There’s a site out there called “How It Should Have Ended.” It has short animated videos that show how movies should have ended, in the opinion of the animators. Most of them are pretty funny — and true. They essentially poke fun at inconsistencies in the movie itself. Perfect example — Superman:
These little videos get pretty addictive. They’ve got them for “Lord of the Rings” (classic!), “The Blair Witch Project,” “Spiderman 3,” and lots more. Check it out!
The Journal Star included two articles today — I’m sure we’ll be seeing many more in the coming weeks — championing the proposed riverfront museum. One was an editorial (“Boost museum with old-fashioned political campaign“), and the other a Paul Gordon business article (“Museum would be true local project“).
First up, the editorial. Here’s their take on why the museum doesn’t have broader support:
Our read is that most locals are not exactly against the museum so much as not emphatically for it. They’re skeptical that The Block will draw visitors beyond this immediate area, that it won’t require ongoing tax support for operations, that this is “absolutely critical” to the region. Remarkably, some even doubt whether central Illinois’ history merits remembrance and celebration.
That’s all true, but they’re missing the bigger point. This museum is a bait and switch. We were supposed to be getting a Peoria history museum as part of a new-urban-style development. Instead, they’re wanting to move Lakeview Museum to the riverfront, add a token amount of “regional” history to the permanent display area, throw in a bunch of other stuff, and house it in a downsized, inefficient, suburban building — and they want our tax dollars to fund it.
It’s not that people are against a museum — it’s that they’re against this plan for a museum. It’s too much money in too small a space for too little value added. Instead of spending their wad on a big marketing campaign, they would be better off spending that money to rework their plan for the Sears block.
As I have suggested before, I propose that they leave Lakeview where it is and keep it as the art and science museum. We already have it, and there’s no compelling reason to move it to the riverfront on the public’s dime. Then, on the Sears block, they build a new history and achievement museum (with an IMAX theater), but they build it on a small portion of the block in a multi-level, urban-style building. This will reduce the construction costs considerably while simultaneously giving them additional space. The rest of the block would be put out for proposals from developers for mixed-use development, including residential and retail urban development. This would infuse the block with activity around the clock, benefiting not only the museum and IMAX theater, but the riverfront and the rest of downtown. I bet they could do that without even having to go to the public to request a tax increase.
Moving on to Paul Gordon’s column, he focuses on a memorandum of understanding “between Caterpillar Inc., the Museum Collaboration Group and the West-Central Illinois Building Trades Council.”
The memo […] spells out the responsibilities of each of the partners in getting the project built if the funding goal is reached in the next three years.
But it’s the bottom line numbers that will bring people together for the project.
It will keep 250 to 300 construction workers on the job each month for two or more years (an estimated 420,000-plus man hours), keep the projected $77 million in total construction costs – including an estimated $45 million in wages – in central Illinois and serve as a renewed commitment to Peoria by its largest employer.
That sounds great until you remember that your tax dollars are going to be paying the lion’s share ($35 million) of those $45 million in wages. And you’re going to paying those taxes forever — long after those two years of construction jobs are complete. Why? Well, first of all, because taxes, once established, never get rescinded. Witness the HRA taxes for the Civic Center which Peorians were promised would only be temporary. Secondly, the museum has a projected annual operating budget of $4 million. That means they’d have to get 1,000 visitors a week paying $10.95 admission (for reference, Lakeview currently charges $6 admission for adults, $4 for kids, and according to their website, “The Museum has a membership base of 4,000 and attracts 125,000 visitors annually”). So I think it’s safe to say that they’ll have to use tax revenue to cover their operational costs… forever.
But hey, we’ll have two years of local construction jobs, so that’s a good trade-off, right?
The Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation (IPRRF) is organizing and coordinating Peoria’s first ever Railroad Fair next weekend. Here’s some further information on what’s being planned:
We have contacted the local short line railroads asking them to put various pieces of equipment on display for the general public to view and have hands on experience. The public will be allowed to explore the equipment. None of the equipment will be running at the time. Operation Lifesaver will be there and there will be a mini railroad swap meet also. There will be face painting for the little ones and Thomas the Tank masks for them to color and cut out.
All of this will take place on Saturday, Sept 20th from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Sunday, Sept 21st, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Place: Barrack’s Cater Inn on Pioneer Parkway. Equipment will be staged on the Kellar Branch next to their parking lot.
The idea of this railroad fair is to introduce the general public to the importance of railroad to our daily lives and to teach them railroad safety…. This is going to be a fun thing and hopefully it will become an annual railroad fair. We are a 501(c)3 nonprofit Foundation. Contributions gratefully received. Please send to Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation, c/o Sharon Deckard, 3124 W. Farmington Rd., Peoria, IL 61604-4815.
It’s not just compulsory military service that 18th Congressional District candidate Colleen Callahan was talking about in a recent debate. According to the Journal Star:
[Callahan] said she’s in favor of “drafting” citizens for some form of national service, be it military or not as a way to bolster patriotism and bolster America’s standing at home and abroad. […] Callahan said the idea of a draft for national service had not come up before in talks with her staff and she hadn’t formulated a plan.
In the future, she may want to bounce her ideas off her staff first before trying to make up policy on the spot during a debate. While national service is laudable, making it compulsory is the sticking point. Many people have argued against forcing our young people into mandatory service for their country (other than a military draft in war time, of course), for a variety of reasons:
So what would a plan for universal national service look like? It would be voluntary, not mandatory. Americans don’t like to be told what they have to do; many have argued that requiring service drains the gift of its virtue. It would be based on carrots, not sticks — “doing well by doing good,” as Benjamin Franklin, the true father of civic engagement, put it.
Compulsory national service turns young people into temporary slaves in order to inculcate in their minds the opposite premise: that they have a duty to selflessly serve society. To justify such a policy on the grounds of promoting appreciation for freedom is perverse. To call it patriotic is obscene.
This is closely related to Kinsley’s point. How do you teach patriotism — “love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it” — when, under this policy, one is forced unwillingly to sacrifice for it? It undermines the virtue you’re trying to teach.
If 4 million persons [the approximate number of Americans who turn 18 every year] were conscripted for one year’s national service, at an annual expense of $27,000 per person [the federal contribution to AmeriCorps volunteers, used as a benchmark], the program would cost more than $100 billion a year–probably much more, because the $27,000 figure excludes the overhead expenses of the service organizations that receive the per capita grants.
Callahan almost immediately started backing away from her comments, according to the Springfield Journal-Register.
Callahan said Thursday that the question put to the candidates a day earlier was merely hypothetical and that her answer was conditional.
“I’m not advocating it,” she said of a draft. “I wouldn’t introduce legislation that says that.” But, she added, “When I’m the congressman, if that came up for my vote, would I consider it? Yes.”
So, Schock wants to send nukes to Taiwan, and Callahan wants to reinstate the draft. We’ve got a couple of real winners here in the race.
From a press release in reference to the Dan Fogelberg tribute this Saturday:
We have an important announcement of a venue change for the Fall Music Festival/Dan Fogelberg tribute tomorrow. Due to poor weather, we will be moving the venue indoors to the Opera House at Expo Gardens.
NEW LOCATION: Expo Gardens
1601 W Northmoor Rd Peoria ILThe schedule, times, and all other details remain the same.
A number of commenters on an earlier post argued that the police should not publish photos of those arrested in drug raids because people are innocent until proven guilty. In fact, some went so far as to say putting arrestees’ photos on the web would be unconstitutional. Other bloggers have weighed in as well.
But on the web right now is this information:
Robbery
Shawn L. Burch, 28, of 404 E. Republic St. was arrested about 8 p.m. Sunday in the 700 block of Northeast Adams Street and booked on charges of robbery and mob action with injury. He allegedly attacked and stole jackets from two women Sunday afternoon on Madison Avenue.
Mary J. Schertz, 23, of 2610 W. Humboldt Ave. was arrested about 6 p.m. Sunday at the Peoria Police Department, 600 SW Adams St., and booked on charges of robbery, aggravated battery and mob action. She attacked two women last week in South Peoria, striking them with a softball and stealing one of their purses, police said.
Weapons
Bryant K. Carter, 43, of 914 W. Hampshire Road was arrested about 7:40 p.m. Monday in the 900 block of West Hampshire Road and booked on charges of unlawful use of weapons, having an expired firearm owner’s identification card and disorderly conduct.
Where is this information, you may ask? The police department’s website, perhaps? No. It’s the Journal Star’s site. And it’s under the category “Arrests.” And it appeared in print on September 9, to boot.
So, the question is, should this information be suppressed until there is a conviction? Is it wrong to publish this public information? It gives names, addresses, and the reason each person was arrested — and if they’re not convicted, there’s nothing published to clear their name after the fact. What’s the difference between this journalistic practice and the police doing the same thing for drug arrests on their website (with one difference: adding a picture of the arrestees)?
Frankly, I think what the police department is suggesting is actually less invasive. You might run across these names in the paper while you’re looking at the local news. You’d have to deliberately visit the police department’s website to see the pictures. Compare the number of hits to the Peoria Police Department site with the Journal Star’s — then add in the paper’s circulation numbers.
Should there be outrage against the paper’s publishing of these innocent (until proven guilty) people’s names and addresses? Should arrests be suppressed in the media, and only convictions reported?
I didn’t get to hear the debates yesterday as I was busy doing other things — maybe I can find an mp3 recording of it somewhere — but I did read the write-up in the Journal Star this morning. Sounds like it was pretty boring for the most part; Schock is no longer pushing the nukes to Taiwan argument, and everyone has settled into the usual party camps.
Except this statement caught my eye:
…one distinction did emerge when Callahan said she would champion re-instituting the draft.
Callahan said the military, stressed from fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, needed the draft to be rebuilt.
“You can gasp if you want. But I believe it is the fairest way for us to rebuild our military,” Callahan said. “I know from all of those who are currently serving, proud as they are of their service, many of them are coming from the National Guard and it leaves us open, at risk, here at home where we have needs from disasters.”
Callahan did add a caveat, though, saying time spent in the military could be swapped for another form of service.
Not that this is necessarily a bad policy idea, but why would you bring it up during the campaign? Is this supposed to win her votes? While other candidates generally use the election to promise they’ll bring home money, jobs, even the troops, Callahan is saying she wants to bring home… the draft? Not the brightest political move, and a sure way to lose votes from young men of drafting age — and their parents.
On the other hand, the odds of her winning this election are about 100 to 1 anyway, so what does she have to lose? It does give her a little more publicity.
My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t think I have a right to impose my few on the rest of society. I’ve thought a lot about it, and my position probably doesn’t please anyone. I think the government should stay out completely. I will not vote to overturn the Court’s decision. I will not vote to curtail a woman’s right to choose abortion. But I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion.
–Sen. Joe Biden, Promises to Keep (2007), p. 104-105
This is Sen. Joe Biden’s official stance on abortion — a common one among Democrats, whose party platform includes a pro-choice stance as a key plank. Biden was asked to defend his fence-straddling position recently on Meet the Press, and what he said raised the ire of the Archbishop of Denver. The archbishop thinks that politicians like Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are misrepresenting the church’s beliefs on abortion to the American public, and he’s published a letter to set the record straight and expose these politicans’ “flawed moral reasoning”:
Public Servants and Moral Reasoning:A notice to the Catholic community in northern Colorado
To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:
When Catholics serve on the national stage, their actions and words impact the faith of Catholics around the country. As a result, they open themselves to legitimate scrutiny by local Catholics and local bishops on matters of Catholic belief.
In 2008, although NBC probably didn’t intend it, Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants. On August 24, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, describing herself as an ardent, practicing Catholic, misrepresented the overwhelming body of Catholic teaching against abortion to the show’s nationwide audience, while defending her “pro-choice” abortion views. On September 7, Sen. Joseph Biden compounded the problem to the same Meet the Press audience.
Sen. Biden is a man of distinguished public service. That doesn’t excuse poor logic or bad facts. Asked when life begins, Sen. Biden said that, “it’s a personal and private issue.” But in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception. Religion has nothing to do with it. People might argue when human “personhood” begins – though that leads public policy in very dangerous directions – but no one can any longer claim that the beginning of life is a matter of religious opinion.
Sen. Biden also confused the nature of pluralism. Real pluralism thrives on healthy, non-violent disagreement; it requires an environment where people of conviction will struggle respectfully but vigorously to advance their beliefs. In his interview, the senator observed that other people with strong religious views disagree with the Catholic approach to abortion. It’s certainly true that we need to acknowledge the views of other people and compromise whenever possible – but not at the expense of a developing child’s right to life.
Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong. If, as Sen. Biden said, “I’m prepared as a matter of faith [emphasis added] to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,” then he is not merely wrong about the science of new life; he also fails to defend the innocent life he already knows is there.
As the senator said in his interview, he has opposed public funding for abortions. To his great credit, he also backed a successful ban on partial-birth abortions. But his strong support for the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and the false “right” to abortion it enshrines, can’t be excused by any serious Catholic. Support for Roe and the “right to choose” an abortion simply masks what abortion is, and what abortion does.
Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation. In his Meet the Press interview, Sen. Biden used a morally exhausted argument that American Catholics have been hearing for 40 years: i.e., that Catholics can’t “impose” their religiously based views on the rest of the country. But resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion. And the senator knows very well as a lawmaker that all law involves the imposition of some people’s convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law.
American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their “pro-choice” beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades. If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us – from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews – fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver
The council gave the green light to Hy-Vee, even though they didn’t meet the city staff’s and zoning commission’s conditions/recommendations. Developers did make some improvements to the design, but the function of the west side of the store was not one of them. There will be no access from the west — in fact, Hy-Vee officials stated that even employees are not allowed to enter the rear (west side) of the store.
Officials also stated that an entrance in the rear “would not have worked from an operational standpoint of the supermarket’s business.” But I still think that, with a little creativity, they could have figured out a way to provide access from the west — even if it were just an indoor passageway from the west parking lot to the east entrance.
Construction is slated to begin in the spring, and will include demolishing an entire leg of the original strip mall. This will be the biggest change to come to Sheridan Village since it opened in the ’50s.
From a city press release:
The Dan Fogelburg [sic] Sign Ceremony will take place on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., on the NE corner of Prospect and Frye (top of Abington hill).
Also, here’s the Journal Star article on the event.
Fogelberg, an East Bluff native who died at age 56 last December after a battle with prostate cancer, was a 1969 Woodruff High School graduate. Some of his music was inspired by encounters and experiences in the Peoria region.
Abington will get the honorary designation “Fogelberg Parkway.” I hope his name is spelled correctly on the sign, unlike the press release.