Monthly Archives: June 2008

2008 Campaign, Peoria Journal Star

Callahan a candidate in search of an issue

13 Comments

I think my readers know that I’m no fan of Aaron Schock. But seriously, is this the best his Democratic challenger can do?

Congressional candidate Colleen Callahan is criticizing her opponent Aaron Schock for spending too much time fundraising, being “AWOL” and not responding to issues.

Apparently, Callahan cut-and-pasted Karen McDonald’s “Word on the Street” column onto her campaign letterhead and faxed it out as a press release. And then McDonald dutifully reported on it. Talk about a “news cycle.”

Well, I guess it’s a win-win for Callahan and McDonald. Callahan gets some free publicity, and McDonald got Schock to finally return her call.

City of Peoria

Peoria Urban Living Initiative wants your feedback

1 Comment

In November 2007, the city council approved a plan called The Peoria Urban Living Initiative. The goal of the initiative is to attract homeowners back to the Heart of Peoria. According to Chris Setti, the city’s Six Sigma black belt in charge of this project, “it has been a collaboration of the City, Caterpillar, OSF, Methodist, Bradley and the County. One method we are using to formulate our plan is to collect some feedback through a brief survey.”

The survey is online here. Please click on the link and take a minute to fill it out.

“The goal of the survey is to collect information on what people look for in a neighborhood, which types of incentives might be most attractive, and how much interest there is in certain areas of the City,” Setti tells me.

I’m not exactly clear as to why the Uplands and Arbor District neighborhoods were not included in the map of the “west bluff” on this survey. My guess is that they feel these are stable neighborhoods that need no help. I’d buy that for the Uplands, but the Arbor District is a different story since Bradley’s razing of two blocks of houses there to make way for a five-story parking deck. Dozens of homes there have turned from owner-occupied to rentals; that neighborhood will need as much incentivizing as any other neighborhood to get homeowners investing there again.

Peoria Public Schools

State Board of Education sees D150 plan differently than Regional Superintendent

8 Comments

You may recall that the Regional Superintendent of Schools, Gerald Brookhart, stated recently that District 150’s plan to shorten Wednesdays by 90 minutes each week conforms to the State’s school code. Well, apparently the Illinois State Board of Education sees things differently.

The school code requires students to receive a minimum of five clock hours (300 minutes) of instructional time per school day. If 90 minutes are cut from Wednesdays, then students would receive less than five instructional hours those days. District 150 tried to say that was acceptable because the average number of instructional hours per day over the course of a week would still be more than five. They also tried to label Wednesdays “improvement days,” which are covered by other provisions of the school code. Education reporter Dave Haney reports that ISBE officials rejected those arguments:

[The ISBE] said improvement days are designed for all schools in a district, not just certain schools as the district has proposed, and the half-days are limited to specific school improvement topics listed in the local school improvement plan.

What’s more, the ISBE said the school code mandates a minimum of 300 minutes of instruction every day.

In response, District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton has floated the idea of only cutting 45 or 60 minutes from Wednesdays instead of 90. No matter what happens, Hinton is determined to cut at least some time from the school day. “‘The time to collaborate and look at the data, it has to happen – (teachers) just don’t have time to grow professionally,’ said Hinton, who added the district needs to implement change now if it wants to see drastic student improvement,” the Journal Star reported.

Hinton has never explained why the school day has to be cut in order to provide professional development time. The District 150 Watch group gave Hinton several suggestions for how that goal could be accomplished without cutting the school day. Why doesn’t he use one of those suggestions?

2008 Campaign

Do we really need a speech on patriotism?

3 Comments

Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama gave a speech all about patriotism today. You can read it here.

My reaction: Who cares? Can we talk about something relevant?

Obama says at the outset that the topic of patriotism “is worth considering…because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together.” So, I take that to mean his audience is those who question his patriotism. Is that really a large percentage of the population? Because I thought the only ones questioning his patriotism were those who believed anything and everything forwarded to them via e-mail — you know, those phony Internet rumors that he’s a Muslim, that he took his oath of office on the Koran, that he doesn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Are those people likely to hear this speech, let alone believe it? And other than those people, who’s questioning his patriotism?

All I know is, I’d rather hear some substantive debates between the two candidates on the issues facing our country — in fact, some of the issues that Obama brought up himself at the beginning of the speech:

…health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security… [and] values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?

A debate on any of those subjects would be welcome. This election isn’t a contest over who’s more patriotic, so let’s skip the rhetorical, platitude-filled speeches and get down to the nitty-gritty. That would be much more interesting and useful.

Peoria Public Schools

Brookhart: The plan I haven’t seen follows state code

16 Comments

I thought the same thing as Billy Dennis when I first read the HOI News report of Regional Superintendent of Schools Dr. Gerald Brookhart’s take on District 150’s latest plan to shorten Wednesdays for most primary schools: “Brookhart approves of a plan he hasn’t seen yet.”

The Regional Superintendent of Schools says this plan does follow state code because the total number of hours the kids will be in school each week meets state requirements.

That’s at the beginning of the HOI story. And then the same story concludes:

The regional superintendent says they have not received an official plan from District 150 to shorten the school day, so until they have that nothing can happen.

So, when he says the plan “does follow state code,” he’s basing that on what, exactly? Normally, regulators withhold comment until they have an official request or plan in hand so they can give a definitive answer, rather than one based on speculation or preliminary plans that are subject to change.

Peoria Public Schools

Adult Education Center eyed for Math & Science Academy

22 Comments

Peoria Public Schools Superintendent Ken Hinton spoke to the West Bluff Council this past Thursday night to discuss his plans for a new math, science, and technology academy on the west bluff. Whereas original plans were to build that academy near Main Street in the Renaissance Park district, Hinton stated that the school district simply doesn’t have the money for that much site acquisition, in light of its other recent building projects.

So he’s looking at an existing site. He said he had considered the Loucks School site, but then they had to close that school to help balance the budget. So now his preference is to use a IGCSE chemistry tutor for Cambridge and the Adult Education Center on the corner of Moss and Garfield avenues.

Physically, he envisions keeping the front facade in place, but everything else would be renovated and “look nothing like it does now.” In order to enlarge the school, he sees it expanding northward (the front of the school faces south, more or less), possibly extending to the corner of Garfield and St. James.

Enrollment is expected to be 400-450 students, and school would be in session year-round. He foresees the school serving grades 4-10, an expansion from the original 4-8 grade concept. Similar to Valeska-Hinton Early Learning Center’s schedule, Hinton said that students at all three new schools — Harrison, Glen Oak, and the Math/Science Academy — would attend for 45 days (9 weeks), then get 15 days (3 weeks) off year-round.

The administration and board are also exploring the possibility of the Math/Science Academy being a charter school. No charter organizations have been identified yet; he said the board is in the “information-gathering stage.” One advantage of a charter school is that the district could hire Bradley professors to teach advanced math classes part-time, since they would only be required to have a degree in their field, .e.g, Phd In Computer Science, not a teaching certificate.

Adult Education programs currently in the building (which used to be known as Washington School, not to be confused with Washington Gifted School), would be relocated to the Diagnostic Learning Center near the Administrative Offices on Wisconsin. The Alternative High School program, composed of roughly 100 students, would be moved to an as-yet undetermined location.

The new Math/Science Academy would be a choice school, so any children in the district would be allowed to attend, based on aptitude and availability. Also, unlike Washington Gifted School, students will be allowed to transfer in from parochial schools or other schools outside the district.

Hinton would like to see the academy open in the fall of 2010, the same time as Harrison and Glen Oak. That means the board would have to decide on the site this summer, develop plans, and secure bonding through the Public Building Commission by the end of the year.

Miscellaneous information

The evening was chock full of interesting miscellany:

  • Hinton stated his plan is to retire (again) June 30, 2010, when his latest contract expires.
  • Plans are to rehire Dr. Cindy Fischer on a part-time basis after she retires this year.
  • The Board of Education is writing a policy for rehiring retired employees.
  • Hinton discussed his vision of Woodruff expanding to 14th grade, in coordination with Illinois Central College, so that students graduating from Woodruff would receive an Associates degree.
  • Plans are to remove the bricks from the bricked-up windows of existing school buildings to allow more natural light into classrooms.
  • Plans are to renovate Richwoods High School and build additions to Northmoor, Lindbergh, and Kellar.
2008 Campaign, General News

Darin LaHood supports Supreme Court decision

5 Comments

Someone asked me what Kevin Lyons and Darin LaHood thought of the Supreme Court’s second-amendment ruling, so I asked them. So far, I’ve only received a response from LaHood; if and when I get a response from Lyons, I’ll post it as well. Here’s what Darin had to say:

I think it is a great victory for the law abiding citizens of our community and this Country. I have always believed that law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves with a weapon and also have the right to go hunting with a weapon. This right is clearly articulated in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. I strongly support the Supreme Court’s decision.

My experience as a prosecutor is that strict enforcement and prosecution of convicted felons and criminals who use and possess weapons is the most effective way to reduce gun violence and violent crime. Having personally prosecuted hundreds of violent criminals who used and possessed weapons I know first hand the importance of combating gun violence while respecting the right of law abiding citizens to own guns. We don’t need more gun laws; we need better enforcement of existing gun laws to get guns out of the hands of criminals. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program, which I spearheaded as a Federal Prosecutor, is a great example of how tough prosecution of felons, who possess weapons, can reduce criminal activity and take criminals off our streets.

City of Peoria

Chicago, Peoria reaction to court decision widely divergent

16 Comments

The Chicago Tribune reports that Mayor Daley is “angry” over the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. He

called the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban “a very frightening decision” and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago’s ban.

The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.

The mayor of Peoria isn’t outraged. I asked Mayor Jim Ardis via e-mail today what he thought of the ruling and Mayor Daley’s comments, and he had this to say:

I’m glad they made the decision they did…. It’s too bad the Supreme Court decision was as close as it was. It should’ve been unanimous.

I’m looking forward to Mayor Daley coming here next month and I’m very anxious to meet him. I couldn’t disagree with him more on this issue though. Personally, I would be very supportive of conceal carry in Illinois. We’re one of only a few states that don’t allow it and Conceal Carry has had a positive impact on crime reduction in the State’s that allow it. Having criminals look down the barrel of a gun held by a law-abiding, trained gun owner would make some of these punks think about moving somewhere else. Perhaps if our State Legislators don’t have the guts to allow it state-wide, they’ll allow Peoria County to be a test case for it? I’m pretty sure that both our police chief and sheriff support it.

I haven’t talked to the sheriff, but I did ask Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard what his reaction was. As with Ardis, I also asked how he felt about Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis’s statement, quoted in the Tribune, that “From a law enforcement perspective, this [the Supreme Court decision] will no doubt make a police officer’s job more challenging than it already is … particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago.”

Settingsgaard responded:

I applaud the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe wholeheartedly in a private citizen’s right to own a firearm and to protect themselves when necessary. I disagree that this makes law enforcement more difficult. Law abiding citizens who have clean criminal records and who have no history of mental illness are not the threats our officers and our citizens face every day. I am hopeful that someday Illinois will join the vast, vast, majority of States that have already legalized concealed carry. Want to know what truly can make police work more safe? It is not fewer honest citizens with guns. It is fewer defenseless victims. If these predatory criminals had more cause for concern that a citizen just might be up to the task of defending themselves, if more of these predators found themselves staring down the barrel of a gun when they thought they had found an easy mark, THEN law enforcement’s job would be easier. We have enough laws to demonstrate legislation won’t stop some wolves from being wolves. We need fewer sheep.

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states that completely disallow conceal carry.

General News

Yes, Americans have an individual right to bear arms

17 Comments

From the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 ruling handed down today:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s [District of Columbia, where this suit originated] total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

I’m surprised the vote was so close, but I suppose I shouldn’t have been. It’s just that, to me, a plain reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution shows that the right to bear arms is an individual right:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s nice to see that the Supreme Court agrees. And if you’re looking for a gun that is perfect for concealed carry, check out https://ballachy.com/glock-37-review/