prevailed.

So Fitzgerald was kept under heavy wraps, rarely exposed to any unsynmpathetic questioning, and would usually schedule his campaign “events” before crowds that were so controlled that they were ideological purists who were determined to dump the “stain” of anyone representing Illinois who wasn’t exactly like them.

Fitzgerald won that election, and got his one term in the U.S. Senate, where his not-so-likeable personality and a lack of interest in acting in ways to appease party leaders wound up resulting in him not seeking re-election.

NOW WHY AM I bothering to recall any of this?

It is because when I see and hear the recent actions and statements of GOP gubernatorial nominee William Brady, I can’t help but think he too is behaving in ways that are meant to get the party ideologues all worked up.

And if it means their campaign strategy is to keep the state senator from Bloomington a mystery to the bulk of Illinoisans – gambling that they won’t really care about if him if they don’t comprehend him fully – then so be it.

That probably is why many Republican partisans will now start deliberately ignoring the talk of former Gov. Jim Edgar, who in recent weeks has said he thinks Brady is wrong in thinking he can cut his way out of a $13 billion financial shortfall faced by Illinois government.

THAT IS WHY Brady probably will confine himself to events with the character of the recent Chicago tea party rallies he attended this week. He will claim he is introducing himself to Chicago, but he is picking an event so out of the character of the city’s mainstream that he’s really showing us how isolated he truly is from our city and its character.

It’s not just this issue. It’s also the matter of the income tax returns.

At least that is how I interpret Brady’s insistence that nobody has a right to see his income tax returns – despite the belief among many that people who seek political power ought to be a little more open than the typical Joe Schmoe in letting us know where their money comes from.

That is why many elected officials spent the past week making copies of their returns available. Usually, reading through these forms makes us realize that while these officials have significant goverrnment salaries, they don’t have much else. They really are living off that money – which they can lose at a moment’s notice come the next election cycle.

GOV. PAT QUINN, who says we will be allowed to see his returns sometime next week, is trying to hammer away at Brady – who claims that letting us see his full returns would give us so much information that his ties to certain businesses would be hurt.

Such stubbornness by Brady gives Quinn an issue to bang away with. But I’m sure Brady is going to go out of his way to appear only before crowds who are determined to have Anybody But Democrats win on Election Day, so they will ignore Brady’s attitude – even though I’m sure these same partisans would bash away at any Democrat arrogant enough to think that personal business connections were worth keeping secret.

Advice to Brady (although I’m sure he will ignore it): If you’re really serious about being governor, maybe you have to give up some of those business connections that your economic disclosure report hints at, but does not fully detail.

If you’re not willing to do that, then perhaps that is reason enough for the people of Illinois to vote ABB (Anyone But Brady) on Nov. 2.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Will William Brady keep himself isolated this campaign season among ideologues determined (http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois/article_4de84f86-4772-5017-bb6b-47d0656edf8b.html) to ignore criticisms (http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1042536190/GOP-governor-candidate-wont-release-tax-returns) of the way he conducts himself?

If this were available in Illinois, we’d probably have people using it to avoid having to be made aware of this (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/04/ignore_user_new_web_tool_lets.php) particular commentary.

Quick turnabout for state canoe promoter

It was nearly two decades ago when Pat Quinn was challenging then-Illinois Secretary of State George Ryan for his position when he came up with a “hit” that he thought would be devastating.

While looking through print-outs of information from data put together on computer by the Secretary of State’s office, Quinn kept noticing the line “VIP Connected,” which he interpreted to mean that this person was a “Very Important Person” who was politically “connected.”

WHAT UNMITIGATED GALL on the part of Ryan, Quinn thought, to include in official state records which people were political allies of his own. What a misuse of state resources. He went on the attack with a blistering press conference.

All these years later, I forget what “VIP” really stood for -- other than that it was a bit of computer jargon indicating that someone was “connected” to the secretary of state’s computer system. Which means that by trolling through the data, anybody and everybody was “VIP Connected.”

It took Quinn about an hour that day before he had to “take back” his political accusation of Ryan. The resulting stories that got published in newspapers across the state made him look buffoonish.

Kind of like what Quinn went through earlier this week – although personally I must confess that I am not offended by Quinn’s intent.

AT STAKE IS the fact that the Illinois Department of Natural Resources hired someone for a significant position that was intended to be very prominent. The salary, according to news reports, would have been $85,000.

The job would have gone to Claude Walker, a 57-year-old political operative who in recent decades has worked for Quinn just about everywhere he has gone (state treasurer and lieutenant governor, along with his various political campaigns for U.S. senate and Illinois secretary of state). For all I know, he helped plan Quinn’s “VIP Connected” attack on Ryan.

Because of Walker’s past record and because the new position was meant to be an extremely public post, Quinn went so far as to issue a press release, along the lines of, CLAUDE WALKER TO BE STATE’S FIRST CANOE ‘CZAR.’

“Canoe czar?”

OR, AS REPUBLICAN political types who are looking for whatever necessary to nitpick at Quinn during this campaign season “Canoe Czar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

What an incredible waste of money at a time when the state has significant financial problems that no one has a clue how to resolve, and that are likely to impact local governments and school districts all across Illinois (since they rely so heavily on state grants to fund many of their own programs).

The backlash (along with headshaking from Democratic “allies” who were wondering something along the lines of “What was he thinking?” and “Where’s the Tylenol bottle?”) was severe enough that Walker’s appointment did not last through the day.

The Capitol Fax newsletter used its weblog to report that Natural Resources Department officials rescinded the hiring, at the request of Quinn.

AND NOW, ALL over the Internet, there are several places where people are posting comments about what a clueless boob our governor is for even thinking about such a position at this time.

Now as I wrote earlier, I am not overly offended by this move. The idea was to create a position that would help promote how Illinois is outdoorsy enough for people who enjoy kayaks and canoes to use them.

Illinois’ natural resources extend beyond the merely polluted Chicago River. You don’t have to get in the car and go off to Michigan to enjoy the outdoors. And it seems that Walker himself enjoys kayaks to the point that he was thought to have enough personal knowledge to talk about this issue.

Plus, did you catch earlier where I said Walker is a long-term Quinn ally (albeit, one who has been off the state payroll in recent months, ever since he quit a job with the Illinois Student Assistance Commission)?

IN SHORT, THE position fell under the general category of promoting tourism and recreation. If Walker could turn his personal passion into something that caused people to spend more time and money within Illinois’ borders (instead of heading for surrounding states), then it was something that could generate revenue in the long-run.

It falls under that category of, “You Need to Spend Money in Order to Make Money.”

Of course, the legislators who were quick to jump all over Quinn prefer to use that alternate cliché: “You Can’t Spend What You Don’t Have.”

So I guess this is a tourist-promotion opportunity that will have to wait for some future moment when the state manages (how I don’t know) to stabilize its financial picture.

PERSONALLY, I REALLY have only one gripe about this – the idea that this position would have been called a “canoe czar.” I hate that.

I hate this ridiculous trend to declare these types of positions “czars,” instead of coming up with real titles for them. Whether we’re talking “canoe” czar or “drug “czar,” I think it trivializes the matter.

For if Walker were truly a “czar,” he’d still have the job. At the first sign of dissent, he would have used his “authority” to have his critics (or any Quinn critics, for that matter) put in front of a wall and shot by firing squad.

It sounds a little extreme for a guy whose job would have been to make public appearances at outdoorsy events and talk about how much fun kayaking can be.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: State officials initially tried to justify the new kayak/canoe promotion position by saying (http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois/article_8f466db2-bad8-50ae-aff4-db46d80e6c04.html) the salary would be paid for through money from special fees.

Only Ken “the Hawk” Harrelson could have dismissed Claude Walker more abruptly than state officials did (http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2010/04/14/you-gotta-be-kidding-me-4/) on Wednesday. Perhaps Claude (http://www.seminolesmoke.org/index.php?page_id=291) has another book in him someday.

Judge’s ruling exposing child to religions too theoretical to work in real world

When I was a student at a college loosely affiliated with the United Methodist Church, I had a “religion” requirement to fulfill. I chose Religion 105: Introduction to Judaism.

It is a course I remember fondly. The reform rabbi who was imported from an area synagogue to teach the course had a humorous personality that could get serious when appropriate (such as joking about the holiday Tu B’Shevat, while becoming more solemn with regards to persecution throughout the centuries). I REMEMBER ONE issue where he got serious – the whole issue of inter-faith relationships and how they affect children. I specifically remember him saying that the idea of a Jewish parent and a non-Jewish parent saying they will expose their children to both faiths, then someday let them decide what they want to believe, just doesn’t work.

Too often, it becomes a choice of a child being made to feel like they have to “pick” a parent to respect – at the expense of the other. Despite anyone’s best intentions, that is what the situation ultimately becomes.

So Rabbi Jerry Stone, wherever you happen to be today (I haven’t heard from him in over 25 years), I only wish you could have somehow been in a Chicago courtroom this week when a Cook County judge issued what I’m sure she thinks is a “common sense” ruling that a father who nominally is Catholic can take his young daughter to Mass – even though the girl’s mother who is Jewish has the legal custody of the girl and is trying to raise her in that religious faith.

This ruling has the potential to create one very messed up young girl – who right now is only 3 and likely doesn’t have the comprehension level required to truly understand what is being put forth before her.

THIS IS A case where adults are supposed to look out for a child’s best interests. All I can see is that they are failing her, big time!

Based on news reports that have come out of this particular case, the couple in question were married for four years before splitting up. It also seems that her Jewish faith was much more important to her than Catholicism was to him.

He went through the motions of converting to Judaism so they could have the Jewish wedding service she wanted. In accordance with Jewish teachings, a child’s primary religious influence is the mother, which means I am sure she is convinced it is only natural her daughter should be raised Jewish.

When she got primary custody (with the father getting occasional visits), that would seem to make it clear this particular girl was going to be raised in the Jewish faith.

BUT AS OFTEN happens with divorce proceedings, bitter feelings can result in actions that can be perceived as hostile.

At least that is how the mother took it when she learned that her daughter was taken by her father to a church and was baptized. She learned about it because the father took pictures of the act (that is meant to cleanse the soul of sin) and made sure that she saw them.

I’m sorry, but that just strikes me as being spiteful. It strikes me as being an un-Christian act to want to rub this issue in her face, even though I’m sure the father will say publicly he merely wants to share his religious beliefs (the ones he nominally gave up in order to be married to a Jewish woman) with his daughter.

It strikes me as a father trying to stake his claim on a girl who will be spending the bulk of her life with her mother. When you think about it rationally, that’s just mean.

WHICH IS WHY I can’t help but think that Judge Renee Goldfarb this week reinforced that meanness by overturning an order that prevented the father from taking his daughter to church any longer. That order is the only thing that kept the girl from attending an Easter Mass.

Goldfarb gave permission for the father to take his daughter to church when she visits him, and also put in stipulations that she must visit him on Christmas and Easter. Of course, the judge also wrote in provisions giving the daughter to her mother on Rosh Hoshanah, Yom Kippur and Passover.

That is going to be one extremely-holiday-ed kid, being bounced back and forth like a yo-yo by parents who seem to want to gain the upper hand over the girl.

Now I’m not writing this out of any sense that the child is better off being Jewish (although I’m sure my step-mother, Cathy, would disagree – many of my nephews and nieces are being raised as Jewish). If the situation were reversed and the Catholic parent were the one with custody, I’d be as concerned about a Jewish parent trying to use religion to gain an upper hand.

BUT THAT IS the bottom line.

We have two people who have issues with each other, and in their attempt to one-up each other, they’re taking it out on their daughter. So much for the idea that a parent is supposed to protect their child from such mind-games. And for the idea that the courts are supposed to intervene when things get out of hand in our society.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: A part of me wonders if it is appropriate for us to pray, regardless of our religious denomination, for the girl (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/judge-rules-that-dad-can-take-daughter-to-catholic-church.html) whose life is likely to become chaotic being bounced back and forth between religious faiths.