I am an atheist, but I will fight for free religious expression, including the right to wear the hijab or full body covering if they choose. However, Ahmed Rehab does not get to call me an Islamaphobe because I believe these are symbols of oppression. I am not a big fan of the Roman Catholic church,either, and its stance on women's reproductive rights, but I respect their right to hold the tenets of their faith. Respecting the right to choose, however, does not mean I have to respect the choice. Nomani is right and I am trying hard to resist the idea that Mr. Rehab is mansplaining.
I don't think that Mr. Rehab called you an Islamophobe and he offered no criticism of Muslim women that choose not to wear a hijab. He said Islamophobes conflate the behavior of extremists and theocratic government with the practices of individual Muslims, that may or may not choose to follow more or less conservative practices. I agree with you otherwise.
From Newsweek: "Just a reminder to New York...Marco Rubio and Ron DeSantis (who was in Congress at the time) voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy," New York State Assembly member Yuh-Line Niou tweeted on Wednesday." So Florida's hypocritical governor who has been pleading for aid refused to help New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere.
"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to put on their jalabeeb [when they go out]; this will make it more likely that they will be recognised [as chaste women] and will not be harassed. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Surah Al Ahzab, Verse 59
That is an inherently oppressive edict, which Mr. Rehab either does not understand or acknowledge. It is oppressive because it places the onus on women to regulate men's behavior. The responsibility for avoiding harassment is the responsibility of the *men* doing the harassing, not the women being harassed. Honestly, I don't find Mr. Rehab's "voice" to be "particularly thoughtful" at all; he comes across as arrogant and insulting in your interview.
The CWB Chicago Facebook posts have bothered me for some time. Eric, you write, “And straight crime reporting seldom delves into the ‘social circumstances’ that give rise to acts of violence, so it’s captious to cite that as a flaw.” But maybe that is a serious flaw of “straight crime reporting.” I tend to think that it is. Reporting on crime without reporting on the factors, social and otherwise, that led to the particular breakdown in social order promotes an “us and them” mentality, the view that there are “good people” and “bad people.” One often hears people against reasonable gun control measures talk about “a good guy with a gun,” or say “criminals” don’t obey gun control laws. It’s as if there are two kinds of people: us, the law-abiding, and them, the criminals. People with this mindset tend to imagine the criminals as people of color. I’ve spent over 40 years working in the justice system as a criminal defense attorney and civil rights lawyer. What I’ve learned is that the vast majority of criminal defendants are “people like us” who made bad mistakes often as a result of terribly difficult stresses in their lives. There is no “us and them.” There is only “us.” Your recent essay about Marilyn Lemak shows me that, on some level, you see that. Crime reporting which ignores the factors, social and otherwise, that led to the breakdown, promotes the “us and them” mindset, which, in turn, promotes racism, which is unhealthy for our culture and society.
Since you brought her up, what were the “social circumstances” that caused Lemak to snap and go on a killing spree?
One might also suggest that violent crime is unhealthy for culture and society, something that should go without saying, but sometimes has to be pointed out to people that don’t live in areas where it is endemic.
I said factors, "social and otherwise." The factors in the case of Marilyn Lemak were discussed at some length in a prior edition of the Picayune Sentinel. Did you miss it?
Your sarcastic suggestion that I need to be reminded of the unhealthfulness of crime is absurd. I spent all of my adult life working in the criminal justice system. My point is that we should not promote a belief in the good guy/bad guy dichotomy. Have you ever been charged with an offense? Speeding? Failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident? DUI? Battery perhaps? What were the factors, social and otherwise, that caused that incident, if there was one?
Yes, I was arrested for DUI in 1996, and as near as I can tell, the social factors were irrelevant.. I voluntarily made a bad choice that endangered other motorists and I had to pay a price. You could say that it was attributable to my burgeoning alcoholism at the time, but I would never use that in an attempt to absolve myself of culpability. If anything, I took full responsibility for my folly, and elected to stop drinking entirely.
I think you are proving my point. There were factors that led to your incident of anti-social behavior in 1996 in which you clearly recklessly put other people’s lives at risk for no good reason. You are neither a “good guy” nor a “bad guy.” You are like the rest of us. It appears to me that you assume that I view the factors, social and otherwise, that lead ordinary people to commit criminal offenses as excuses that justify their conduct or exonerate them. I don’t. But I don’t see the people in the posts of CWB Chicago as “them” or as “bad guys” any more than I see you that way. The best judges I have ever appeared before used to hate sentencing criminal defendants. Because they saw the criminal defendants brought before them as flawed human beings like themselves. Perhaps that is how we should all view the people whose mug shots are featured in CWB Chicago.
You make some valid points, but recall that what started this was your complaint that elaboration on background or social circumstances related to violent crime doesn’t usually feature in crime reporting. But terseness and brevity are essential to crime reporting, as well they should be, otherwise the medium would be less reportage and more biography, and that would be both superfluous and absurd.
I disagree. Crime reporting often includes background information about the complaining witness/victim. He volunteered at the local food pantry; she was a straight A student, etc. Nothing other than criminal history is ever included about the accused in crime reporting.
So crime stories should say "A misguided victim of society made a bad choice this morning and beat a victim into a coma in order to steal their car. Police are seeking the alleged assailant so that we can improve his life and help him make better decisions". There are good people and bad people. There is 'us' the law abiding and 'them' the criminals. Pretending otherwise is nonsense and presuming that accepting this is tantamount to racism or ignorance of social issues is an absurd leap of logic. I understand that there are many non-violent criminals that may be described as good people making bad choices and there are those that are mentally incompetent. I also believe that there is good in everyone if they choose to reform themselves. But murder, rape, sexual assault, assault, manslaughter and robbery are not committed by 'people like us' that just made bad choices nor are they merely victims of circumstances or society. People convicted of these crimes are .03% of the adult population, .09% if we assume that only 30% are convicted. If they were all non-white (which of course they aren't) they would be only .7% of the non-white population. If they are all in the bottom 20% of income they are only 1.5% of that population. Only 7% of the adult population has a felony conviction of any kind. The vast majority of Americans are good, law-abiding people that are quite capable of not making 'bad choices'. There may be mitigating circumstances or sympathetic background for some, even many, but that does not change their crimes.
I think we can add financial scammers, neo-nazis, mobsters, and gang members to the list of bad people, at least until they reform themselves. Or are they also 'just like us'? There are no bad people, only bad behavior is a distinction without a difference for the victims. A gang member that chooses to shoot a perceived opponent without regard for bystanders, including children, is a bad person regardless of their background or circumstances. We can address his humanity and potential redemption after he is caught and convicted.
Your attitude is a symptom of what’s currently wrong with this country. As to how the article should be written: it should tell a little about the background of the accused, just as it tells a little about the background of the complaining witness/victim. Your belief that there are “good people” and “bad people” (and, of course, that you are well within the group of “good people”), is childish, misguided, and flat out wrong. (And it’s a very Republican attitude, I might add. You know, like all of the immigrants at the southern border are breaking the law.) Some of the nicest defendants you’ll ever meet are people charged with murder. And quite frankly, I’d rather share a meal with them than you.
When I was in high school a friend of mine was in front of his house when he was approached by two teens, one of whom had a gun. They demanded his money, and he gave them the five he had in his pocket. They then ordered him to take them inside, which he refused, so they shot him. Thankfully he recovered. We all lived in the same neighborhood, we went to the same schools, and we bore the same social burdens. I knew guys that worked in a chop shop and guys that sold weed, who I thought of as decent guys that were making big mistakes. But the ones that would shoot someone for beer money were bad people. They probably loved their mom and had friends that would relate how nice they were to people they weren't shooting. And yes, like 99% of all other Americans, I never considered shooting, stabbing, beating, or otherwise abusing any of my fellow citizens. But I can understand that you would not want to associate with me, as you obviously think I am a bad person.
I don't think you are a "bad person." If you read my comment, you would know that I don't see any validity in the "good guy"/"bad guy" way of looking at the world. I did say I wouldn't want to have dinner with you, but that is because I find people with your attitudes tiresome and boring.
Fair enough, not 'bad' just tedious, childish and ignorant. If you read my comments, you would see that I do not think everyone that breaks the law is a bad person or that good people are defined by income, race, origin or legal history. We are all flawed human beings, but I think there is a profound difference in the flawed person that fires a gun into a car full of children. I think they are bad. And I think that people like you are good and not similarly flawed. I think people are defined by their (secular) moral and ethical qualities. I don't think that these thoughts are inherently bad for society. But enough of my tiresome attitude.
The "Museum" of Ice Cream is an utter joke. There is one small room that has some very pedestrian historical artifacts/photos of old-timey ice cream paraphernalia. It's nothing but a VERY expensive Instagram site for people to take photos of their (little) kids in colorful (pink) backgrounds. There are a few rooms of "activities" that are geared towards the 10 and under crowd (a couple of holes of miniature golf, etc.). It's a huge waste of money, and I am shocked that it has lasted as long as it has (a few months).
I can't speak for CWBChicago and I wish they provided a better answer to your 'why not interview' question. But I can imagine the thinking. Anyone that is routinely presenting on the internet and social media can expect a torrent of abuse and threats, so why would they want to offer any personal information. They also know that opposing activists of many stripes will feel no restraint on protesting at their homes or attacking their private information or 'doxing' them. If CWB people consider themselves part of a persecuted minority then they might have even more concerns. They may also feel that exposing information about themselves will generate spurious and distracting attacks on their motives and goals, which would take away from the information they provide. Greenberg provides a perfect example, claiming they are rich white guys and so obviously racists while providing zero evidence that the site provides inaccurate or misleading information. They may still be concerned about reprisals from the CPD or from gangs or alderpersons. Finally, many activists think of themselves as the guardians of accountability and therefore not the targets of others that would use the notion of accountability as a cudgel against them. They do not think of themselves as traditional journalists, they are people exposing the facts that are hidden by others.
I'm glad the McCormack Foundation made the grants and generally agree with you. However, based on the behavior of faculty and administrators, I would not have included NU Medill School of Journalism. Better to have found a journalism school that adheres more closely to objectivity, reliability, and fairness.
I agree with Mr. Rehab. The current events in Iran are an example of undemocratic, authoritarian government. The reason for the deployment of rules of conformity in authoritarian regimes is to control the population. Any resistance to the dictates and rules of the government creates a long-term risk to the power, authority, and control of the regime. Which particular rules are broken is irrelevant, as are the motives of the rule breakers. The rule breakers may believe that they are loyal and reliable citizens in full support of the government and country in all other respects. But they fail to realize that authoritarians know the risk of ANY deviations that are tolerated. If the beatings, demonstrations, and repression were due to any other cause would anyone question that cause? If the trigger had been free speech, would we ask if the notion of free speech was tainted?
I have always agreed with Eric on the value of an appropriate apology. I am an atheist. If I find myself at the Pearly Gates after my death, I will say: "Yikes! I was so wrong, my sincere apologies. Might you still have a reasonably pleasant corner for me here? I am still hoping I was right about the 'no hell' thing".
The winning politically themed tweet of the week by The Volatile Mermaid @OhNoSheTwidn’t makes some interesting points, but here are few enhancements: “I’m not a gun enthusiast, but I would never interfere with anyone else’s choice to own a firearm”, or “I’m not a conservative, but I would never approve of mob action to stop conservatives from speaking on college campuses or anywhere else”. She could also more accurately phrase the first item in her diatribe by saying “I’m not wealthy or privileged, but I believe I should work extra hard to help cover the debts of those who are”. Welcome to It REALLY Isn’t Always About You 101.
The taxes in the price of a gallon of gasoline are as opaque as airline pricing. Signs at every pump should say what the federal, state and local taxes are on each gallon
In Chicago, at least (and I think across IL) is is against local/state laws (or municipal code) for gas stations to provide the enumerates local taxes on gas pumps (or anywhere else).
The solons in City Hall and Springfield don't want motorists to be reminded of that.
I really enjoy your discussions on issues like the one about hijabs and government. I found myself ultimately agreeing with Mr Rehab but I am and will always be uncomfortable with hijabs, Catholic orders that veil nuns and Orthodox Jewish law that cover the hair of married women. Maybe it is because my hair has never been my crowning glory but….I it is a common theme of major religions that men must be protected from women. That is silly and insulting.
CWB Chicago remains true to its mission of reporting criminality in the city of Chicago that is under reported either by oversight or intentionally by the mainstream media. The ruling political and city establishment has a vested interest in attempting to minimize the surge in violent crime afflicting Chicago and Cook County.
The level of vitriol directed toward CWB Chicago, and the editors desire for anonymity are directly related. Despite the fact that I have not seen anyone challenge the facts and the crime statistics reported by CWB Chicago, there is palpable anger by many, virtually all on the progressive left, for them doing so. Given the left's penchant for loud demonstrations at people's personal residences, verbally assaulting them when they are out dining, etc, it is very easy to understand why these editors do not want their information out there.
Complaints about racism in CWB Chicago are meritless. Reporting that black offenders commit violent crime in disportionate numbers is simply stating a fact. For those who wish to challenge this, I refer them to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports published annually. In the crime tables where the ethnicity of the perpetrator is known, black perpetrators commit over 50% of homicides and over 50% of robberies nationally in recent years despite representing only 13.4% of the population. Similarly, the Public Safety Committee of the very leftward City Council of my hometown of Minneapolis recently commissioned an outside firm to study the effects of gun violence on people of color through the first half of 2022. The black population of Minneapolis is 19%, and the headline was that blacks represent 69% of all violent crime victims in the city. No question that blacks are indeed disproportionately the victims of violent crime everywhere . But, hidden further in the report was the more startling statistic that 89% of the shooters in the first half of 2022 are black.
These are not racist statements, but simply statements of documented fact. Discussion and debate over why this is and how to best address it is totally valid, but it does not change the facts no matter how uncomfortable they are or contrary to a desired political narrative. But I believe that is the basis of much of the criticism directed toward CWB Chicago.
If anyone is looking for a more transparent, to a fault, source on live Chicago crime - try following James Hawthorne aka J-Hustle aka #GNN on Facebook.
“Answer your critics and defend your work, not through anonymous social media accounts but in person. Come out from the shadows.
“The interview invitation still stands.” --Zorn
After reading the 10/4/22 article on CWBChicago where Eric confronts them for a lack of transparency and accountability in their reporting on crime in Chicago -- as a journalist he is acrimoniously bashed by them in reply. To me, Eric’s confrontation seems reasonable, especially with respect to public interest and verity in reporting, and it is an indignity to vilify him simply for his position on the issue. To me, denouncing him seems not only wrong on principle, but it is obviously a form of verbal abuse.
I am an atheist, but I will fight for free religious expression, including the right to wear the hijab or full body covering if they choose. However, Ahmed Rehab does not get to call me an Islamaphobe because I believe these are symbols of oppression. I am not a big fan of the Roman Catholic church,either, and its stance on women's reproductive rights, but I respect their right to hold the tenets of their faith. Respecting the right to choose, however, does not mean I have to respect the choice. Nomani is right and I am trying hard to resist the idea that Mr. Rehab is mansplaining.
I don't think that Mr. Rehab called you an Islamophobe and he offered no criticism of Muslim women that choose not to wear a hijab. He said Islamophobes conflate the behavior of extremists and theocratic government with the practices of individual Muslims, that may or may not choose to follow more or less conservative practices. I agree with you otherwise.
From Newsweek: "Just a reminder to New York...Marco Rubio and Ron DeSantis (who was in Congress at the time) voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy," New York State Assembly member Yuh-Line Niou tweeted on Wednesday." So Florida's hypocritical governor who has been pleading for aid refused to help New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere.
"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to put on their jalabeeb [when they go out]; this will make it more likely that they will be recognised [as chaste women] and will not be harassed. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Surah Al Ahzab, Verse 59
That is an inherently oppressive edict, which Mr. Rehab either does not understand or acknowledge. It is oppressive because it places the onus on women to regulate men's behavior. The responsibility for avoiding harassment is the responsibility of the *men* doing the harassing, not the women being harassed. Honestly, I don't find Mr. Rehab's "voice" to be "particularly thoughtful" at all; he comes across as arrogant and insulting in your interview.
The CWB Chicago Facebook posts have bothered me for some time. Eric, you write, “And straight crime reporting seldom delves into the ‘social circumstances’ that give rise to acts of violence, so it’s captious to cite that as a flaw.” But maybe that is a serious flaw of “straight crime reporting.” I tend to think that it is. Reporting on crime without reporting on the factors, social and otherwise, that led to the particular breakdown in social order promotes an “us and them” mentality, the view that there are “good people” and “bad people.” One often hears people against reasonable gun control measures talk about “a good guy with a gun,” or say “criminals” don’t obey gun control laws. It’s as if there are two kinds of people: us, the law-abiding, and them, the criminals. People with this mindset tend to imagine the criminals as people of color. I’ve spent over 40 years working in the justice system as a criminal defense attorney and civil rights lawyer. What I’ve learned is that the vast majority of criminal defendants are “people like us” who made bad mistakes often as a result of terribly difficult stresses in their lives. There is no “us and them.” There is only “us.” Your recent essay about Marilyn Lemak shows me that, on some level, you see that. Crime reporting which ignores the factors, social and otherwise, that led to the breakdown, promotes the “us and them” mindset, which, in turn, promotes racism, which is unhealthy for our culture and society.
Since you brought her up, what were the “social circumstances” that caused Lemak to snap and go on a killing spree?
One might also suggest that violent crime is unhealthy for culture and society, something that should go without saying, but sometimes has to be pointed out to people that don’t live in areas where it is endemic.
I said factors, "social and otherwise." The factors in the case of Marilyn Lemak were discussed at some length in a prior edition of the Picayune Sentinel. Did you miss it?
Your sarcastic suggestion that I need to be reminded of the unhealthfulness of crime is absurd. I spent all of my adult life working in the criminal justice system. My point is that we should not promote a belief in the good guy/bad guy dichotomy. Have you ever been charged with an offense? Speeding? Failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident? DUI? Battery perhaps? What were the factors, social and otherwise, that caused that incident, if there was one?
Yes, I was arrested for DUI in 1996, and as near as I can tell, the social factors were irrelevant.. I voluntarily made a bad choice that endangered other motorists and I had to pay a price. You could say that it was attributable to my burgeoning alcoholism at the time, but I would never use that in an attempt to absolve myself of culpability. If anything, I took full responsibility for my folly, and elected to stop drinking entirely.
I think you are proving my point. There were factors that led to your incident of anti-social behavior in 1996 in which you clearly recklessly put other people’s lives at risk for no good reason. You are neither a “good guy” nor a “bad guy.” You are like the rest of us. It appears to me that you assume that I view the factors, social and otherwise, that lead ordinary people to commit criminal offenses as excuses that justify their conduct or exonerate them. I don’t. But I don’t see the people in the posts of CWB Chicago as “them” or as “bad guys” any more than I see you that way. The best judges I have ever appeared before used to hate sentencing criminal defendants. Because they saw the criminal defendants brought before them as flawed human beings like themselves. Perhaps that is how we should all view the people whose mug shots are featured in CWB Chicago.
You make some valid points, but recall that what started this was your complaint that elaboration on background or social circumstances related to violent crime doesn’t usually feature in crime reporting. But terseness and brevity are essential to crime reporting, as well they should be, otherwise the medium would be less reportage and more biography, and that would be both superfluous and absurd.
I disagree. Crime reporting often includes background information about the complaining witness/victim. He volunteered at the local food pantry; she was a straight A student, etc. Nothing other than criminal history is ever included about the accused in crime reporting.
So crime stories should say "A misguided victim of society made a bad choice this morning and beat a victim into a coma in order to steal their car. Police are seeking the alleged assailant so that we can improve his life and help him make better decisions". There are good people and bad people. There is 'us' the law abiding and 'them' the criminals. Pretending otherwise is nonsense and presuming that accepting this is tantamount to racism or ignorance of social issues is an absurd leap of logic. I understand that there are many non-violent criminals that may be described as good people making bad choices and there are those that are mentally incompetent. I also believe that there is good in everyone if they choose to reform themselves. But murder, rape, sexual assault, assault, manslaughter and robbery are not committed by 'people like us' that just made bad choices nor are they merely victims of circumstances or society. People convicted of these crimes are .03% of the adult population, .09% if we assume that only 30% are convicted. If they were all non-white (which of course they aren't) they would be only .7% of the non-white population. If they are all in the bottom 20% of income they are only 1.5% of that population. Only 7% of the adult population has a felony conviction of any kind. The vast majority of Americans are good, law-abiding people that are quite capable of not making 'bad choices'. There may be mitigating circumstances or sympathetic background for some, even many, but that does not change their crimes.
I think we can add financial scammers, neo-nazis, mobsters, and gang members to the list of bad people, at least until they reform themselves. Or are they also 'just like us'? There are no bad people, only bad behavior is a distinction without a difference for the victims. A gang member that chooses to shoot a perceived opponent without regard for bystanders, including children, is a bad person regardless of their background or circumstances. We can address his humanity and potential redemption after he is caught and convicted.
Your attitude is a symptom of what’s currently wrong with this country. As to how the article should be written: it should tell a little about the background of the accused, just as it tells a little about the background of the complaining witness/victim. Your belief that there are “good people” and “bad people” (and, of course, that you are well within the group of “good people”), is childish, misguided, and flat out wrong. (And it’s a very Republican attitude, I might add. You know, like all of the immigrants at the southern border are breaking the law.) Some of the nicest defendants you’ll ever meet are people charged with murder. And quite frankly, I’d rather share a meal with them than you.
Norman Mailer said one of the nicest people he ever met was Jack Abbott.
When I was in high school a friend of mine was in front of his house when he was approached by two teens, one of whom had a gun. They demanded his money, and he gave them the five he had in his pocket. They then ordered him to take them inside, which he refused, so they shot him. Thankfully he recovered. We all lived in the same neighborhood, we went to the same schools, and we bore the same social burdens. I knew guys that worked in a chop shop and guys that sold weed, who I thought of as decent guys that were making big mistakes. But the ones that would shoot someone for beer money were bad people. They probably loved their mom and had friends that would relate how nice they were to people they weren't shooting. And yes, like 99% of all other Americans, I never considered shooting, stabbing, beating, or otherwise abusing any of my fellow citizens. But I can understand that you would not want to associate with me, as you obviously think I am a bad person.
I don't think you are a "bad person." If you read my comment, you would know that I don't see any validity in the "good guy"/"bad guy" way of looking at the world. I did say I wouldn't want to have dinner with you, but that is because I find people with your attitudes tiresome and boring.
Fair enough, not 'bad' just tedious, childish and ignorant. If you read my comments, you would see that I do not think everyone that breaks the law is a bad person or that good people are defined by income, race, origin or legal history. We are all flawed human beings, but I think there is a profound difference in the flawed person that fires a gun into a car full of children. I think they are bad. And I think that people like you are good and not similarly flawed. I think people are defined by their (secular) moral and ethical qualities. I don't think that these thoughts are inherently bad for society. But enough of my tiresome attitude.
Yes indeed. Enough.
The "Museum" of Ice Cream is an utter joke. There is one small room that has some very pedestrian historical artifacts/photos of old-timey ice cream paraphernalia. It's nothing but a VERY expensive Instagram site for people to take photos of their (little) kids in colorful (pink) backgrounds. There are a few rooms of "activities" that are geared towards the 10 and under crowd (a couple of holes of miniature golf, etc.). It's a huge waste of money, and I am shocked that it has lasted as long as it has (a few months).
I can't speak for CWBChicago and I wish they provided a better answer to your 'why not interview' question. But I can imagine the thinking. Anyone that is routinely presenting on the internet and social media can expect a torrent of abuse and threats, so why would they want to offer any personal information. They also know that opposing activists of many stripes will feel no restraint on protesting at their homes or attacking their private information or 'doxing' them. If CWB people consider themselves part of a persecuted minority then they might have even more concerns. They may also feel that exposing information about themselves will generate spurious and distracting attacks on their motives and goals, which would take away from the information they provide. Greenberg provides a perfect example, claiming they are rich white guys and so obviously racists while providing zero evidence that the site provides inaccurate or misleading information. They may still be concerned about reprisals from the CPD or from gangs or alderpersons. Finally, many activists think of themselves as the guardians of accountability and therefore not the targets of others that would use the notion of accountability as a cudgel against them. They do not think of themselves as traditional journalists, they are people exposing the facts that are hidden by others.
I'm glad the McCormack Foundation made the grants and generally agree with you. However, based on the behavior of faculty and administrators, I would not have included NU Medill School of Journalism. Better to have found a journalism school that adheres more closely to objectivity, reliability, and fairness.
I agree with Mr. Rehab. The current events in Iran are an example of undemocratic, authoritarian government. The reason for the deployment of rules of conformity in authoritarian regimes is to control the population. Any resistance to the dictates and rules of the government creates a long-term risk to the power, authority, and control of the regime. Which particular rules are broken is irrelevant, as are the motives of the rule breakers. The rule breakers may believe that they are loyal and reliable citizens in full support of the government and country in all other respects. But they fail to realize that authoritarians know the risk of ANY deviations that are tolerated. If the beatings, demonstrations, and repression were due to any other cause would anyone question that cause? If the trigger had been free speech, would we ask if the notion of free speech was tainted?
I have always agreed with Eric on the value of an appropriate apology. I am an atheist. If I find myself at the Pearly Gates after my death, I will say: "Yikes! I was so wrong, my sincere apologies. Might you still have a reasonably pleasant corner for me here? I am still hoping I was right about the 'no hell' thing".
The winning politically themed tweet of the week by The Volatile Mermaid @OhNoSheTwidn’t makes some interesting points, but here are few enhancements: “I’m not a gun enthusiast, but I would never interfere with anyone else’s choice to own a firearm”, or “I’m not a conservative, but I would never approve of mob action to stop conservatives from speaking on college campuses or anywhere else”. She could also more accurately phrase the first item in her diatribe by saying “I’m not wealthy or privileged, but I believe I should work extra hard to help cover the debts of those who are”. Welcome to It REALLY Isn’t Always About You 101.
I don’t get the “now do gasoline prices” suggestion.
The taxes in the price of a gallon of gasoline are as opaque as airline pricing. Signs at every pump should say what the federal, state and local taxes are on each gallon
Yes - I wonder why the gas stations don’t do this already. They should advertise a much lower price “plus tax”
In Chicago, at least (and I think across IL) is is against local/state laws (or municipal code) for gas stations to provide the enumerates local taxes on gas pumps (or anywhere else).
The solons in City Hall and Springfield don't want motorists to be reminded of that.
That’s what I remember hearing. I don’t understand how such a regulation against printing simple facts about a transaction can be constitutional.
I'm asking the Illinois Fuel and Retail Association about this. My guess is that the law says you can't post/advertise pre-tax prices on signs.
I really enjoy your discussions on issues like the one about hijabs and government. I found myself ultimately agreeing with Mr Rehab but I am and will always be uncomfortable with hijabs, Catholic orders that veil nuns and Orthodox Jewish law that cover the hair of married women. Maybe it is because my hair has never been my crowning glory but….I it is a common theme of major religions that men must be protected from women. That is silly and insulting.
CWB Chicago remains true to its mission of reporting criminality in the city of Chicago that is under reported either by oversight or intentionally by the mainstream media. The ruling political and city establishment has a vested interest in attempting to minimize the surge in violent crime afflicting Chicago and Cook County.
The level of vitriol directed toward CWB Chicago, and the editors desire for anonymity are directly related. Despite the fact that I have not seen anyone challenge the facts and the crime statistics reported by CWB Chicago, there is palpable anger by many, virtually all on the progressive left, for them doing so. Given the left's penchant for loud demonstrations at people's personal residences, verbally assaulting them when they are out dining, etc, it is very easy to understand why these editors do not want their information out there.
Complaints about racism in CWB Chicago are meritless. Reporting that black offenders commit violent crime in disportionate numbers is simply stating a fact. For those who wish to challenge this, I refer them to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports published annually. In the crime tables where the ethnicity of the perpetrator is known, black perpetrators commit over 50% of homicides and over 50% of robberies nationally in recent years despite representing only 13.4% of the population. Similarly, the Public Safety Committee of the very leftward City Council of my hometown of Minneapolis recently commissioned an outside firm to study the effects of gun violence on people of color through the first half of 2022. The black population of Minneapolis is 19%, and the headline was that blacks represent 69% of all violent crime victims in the city. No question that blacks are indeed disproportionately the victims of violent crime everywhere . But, hidden further in the report was the more startling statistic that 89% of the shooters in the first half of 2022 are black.
These are not racist statements, but simply statements of documented fact. Discussion and debate over why this is and how to best address it is totally valid, but it does not change the facts no matter how uncomfortable they are or contrary to a desired political narrative. But I believe that is the basis of much of the criticism directed toward CWB Chicago.
If anyone is looking for a more transparent, to a fault, source on live Chicago crime - try following James Hawthorne aka J-Hustle aka #GNN on Facebook.
Warning - he does overshare.
I like both of your dubious proposals for new media outlets: a catalog of hospital deaths and traffic accidents - IF they were neutral and thorough.
“Answer your critics and defend your work, not through anonymous social media accounts but in person. Come out from the shadows.
“The interview invitation still stands.” --Zorn
After reading the 10/4/22 article on CWBChicago where Eric confronts them for a lack of transparency and accountability in their reporting on crime in Chicago -- as a journalist he is acrimoniously bashed by them in reply. To me, Eric’s confrontation seems reasonable, especially with respect to public interest and verity in reporting, and it is an indignity to vilify him simply for his position on the issue. To me, denouncing him seems not only wrong on principle, but it is obviously a form of verbal abuse.