The Journal Star reported today that Gov. Blagojevich deceived the legislature in order to get a budget item passed that would allow him to use the money for embryonic stem cell research:

The governor on Tuesday said a $10 million line item in the state budget for “scientific research” was actually tucked away for grants to study stem cells, including those from human embryos. Both Shadid and Demuzio last year opposed legislation for Illinois to promote embryonic stem cell research, which some liken to abortion because human embryos are destroyed.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich should be impeached. He has wantonly abused the power of his office and deliberately deceived the legislature — the people’s representatives — to push through legislation he knew would never pass on its own merits.

Further, he unabashedly defends his ends-justify-the-means methods. Here’s an actual quote from the governor reported on The Illinois Leader webpage: “[using $10 million for stem cell research was] the right thing to do, and however you get there is immaterial.” Oh, really? Try having your district attorney tell that to the court the next time the police obtain evidence without a warrant. Try telling that to the cop that pulls you over when you were speeding so you wouldn’t be late for work. Try telling that to the voters when you come up for reelection.

And that assumes that the end is indeed “the right thing to do.” Clearly, there is no consensus on that point. Basically what the governor is saying is that it doesn’t matter how he gets what he wants as long as he believes it’s the right thing to do. How arrogant. What else does the good gov’nuh believe is “the right thing to do”? Obviously integrity and honesty aren’t on his list.

His deception and moral equivocacy are bad for government regardless of the issue. That said, though, I’m especially upset because I’m opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, as I’ve stated in a previous post. Here’s another apt quote from the Illinois Leader:

“Though it’s commendable to want to help those who are suffering debilitating diseases and injuries, it is unconscionable to do so at the expense of other human lives,” said Dr. John Kilner, president of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD) said Wednesday.

“This is an imposition of morally problematic research on the citizens of Illinois. The people have already spoken through the democratic process- legislation to promote this research failed in the General Assembly. Stem cell research can be pursued ethically by focusing research on adult stem cells, including cord blood cells.”

Imposition. Morally problematic. Ethical ways to pursue the same ends. These things mean nothing to our governor. Because of his deception, every Illinoisan’s tax dollars are directly funding human experimentation and destruction. That is outrageous.

Impeach Blagojevich.

There was a meeting scheduled last night from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Jameison School to talk about the upcoming cable franchise agreement. I admit I was late because my softball game didn’t finish until 6:30. So I got there at 6:50, and…

The meeting was over.

The news crew for channel 31 informed me that there was only one person there who came to give his/her input, besides councilmen and staff. So they adjourned. I didn’t note everyone who was there, but I did see councilmen Morris and Turner, city attorney Randy Ray, and city manager Randy Oliver. I’m sure others were there, but I can’t confirm or deny who they were. There were reporters there from all the major news outlets.

I’m a little miffed that I missed the supposedly two-hour meeting after being only 20 minutes late. But more than that, I’m disappointed that only one person showed up. I suppose it’s possible that everyone had a softball game tonight and were all going to come late like me, but that’s unlikely. So, I can only guess that everyone in Peoria is really, really happy with their cable TV service. Who could’ve guessed?

Of course, I’m being facetious. But why didn’t anyone show up?

One problem may be just communicating to Peorians at large when and where the meetings are. For instance, I didn’t see anything in the Journal Star yesterday about it (I could’ve missed it).

But a more likely culprit, I believe, is that people just don’t know what city leaders are looking for. What kind of information is the council hoping to get from residents? Are they just wanting people to come and complain about their cable service?

It would be helpful if city staff would give everyone some guidelines before the meetings. For instance, they could tell everyone what can and cannot be done with a cable franchise agreement — perhaps a shorter, simpler version (e.g., one page bulleted list) of this document from the Baller Herbst Law Group. Some of the things I learned were:

• Cities can only regulate the rates of basic cable (channels 2 through 22 in Peoria)
• Cable companies can “pass through” the cost of city demands to the consumer directly (not just with higher rates, but with a specific fee)
• Cities don’t have to demand PEG (public, education, government) access, and in fact, if no one is interested in this kind of access, the city could drop it in the franchise renewal. I know they’ll still want the government access (for council meetings), and ICC will want the educational access, but does anyone care about public access? If so, they should attend these meetings.
• Cities cannot regulate specific cable programming — however, they can “specify broad categories of programs and services and require that some programs be provided on designated channels.” That sounds to me like they can’t say “CNN needs to be on channel 2, and ESPN needs to be on channel 3,” but they could say, “there needs to be 24-news and sports programming in the 2-22 channel range.”
• It’s unclear at this time whether cities can legally make any demands of a cable company’s broadband services. Also, while the city can’t require “open access” to cable lines to provide cable TV content (like they do with phone lines to provide phone service), it appears they may be able to require “open access” to their cable modem system by non-affiliated internet service providers.
• Cities can make demands regarding customer service, including installation timing and arrangements, maintenance dealing with system outages, and billing (e.g., how pass-through fees and are identified on the bill).

Along with this document to give things context, they could ask the community for more specific input, such as:

• Do you watch or use public access television? Is that something you want to see preserved or enhanced?
• Are you satisfied with the categories of programming you receive on basic cable, classic cable, etc.?
• How satisfied are you with Insight’s customer service? Do you understand your bill or should it be reworded?
• Have you had any trouble with system outages? If so, were they fixed within a reasonable time?

And whatever else they want to know. But spelling this stuff out would be helpful for residents when seeking input.

One other note. According to Baller Herbst, the going term for franchise agreements is 7-10 years, but on the news last night Randy Ray said he was trying for a five-year franchise agreement. I can understand wanting to lower it from twenty (that’s too long). But five years seems a bit short to me, especially if the city wants the cable company to make any upgrades to the system. With such a short agreement, there wouldn’t be much incentive to put a whole lot of money into the system when the possibility exists that they won’t get a return on their investment.

I hope there is better turnout at the next two meetings: July 28 at Peoria High School, and August 18 at Woodruff High School. Both dates are Thursdays, and the meetings start at 6:30. Don’t be late.

Who was the marketing genius who came up with Walgreens’ new slogan? In case you haven’t heard it, it goes something like this: “The world isn’t perfect. That’s why there’s Walgreens.” I think the indended meaning is that Walgreens is there to help fix the imperfections of the world (like saying, “The world isn’t perfect; that’s why there are doctors who can perform open-heart surgery”).

But, of course, there’s another way you can take it. I wonder if anyone in the marketing department thought about it for a second and said, “hey, that could also mean that Walgreens is a deleterious result of the world’s imperfections” (like saying, “The world isn’t perfect; that’s why there’s disease and death”).

I guess you have to ask, which is the more reasonable interpretation?

According to an AP article that ran in the Journal Star and the Chicago Sun-Times today, “The National Pharmacists Association said nearly one in five pharmacies owned by Walgreen Co. in the area, or 58 in all, this year have exceeded what it considers to be the safe average workload of 20 prescriptions filled per hour per pharmacist.” And the union’s executive director Chuck Sauer said, “This is the direct result of Walgreens’ systematic implementation of its assembly line philosophy, under which pharmacists are made to work at ever-increasing speeds, compromising patient safety.”

If that’s true, then it looks like the latter interpretation is the correct one. The world isn’t perfect; that’s why Walgreens puts profits over safety.

Terry Bibo’s feature today includes an attempt to compare our new police chief to Chase Ingersoll. Why? Of course, to show why the police shouldn’t post pictures of johns before they’re convicted of the piddlin’ little ol’ misdemeanor of solicitation. A few comments:

First, as the Journal Star’s managing editor notes, shaming johns is how Chase Ingersoll first made headlines 10 years ago. That’s before he was disbarred, which might be both noteworthy and not-coincidental. Now the city appears to be following his lead. Chase approves.

“I find it far more important to keep the sex trade off the streets than I do keeping it off the Police Department’s Web site,” he posted on his own Web site Tuesday, chastising a Journal Star editorial. “Allow me to offer an alternative thought. It is criminality that leads to these dire consequences, not the act of holding criminals accountable.”

Note to Terry: Chase did have that quote on his “website” (it’s actually a “weblog,” or “blog” for short — maybe you’ve heard of them), but he was quoting Chief Settingsgaard’s open letter to, among other people, the Journal Star. Didn’t you even read the chief’s letter? Or are you so closed-minded on this issue that you didn’t even bother? In any case, you didn’t do your homework before wrongly attributing that quote. Poor reporting, Terry.

Moving on, she says later about councilman Gary Sandberg:

Sandberg was never even arrested, much less found guilty of anything, when he was picked up for giving a “known prostitute” a ride in 1993. The rookie officer who gave him a warning for making two right-hand turns without a signal didn’t recognize the councilman, but she did recognize the rider as a convicted hooker. Still, his name was splashed all over the place.

Hmmm… “his name was splashed all over the place.” What does that mean? Billboards? Direct mail letters? OH — you mean the vaunted Journal Star! That’s right, the Journal Star did splash his name and picture all over the place, even though he wasn’t convicted or even charged with anything. Will the hypocrisy never end?

Here the police are doing their jobs, trying to root out crime in Peoria, and the Journal Star, state’s attorney, and some on the city council are talking trash about them and trying to obstruct their efforts. What is wrong with you people? Are you so miserably out of touch with what people in these neighborhoods want and need? Don’t you see the connection between crime and people not wanting to live in the older parts of town?

Bibo concludes her article with these inspiring lines: “Sandberg predicts it [shaming] will blow up in the Police Department’s face. And he’s going to let it. He has his own ideas about deterrents.” Now, first of all, I realize this is the Journal Star saying this, so who knows what Sandberg really said. But assuming this is true, what Sandberg is saying is that he hopes the Peoria Police fail. Did you hear that? One of our council members hopes that the police department’s efforts to curtail prostitution “blows up in their face” — that is, fails miserably and publicly. Isn’t that nice?

And then, “he has his own ideas about deterrents.” What does that mean? He has a better idea for getting rid of prostitution? What is it? Why haven’t we heard it over the last hundred years he’s been on the council?

I’m thoroughly disgusted with the negative attitude that’s been coming from the Journal Star and the city council on this topic. I, unlike Sandberg, et. al., hope this initiative is successful and results in positive changes for Peoria’s neighborhoods. And even if it does fail, I’m still going to thank God for a police chief who’s willing to take risks and try new tactics to clean up Peoria and make it a better place to live.

They’re out there now. If you want to see who has been picked up for solicitation of prostitutes, go to the Peoria Police Department website and click on “Prostitution Information” — or just click here for a direct link.

I like the fact that the police chief said he was going to do it, and he did it. Quickly.

Here’s something interesting: one guy on the list is from Canton and another is from Bloomington. I didn’t realize the prostitutes here got business from the surrounding communities, too. Maybe the online posting of their pictures will get them to stay home or at least away from our neighborhoods.

UPDATE: When I went back to the site at 6:00, they had taken the “Prostitution Information” link off the front page, but the direct link still worked. Maybe they’re not ready to unveil it yet.

How refreshing to hear that our new police chief is standing up to criticism of his plan to publicly shame prostitutes and johns. In an open letter to the Journal Star (which they didn’t publish in its entirety, interestingly), he responds to criticism of his plan in their recent editorial and from State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons. Lyons’ position is, in part, explained here:

But Lyons said someone in high-profile or sensitive positions, like pastors, teachers, corporate presidents and law-enforcement personnel, would undergo much higher public notoriety than others arrested on prostitution-related charges, which are misdemeanor offenses. That, he said, will lead to “a mad scramble and fevered and horrified effort by the person of profile to contact officials in a ‘Dear God, don’t do this to me,’ manner.”

Yeah. That’s the whole idea behind shaming. Hopefully that kind of fear will keep them from soliciting prostitutes in the first place. I mean, is Lyons implying that we’re supposed to feel sorry for these johns? Or not prosecute those in “high-profile or sensitive positions” because it could be too damaging to their reputations? Responding to this line of reasoning, the police chief has this to say directly to the johns:

“Am I mistaken, or is it your responsibility to protect your wives and your children from this embarrassment?” he said. “You choose to skulk around our neighborhoods and engage in illicit sex acts in your cars, expose yourself to potentially deadly diseases and then carry those diseases back to your homes. Yet somehow the police department is endangering your family?

Exactly. Later he tells them frankly, “You have become a cancer, and we are tired of it.”

Notice how the Journal Star talks almost apologetically about the crime. You can almost hear them saying between the lines, “aw, it’s only a little ‘ol misdemeanor; why do we want to shame people for little ol’ misdemeanors?” Just because this crime is a misdemeanor is no reason to go soft on it. Driving under the influence of alcohol is a misdemeanor, too, and if a pastor or high-profile figure is picked up for a DUI, he or she “would undergo much higher public notoriety,” but the Journal Star has no qualms about printing the names of those arrested for DUIs, nor has Lyons ever complained about the practice.

And yet prostitution is at least as dangerous, as the police chief pointed out. If someone solicits a prostitute and contracts AIDS, then goes home and has sex with his wife and gives her AIDS, he’s just as guilty of reckless homicide in my book as if he’d gotten behind the wheel of a car drunk and run over his wife. Perhaps this is even worse since she’ll have to suffer a slow and painful death. Of course, there are all manner of venereal diseases he could pass along that may not kill her, but make her life miserable anyway.

I like a guy who tells it like it is. Let’s not pussyfoot around, people — prostitution is dangerous and it’s illegal. It does terrible damage to families and neighborhoods. And it’s the police department’s responsibility to enforce the law. Public shaming is a good idea. You’re never going to reduce prostitution by trying to cut down the supply — you have to go after the demand. Fear of public shaming is a powerful tool in reducing demand.

Good work, Chief Settingsgaard!