Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of “anything goes.” Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.

–Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address

Today we write to urge your attention to one race in particular. Our friend, Todd Stroger, former state representative and alderman is candidate for president of the Cook County Board. Please consider voting for Todd…. Todd is a good progressive Democrat, who will bring those values and sensibilities to the job.

The same can not be said of his opponent, a conservative Republican, who has sided with the NRA and against our police by opposing a ban on the military style assault weapons favored by gangs and drug dealers. He also is a long and avowed opponent of reproductive rights. The County board president has discretion to end reproductive health services, which would deny poor women their basic rights. We’ve come too far for that.

–Barack Obama with Dick Durbin, 2006 endorsement of Cook County Board presidential candidate Todd Stroger

Hat tip: Eric Zorn

There has been some concern that I haven’t been critical enough of the anti-smoking-ban statistics coming out of Springfield. So, for those who would like to hear the other side of the story, Knight in Dragonland has a well-written pro-smoking-ban post here.

As I said in my comments on an earlier post, I’m willing to concede that the statistics could be invalid. It wouldn’t be the first time stats were used that way. However, I still maintain that the main issue — trampling on private property rights in order to impose this smoking ban — is a devil’s pact. Once you start setting these kinds of legal precedents, you’re asking for trouble down the road. If non-smokers want to outlaw smoking, I’m not opposed to that; I’m just opposed to further eroding private property rights to do it.

The State Journal-Register (Springfield) reports today that profits are down — way down — at Springfield bars and fraternal clubs thanks to a city-wide smoking ban:

[ILBA Executive Director Steve] Riedl also cited numbers showing Springfield bars and fraternal clubs reported to the [Illinois Licensed Beverage Association (ILBA)] revenue losses ranging from 7 percent to 70 percent between Sept. 18 and Oct. 10, 2006, when compared to the same time frame a year ago. The average revenue loss among the businesses was 25 percent, according to the ILBA.

Riedl said Springfield establishments provided the ILBA with gross sales figures from the two time periods. Riedl argued that such an approach paints a clearer picture of the ban’s economic impact.

Huh. That’s funny. I thought this ban was supposed to increase revenues. Weren’t all those disenfranchised non-smokers supposed to rush right out to the bars once the ban took effect?

“Any small business caters to the customers’ demands,” [bartender Vicki] Wilson said. “It’s a supply-and-demand business. And bless their hearts, the non-smokers just don’t really come in to the bars. I don’t think they did before the ban, and I don’t expect them to after the ban.”

The ILBA is now working to overturn the ban: “Riedl said one or more aldermen will introduce for first reading on Nov. 8 an ordinance that would exempt bars and fraternal organizations from the indoor [smoking] ban.”

More power to ’em. Keep an eye on this story because it won’t be long before Smoke-Free Illinois is knocking on Peoria’s door asking for an indoor smoking ban at bars and restaurants.

I’m not particularly swayed by negative political campaign ads. I think they’re generally in poor taste, and they sure don’t tell you much about either candidate’s platform. If the best thing you can say about your bid for office is “vote for me ’cause my opponent is a bum,” you really aren’t offering much. So, I’m no apologist for negative campaigning.

That said, I think candidates are getting a bit thin-skinned these days. You know it’s getting bad when a grown man trots out his mother to defend him against a subliminal knock on his weight in a TV ad. To read the Journal Star’s “Word on the Street” column today (can’t find it online or I’d link to it), you’d think negative campaigning were something no one had ever seen before. Molly Parker says “enough is enough” — then goes on for three more columns rehashing how terrible these negative ads are.

I wonder what the candidates (and Ms. Parker) would think if their opponents ran this ad against them (from the 1964 presidential election):

Call me crazy, but I’d rather be criticized for my weight than have my opponent claim I’m going to start a nuclear holocaust. That really takes the cake — it goes waaaay beyond “vote for me ’cause my opponent is a bum” to “vote for me ’cause my opponent will start a nuclear war and vaporize your children!” It doesn’t get any more negative than that. Yet, sadly, it worked. Johnson won the election.

Did I say it doesn’t get any more negative? Well, maybe it does. Mike Smith isn’t the first person to have ads poke fun at his physique. Witness this political cartoon from Vanity Fair in 1860:

That’s 5′ 4″ Stephen Douglas being lampooned for being so short. He’s depicted here as a child trying to reach the highchair of the presidency. To make matters worse, he’s balancing on a stool on the back of a black boy to get there — a reference to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which Douglas (an Illinois senator!) had proposed and which ultimately passed Congress. That’s another story, not germane to this post. My only point is that this was quite inflammatory — way more inflammatory than the kinds of ads we’re seeing today.

And those are only two examples. Believe me, the political ads of today are a love fest compared to the past.

Steve Lyons was a FOX broadcaster until immediately following Game 3 of the ALCS. It was during that game that Lyons, according to FOX, made “racially insensitive remarks” about fellow broadcaster Lou Piniella, who is also destined to be the Cubs’ next skipper.

In this age of hypersensitivity, what in the world could Lyons have said to cost him his job? Here’s the report from the Detroit Free Press:

In the second inning Friday, Piniella talked about the success light-hitting A’s infielder Marco Scutaro had in the playoffs against Minnesota. Piniella said that slugger Frank Thomas and Eric Chavez needed to contribute, comparing Scutaro’s production to finding a “wallet on Friday” and hoping it happened again the next week.

Four minutes later, Piniella said the A’s needed Thomas to get “en fuego” — “on fire” in Spanish — because he was “frio” — “cold.” After Brennaman praised Piniella for being bilingual, Lyons spoke up.

Lyons said that Piniella was “habla-ing Espanol” — butchering the conjugation for the word “to speak” — and added, “I still can’t find my wallet.”

“I don’t understand him,” he continued, “and I don’t want to sit too close to him now.”

The three broadcasters laughed and continued calling the action.

Fox executives told Lyons after the game that he had been fired.

Now, can someone explain to me what’s “insensitive” about this exchange? Is it that he said Piniella was “habla-ing Espanol”? Did they really Lyons was poking fun of Spanish-speaking people or the Spanish language in general? Please. Or was it that he implied Piniella had stolen his wallet, thus leading FOX to believe he thinks people of Hispanic descent are born thieves?

Come on. Lyons was just trying to make clever repartee — silly banter — with his booth-mates as is normal for broadcasters. He didn’t make any racial slurs or play on any stereotypes; if it had been Brennaman who had said what Piniella said, Lyons would have said the same thing. To fire him over this is the epitome of political correctness, and is the kind of thing that makes people afraid to say anything at all.

If FOX wants to fire someone for being insensitive, they should fire Jeanne Zelasko for unceremoniously cutting off broadcasting legend Ernie Harwell after only 17 seconds of a pregame interview during the 2005 All-Star Game.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Former Gov. George Ryan must surrender to prison early next year after a federal judge on Friday refused to let him remain free on bond while his appeal winds through court.

In a 32-page ruling issued Friday evening, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer rejected claims by the defense that Ryan’s racketeering conviction was likely to be reversed on appeal.

Who says there’s no justice these days?

The Journal Star reports that K’s Merchandise is going out of business — the whole chain. Liquidation sale starts Thursday.

K’s is practically right next to the Kellar Branch. Wouldn’t it be nice if a rail-served business (light industry, warehouse) moved into that property? Oh, wait, we can’t try to attract that kind of business because we want to take the rail line out and put in a bike path. Oh well. Maybe the car dealership next door will buy it.