This has been an unusual Christmas season. We've lost a few public faces and one from the neighborhood as well.
Ron Santo. Even if you weren't a Cub fan, you couldn't help knowing who he was. I was impressed and touched by the way he handled the way his diabetes ravaged his body. Both legs amputated and yet he continued working, continued cheering his beloved Cubs. He showed courage and grace.
Elizabeth Edwards, who died yesterday at 61. Diagnosed with breast cancer she continued working in her husband's campaigns, first for Vice President and then for President. She dealt with the death of her son. Eventually, she faced her husband's infidelity. An impressive person, she is one of my heroes.
So too was comedian Leslie Nielsen. He came to real celebrity with the movie "Airplane," and followed it with the "Naked Gun" series. Slapstick humor and goofy lines defined him as a guy who embraced his inner clown. He loved silliness, as do I.
My neighbor from across the street died last week, too. Izzy was a quiet fellow with, it's an understatement to say, a loving and devoted family. His death brought literally hundreds of people to our neighborhood to mourn him and comfort his wife, including many of the staff members from the care home where he finished out his days. One of them said she usually never attends the wakes of patients but Izzy's good humor and kindness made him special. I'd known him for twenty-plus years just as someone to visit with at the end of the driveway but I mourn the loss of a friend. He was one of the good guys.
Rest in Peace.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Testing The Pat Down
I made a prediction a couple of days after 9/11.
Amidst all the calls for increased security and the public opinion polls that said Americans were ready for more aggressive protocols to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, I said, "Wait a few years. That tune will change."
It certainly has.
From "Don't touch my junk!" t-shirts to the planned "Opt Out Day" Wednesday, the traveling public has expressed the opinion that full-body scanners and pat downs really aren't necessary if they result in inconvenience, embarrassment and the potential for health risks from added x-rays.
Just out of curiosity, and because Kansas City uses private security screeners (as Congressman Joe Mica of Florida wants to see replace TSA at all the nation's busiest airports), I tested out a pat down at Kansas City International Airport yesterday on my way home to Chicago. KCI has full-body scanners but they are only used by the airport's two busiest airlines, Southwest and Delta. I was flying United.
I left a flashlight and a pen in my pockets as I went through the metal detectors. After I "beeped" three times, I was asked to step aside. I assumed the position: standing, hands out to the sides forming a "T." As the security agent frisked me, he explained he was checking my loose clothing for any metal objects I might have forgotten to put in the bin.
The pat-down was fast, semi-professional and didn't appear to draw attention from my fellow passengers. I say semi-professional for two reasons. The agent didn't touch my rear pockets and he wasn't aggressive enough in places where even embarrassed rookie cops in training are aggressive. Had I been wearing a shoulder, belt or ankle holstered weapon, he would have found it. If I'd had a a gun hidden in the area of my groin or a knife in my back pocket, I would have boarded the plane armed.
I watched for about a half hour as about a dozen other passengers were patted down. None voiced an objection. None received more thorough treatment than I. Some were patted only above the waist.
The conclusions I draw from my individual experience are that not all passengers are treated the same way and "pat downs" are not effective if done half-heartedly. I'm sure some security officers do a better job than others. Some do far worse.
Congress is not willing to mandate, nor is the traveling public willing to accept, the cost or inconvenience of truly aggressive security measures carried out by trained anti-terror professionals. The politicians, and the people, have fallen back to believing that, "It won't happen here...again." We all want to get swiftly to our destinations...not wait hours in line. We aren't even willing to trade momentary indignity for better safety.
As a result, Congress has provided unarmed, poorly paid security screeners to do an unpleasant job in the best way they can. The better they do it, the slower the line moves and the more complaints they receive.
As a result, we get TSA and private contractors who, in some highly publicized cases, frisk babies, the elderly, and those in wheelchairs. Colostomy bags break open. Genitals get touched, sometimes harshly. Inappropriate comments are made at indelicate times.
Is there a more efficient way? Not in a country as big, or as opinionated, as ours.
Will the procedures now in place prevent another tragedy? They have so far.
Will there be more complaints, even more lawsuits? Count on it.
Do people feel safer?
Answer that one for yourself.
Amidst all the calls for increased security and the public opinion polls that said Americans were ready for more aggressive protocols to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, I said, "Wait a few years. That tune will change."
It certainly has.
From "Don't touch my junk!" t-shirts to the planned "Opt Out Day" Wednesday, the traveling public has expressed the opinion that full-body scanners and pat downs really aren't necessary if they result in inconvenience, embarrassment and the potential for health risks from added x-rays.
Just out of curiosity, and because Kansas City uses private security screeners (as Congressman Joe Mica of Florida wants to see replace TSA at all the nation's busiest airports), I tested out a pat down at Kansas City International Airport yesterday on my way home to Chicago. KCI has full-body scanners but they are only used by the airport's two busiest airlines, Southwest and Delta. I was flying United.
I left a flashlight and a pen in my pockets as I went through the metal detectors. After I "beeped" three times, I was asked to step aside. I assumed the position: standing, hands out to the sides forming a "T." As the security agent frisked me, he explained he was checking my loose clothing for any metal objects I might have forgotten to put in the bin.
The pat-down was fast, semi-professional and didn't appear to draw attention from my fellow passengers. I say semi-professional for two reasons. The agent didn't touch my rear pockets and he wasn't aggressive enough in places where even embarrassed rookie cops in training are aggressive. Had I been wearing a shoulder, belt or ankle holstered weapon, he would have found it. If I'd had a a gun hidden in the area of my groin or a knife in my back pocket, I would have boarded the plane armed.
I watched for about a half hour as about a dozen other passengers were patted down. None voiced an objection. None received more thorough treatment than I. Some were patted only above the waist.
The conclusions I draw from my individual experience are that not all passengers are treated the same way and "pat downs" are not effective if done half-heartedly. I'm sure some security officers do a better job than others. Some do far worse.
Congress is not willing to mandate, nor is the traveling public willing to accept, the cost or inconvenience of truly aggressive security measures carried out by trained anti-terror professionals. The politicians, and the people, have fallen back to believing that, "It won't happen here...again." We all want to get swiftly to our destinations...not wait hours in line. We aren't even willing to trade momentary indignity for better safety.
As a result, Congress has provided unarmed, poorly paid security screeners to do an unpleasant job in the best way they can. The better they do it, the slower the line moves and the more complaints they receive.
As a result, we get TSA and private contractors who, in some highly publicized cases, frisk babies, the elderly, and those in wheelchairs. Colostomy bags break open. Genitals get touched, sometimes harshly. Inappropriate comments are made at indelicate times.
Is there a more efficient way? Not in a country as big, or as opinionated, as ours.
Will the procedures now in place prevent another tragedy? They have so far.
Will there be more complaints, even more lawsuits? Count on it.
Do people feel safer?
Answer that one for yourself.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Watching the War Through a Medal Winner's Eyes
None of us really gets a sense of what war is about unless we've fought in one or heard a compelling story from someone who has.
Sgt. Sal Giunta is the first living Medal of Honor recepient since Vietnam.
President Obama presented his award yesterday at the White House. He has been interviewed everywhere.
After one has been a cop and then spent time as a reporter covering the harshest kinds of violence this side of a war zone, you realize that real heroes don't bluster. The truly tough guys aren't loud or obnoxious. They don't gladhand a room, perfect a grin for the cameras or offer up snappy soundbites.
Whenever a person is officially lauded for acting "above and beyond," whether a soldier, cop, firefighter or just a dad or mom protecting their family, you seldom hear them speak in terms of "I" unless it's to say, "I was just doing what anyone in that situation would have done."
Real heroes prefer the pronoun "we."
So it comes as no real surprise that Sgt Giunta, who looks like a cross between Tom Hanks and CSI:New York's Gary Sinise, is quiet and humble. His eyes are devastatingly sad because, for all his courage, he was not able to save the life of his best friend. As well spoken as he is, sometimes he repeats part of the interviewer's question to give him time to answer. And most of his answers are simple and to the point, self-effacing without being cool.
He truly doesn't seem to understand why he has been singled out when everything he did in war was accomplished while surrounded by a team of soldiers just as professional as he was. On Sixty Minutes , he told Correspondent Lara Logan, "I don't think I did anything that anyone else I was with wouldn't have done. I was in a position to do it. That was what needed to be done. So that's what I did."
He praises his wife for "being there" for him and for giving him the strength to get through it all.
He misses those who were killed, telling the President during the award ceremony he would give back the Medal of Honor if he could just have his friends with him again.
Sgt Giunta's story, his description of the ambush that led to his nomination for the award, the comments of the other soldiers from his squad who were with him, make for compelling reading and viewing.
No matter how you feel about the U.S. having troops in Afghanistan or about war in general, you should look up the reports online. The Sixty Minutes piece is excellent and his last line in the interview will leave you with a lump in your throat.
He and his buddies fought for us. The very least we can do is listen to their story.
Sgt. Sal Giunta is the first living Medal of Honor recepient since Vietnam.
President Obama presented his award yesterday at the White House. He has been interviewed everywhere.
After one has been a cop and then spent time as a reporter covering the harshest kinds of violence this side of a war zone, you realize that real heroes don't bluster. The truly tough guys aren't loud or obnoxious. They don't gladhand a room, perfect a grin for the cameras or offer up snappy soundbites.
Whenever a person is officially lauded for acting "above and beyond," whether a soldier, cop, firefighter or just a dad or mom protecting their family, you seldom hear them speak in terms of "I" unless it's to say, "I was just doing what anyone in that situation would have done."
Real heroes prefer the pronoun "we."
So it comes as no real surprise that Sgt Giunta, who looks like a cross between Tom Hanks and CSI:New York's Gary Sinise, is quiet and humble. His eyes are devastatingly sad because, for all his courage, he was not able to save the life of his best friend. As well spoken as he is, sometimes he repeats part of the interviewer's question to give him time to answer. And most of his answers are simple and to the point, self-effacing without being cool.
He truly doesn't seem to understand why he has been singled out when everything he did in war was accomplished while surrounded by a team of soldiers just as professional as he was. On Sixty Minutes , he told Correspondent Lara Logan, "I don't think I did anything that anyone else I was with wouldn't have done. I was in a position to do it. That was what needed to be done. So that's what I did."
He praises his wife for "being there" for him and for giving him the strength to get through it all.
He misses those who were killed, telling the President during the award ceremony he would give back the Medal of Honor if he could just have his friends with him again.
Sgt Giunta's story, his description of the ambush that led to his nomination for the award, the comments of the other soldiers from his squad who were with him, make for compelling reading and viewing.
No matter how you feel about the U.S. having troops in Afghanistan or about war in general, you should look up the reports online. The Sixty Minutes piece is excellent and his last line in the interview will leave you with a lump in your throat.
He and his buddies fought for us. The very least we can do is listen to their story.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Following Up Mr. Drive-By
My earlier blog today focused on the facts some politicians and a couple of well-known religious leaders (read that "politicans of the cloth") forget to talk about when they push for tougher Illinois gun laws.
One of the points I raised is that the bad guys, aka the people who spray crowds with machine gun fire and randomly kill little kids and pregnant women, don't pay attention to laws already on the books that are designed to control access to firearms. . . so what would "tougher laws" accomplish? Who would they help (other than the politicians looking for the fear vote, of course)?
Case conveniently in point: Over the weekend, Chicago police acting on a search warrant raided the home of a Hegewisch neighborhood resident. According to the Chicago Tribune web site today, the officers, ". . .discovered five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition . . ."
Did the individual have as required by state law, an Illinois Firearm Owner ID card? No. Is he a licensed Federal Firearms dealer? I'm betting he is not. Did he possess the required permits to own handguns in the city of Chicago? Doubtful.
Guys like him laugh at existing gun laws! So why write more of them?
Some of our elected representatives and other irresponsible fear mongers grab headlines and camera time acting tough to impress their constituents. If they really want results, however, they won't come from "tougher" laws.
We need money to pay the salaries for more tough cops, to work the tough cases and to make the tough arrests that take hauls like "five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition..." off the tough streets.
One of the points I raised is that the bad guys, aka the people who spray crowds with machine gun fire and randomly kill little kids and pregnant women, don't pay attention to laws already on the books that are designed to control access to firearms. . . so what would "tougher laws" accomplish? Who would they help (other than the politicians looking for the fear vote, of course)?
Case conveniently in point: Over the weekend, Chicago police acting on a search warrant raided the home of a Hegewisch neighborhood resident. According to the Chicago Tribune web site today, the officers, ". . .discovered five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition . . ."
Did the individual have as required by state law, an Illinois Firearm Owner ID card? No. Is he a licensed Federal Firearms dealer? I'm betting he is not. Did he possess the required permits to own handguns in the city of Chicago? Doubtful.
Guys like him laugh at existing gun laws! So why write more of them?
Some of our elected representatives and other irresponsible fear mongers grab headlines and camera time acting tough to impress their constituents. If they really want results, however, they won't come from "tougher" laws.
We need money to pay the salaries for more tough cops, to work the tough cases and to make the tough arrests that take hauls like "five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition..." off the tough streets.
Ducking Mr. Drive-By
I'm as horrified as the next guy about drive-bys that kill the innocent, in whatever part of town they happen to be.
I'd get in line to protest gun violence,too, as long as the guns being protested are those in the hands of gang-bangers, drug dealers and anyone else using them for criminal purposes.
A Chicago priest is calling on Springfield to enact "tougher" gun laws. The Tribune's online edition doesn't spell out exactly what the good reverend wants those laws to say but I imagine it's more of the same kind of thing that we've heard from Rev JJ, Mayor Dick and the rest of the anti-gun crowd.
Here are some of the facts they never share with their audiences:
Illinois already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.
One cannot legally buy a firearm in this state without first obtaining a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card, which requires a background check. Another check is conducted at time of purchase and the buyer is then subject to a waiting period of 72 hours before a handgun can be delivered, 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun.
Illinois has no concealed weapons permit for civilians. We live in one of two states, Wisconsin being the other, that restricts concealed weapons to police officers.
Under Illinois law, a firearm cannot be carried in a vehicle unless it is unloaded, in a case and in the trunk.
Chicago, where the majority of gun crimes occur, has even stricter local ordinances regarding handguns.
Individuals wanting to legally purchase an automatic weapon can do so only after obtaining Federal certification from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Such certification is a lengthy process, requires a local law-enforcement sign-off and is relatively expensive.
All of these laws are regularly disregarded by those who wantonly spray bullets into crowds and kill children and by every crook who carries a pistol in their belt and produces it to stick up a liguor store.
Crooks pay no attention to the statutes now on the books. Why would enacting more restrictive laws make us safer? Criminals buy illegal weapons. Their suppliers don't fill out forms or require FOID cards. The people who sell guns to gang-bangers don't warn them against carrying concealed.
Wake up!
Yes, certainly, Illinois could act to entirely ban civilian handgun ownership. To what purpose? The state legislature could ban all rifles and shotguns, too. Why? Who would it help?
Sure, calling for tougher laws about anything sounds . . . well . . . tough.
It's a feel-good, political solution without real-world substance and, like most political solutions, it helps only the politician.
Out on the street, meanwhile, folks still be duckin' Mr. Drive By.
I'd get in line to protest gun violence,too, as long as the guns being protested are those in the hands of gang-bangers, drug dealers and anyone else using them for criminal purposes.
A Chicago priest is calling on Springfield to enact "tougher" gun laws. The Tribune's online edition doesn't spell out exactly what the good reverend wants those laws to say but I imagine it's more of the same kind of thing that we've heard from Rev JJ, Mayor Dick and the rest of the anti-gun crowd.
Here are some of the facts they never share with their audiences:
Illinois already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.
One cannot legally buy a firearm in this state without first obtaining a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card, which requires a background check. Another check is conducted at time of purchase and the buyer is then subject to a waiting period of 72 hours before a handgun can be delivered, 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun.
Illinois has no concealed weapons permit for civilians. We live in one of two states, Wisconsin being the other, that restricts concealed weapons to police officers.
Under Illinois law, a firearm cannot be carried in a vehicle unless it is unloaded, in a case and in the trunk.
Chicago, where the majority of gun crimes occur, has even stricter local ordinances regarding handguns.
Individuals wanting to legally purchase an automatic weapon can do so only after obtaining Federal certification from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Such certification is a lengthy process, requires a local law-enforcement sign-off and is relatively expensive.
All of these laws are regularly disregarded by those who wantonly spray bullets into crowds and kill children and by every crook who carries a pistol in their belt and produces it to stick up a liguor store.
Crooks pay no attention to the statutes now on the books. Why would enacting more restrictive laws make us safer? Criminals buy illegal weapons. Their suppliers don't fill out forms or require FOID cards. The people who sell guns to gang-bangers don't warn them against carrying concealed.
Wake up!
Yes, certainly, Illinois could act to entirely ban civilian handgun ownership. To what purpose? The state legislature could ban all rifles and shotguns, too. Why? Who would it help?
Sure, calling for tougher laws about anything sounds . . . well . . . tough.
It's a feel-good, political solution without real-world substance and, like most political solutions, it helps only the politician.
Out on the street, meanwhile, folks still be duckin' Mr. Drive By.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Dead Freshman and a Bit on Bullying
Two Rutgers University freshmen alledgedly shot secret video of a fellow freshman having sex with another guy. The subject of the video, 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, later jumped off the George Washington Bridge to his death. The couple allegedly behind the video has been arrested and could face even more charges if the case is determined to be a bias crime. I hope it is. The mopes won't see jail time but, at the very least, I hope Rutgers boots them out and the victim's family pummels them in court.
Bullying is a hot-button topic with me.
I was bullied from about age 8 to age 12. Daily and unrelentingly. I'll say two things about it. No one except a victim knows how frightening it can be and fighting back, sometimes viciously, may be the only answer. I pushed one kid's head through a window and fractured the skull of another. The bullying stopped but my family also dealt with some legal repercussions. So let me also say that fighting back may carry its own price tag.
Bottom line: whatever the circumstances, no one should ever be made to feel the only way out is off a bridge. I'll take a courtroom over a body bag any day.
I doubt the couple at Rutgers had any idea their video "prank" would turn out the way it did. At the same time, they allegedly went out of their way to humiliate another person. Whether they feel any remorse is questionable. If the case reaches a courtroom, I imagine we'll see some crocodile tears but who knows whether it will be real emotion or poor-poor-me grief.
As this case illustrates, bullying is not just about punching and kicking and it doesn't always stop after grade or high school. Witness the cruelty of a certain preacher and his followers from a Topeka, Kansas "church" who trot out their bias against homosexuals at funerals of soldiers and others.
And what do you want to bet that those fools intrude when the Clementi family lays their child to rest?
Bullying is a hot-button topic with me.
I was bullied from about age 8 to age 12. Daily and unrelentingly. I'll say two things about it. No one except a victim knows how frightening it can be and fighting back, sometimes viciously, may be the only answer. I pushed one kid's head through a window and fractured the skull of another. The bullying stopped but my family also dealt with some legal repercussions. So let me also say that fighting back may carry its own price tag.
Bottom line: whatever the circumstances, no one should ever be made to feel the only way out is off a bridge. I'll take a courtroom over a body bag any day.
I doubt the couple at Rutgers had any idea their video "prank" would turn out the way it did. At the same time, they allegedly went out of their way to humiliate another person. Whether they feel any remorse is questionable. If the case reaches a courtroom, I imagine we'll see some crocodile tears but who knows whether it will be real emotion or poor-poor-me grief.
As this case illustrates, bullying is not just about punching and kicking and it doesn't always stop after grade or high school. Witness the cruelty of a certain preacher and his followers from a Topeka, Kansas "church" who trot out their bias against homosexuals at funerals of soldiers and others.
And what do you want to bet that those fools intrude when the Clementi family lays their child to rest?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Who Cares What's in the Paper Anymore?
Chicago Tribune TV critic Maureen Dowd is leaving the Tribune.
She says it's because of a diminished interest on the part of management in what she does, ie: watches and comments on a lot of television programs. She doesn't think she'll be replaced.
((Note to Randy Michaels: I'd be happy to take half her salary and work from home...))
C'mon. Who cares what a local critic thinks about what's on TV? Or what's good/bad about the movies? For that matter, who gives a rat's butt about a local critic's review of local theatre or books by local authors or, for that matter again, new cars?
And seriously, why do we need to have all those sports commentators taking up space? I don't care about the nitwits in the front office of the Cubs and how they choose players. Or all the stupid trades the Bears or the Blackhawks make. What's that to me?
Frankly, I'm not really interested in the opinions of a bunch of people who used to cover the news and now sit back in their suspenders and drink coffee all day and write stupid editorials, either. What difference do they make, huh? It's not like politicians get elected, or not, or policies/laws get enacted, or not, based on what some silly newspaper has to say.
Frankly all that mostly biased political coverage could go, too. For example, how many people in Illinois really care that Blago tried to sell a Senate seat? Huh? And those stupid "sidebars" and "soft features?" Bah! Columnists? I never agree with them anyway.
I just read the paper for hard news. Oh wait. I don't read the actual "paper" any more at all. Just look online.
Then you have to consider those stupid advertisements, too. I don't read 'em. Don't use 'em. Don't buy crap based on them. Do you really need them?
So what the heck, Randy Michaels and Sam Zell, get rid of all the extras and save yourselves some money.
When you think about it, all those big rolls of paper have got to be mucho expensivo.
She says it's because of a diminished interest on the part of management in what she does, ie: watches and comments on a lot of television programs. She doesn't think she'll be replaced.
((Note to Randy Michaels: I'd be happy to take half her salary and work from home...))
C'mon. Who cares what a local critic thinks about what's on TV? Or what's good/bad about the movies? For that matter, who gives a rat's butt about a local critic's review of local theatre or books by local authors or, for that matter again, new cars?
And seriously, why do we need to have all those sports commentators taking up space? I don't care about the nitwits in the front office of the Cubs and how they choose players. Or all the stupid trades the Bears or the Blackhawks make. What's that to me?
Frankly, I'm not really interested in the opinions of a bunch of people who used to cover the news and now sit back in their suspenders and drink coffee all day and write stupid editorials, either. What difference do they make, huh? It's not like politicians get elected, or not, or policies/laws get enacted, or not, based on what some silly newspaper has to say.
Frankly all that mostly biased political coverage could go, too. For example, how many people in Illinois really care that Blago tried to sell a Senate seat? Huh? And those stupid "sidebars" and "soft features?" Bah! Columnists? I never agree with them anyway.
I just read the paper for hard news. Oh wait. I don't read the actual "paper" any more at all. Just look online.
Then you have to consider those stupid advertisements, too. I don't read 'em. Don't use 'em. Don't buy crap based on them. Do you really need them?
So what the heck, Randy Michaels and Sam Zell, get rid of all the extras and save yourselves some money.
When you think about it, all those big rolls of paper have got to be mucho expensivo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)