This page is a collection of some of the newspaper and newsletter articles
that I've written. I should mention that I'm not a journalist. I don't write
professionally. When something's bugging me I write about it and I've been
lucky enouth to have about a dozen or so articles published. These are just
a few of my favorites.
There is also an article written about me that ran in a
major, suburban Chicago newspaper.
Just click on the title below to be taken to the article.
I hope you enjoy them.
WHO ARE OUR HEROES TODAY?
In the spirit of nostalgia, that is so prevalent every New Year, radio hosts haven't been able to resist having a call in "review of last year" show. This year was greeted with even more hype due to the media-driven, one-year early, new century/new millennium craze.
What caught my ear more than anything else was a few discussions of certain, comparatively recent, news items. It kind of made me think about where our country has come to and where we've come from. I'm not thinking of the past thousand years, or even thinking of the past hundred. I'm thinking only of that part of my own lifetime that I can clearly remember. I have a very good long-term memory but I'm still only forty years old.
"…We've said farewell to a great American hero as Michael Jordan called it quits" recounted one commentator.
American hero? AMERICAN HERO!?
Don't get me wrong, I like Michael Jordan. I think he's a great athlete, an incredible basket ball player, and one of the few sports figures who really seems to be a good role model. But a hero? I don't know, maybe I just don't get it.
At the risk of sounding just like everyone's parents, I remember when I was a kid we learned about and looked up to a different kind of hero. Audie Murphy who was the most decorated solder in World War II. Abraham Lincoln who stood up for freedom, freed slaves, commanded the Union forces in the Civil War, and, as President, died for his country. We considered firemen and policemen as heroes because they saved lives. We thought of our fathers as our closest, personal hero because they were always there when we needed them.
Today, of course, things are a little different. These kinds of people are still around but we don't hear much about them. They're not called heroes anymore, if they happen to be given any positive attention at all. There are still firemen and they still risk their lives to save ours, but now when we think of firemen we have a mental image of an illicit, off duty, video tape. There are still policemen and they still put their lives on the line to protect us, but we no longer hear news stories about the police heroically standing against the dregs of society in defense of the innocent. Now the police are thought of as being the "them" in an "us verses them" situation.
Last year the mass media treated us all to the stories of what can only be described as the manifestation of pure evil (if evil can be said to be, in any way, pure). I refer, of course,to the sad tragedy in Littleton Colorado. We heard all about the monsters who sought to deprive students and teachers of their freedom, their safety, their dignity, and finally, their lives. We were told that we needed to try to understand them, to learn about them, even to forgive them. A whole lot of undue attention was paid to them. Although they weren't given hero status, they were given hero celebrity.
That's what we heard about but what didn't we hear about?
There was an obscure news story that wasn't given much attention by the main stream media. I heard the story two or three times on different talk and news radio shows but I never saw it in the papers or on the TV news. A teacher was near an exit in the school when the shooting started and could easily have escaped. Nobody would have ever thought badly of her, in fact, she would have been thought of as lucky. Instead, she went back to her classroom, gathered her students together and led them to another room. There they joined another group of students.
Keeping the students safe and hidden the teacher went to find a safe route to an exit. She then returned for the students and led them out of the school and to safety.
Ok, what was her name?
I would like to be able to tell you but I don't remember it from the original stories and I can't find any reference to her in any of the searches I've done. E-mails I've sent to the school to find out have not been answered. I know I heard the news story, I heard it more than once and I know of others that remember having heard about it.
This teacher is, by anyone's definition, a true American hero but the media has a much higher standard than I do. To the U.S. news media the word "Hero" is carefully reserved for those at the pinnacle of our society. Only the most deserving may be held in a high enough esteemed reverence to have the word "Hero" used in association with their name. Only the Michael Jordans, the Dennis Rodmans, and, sad to say, Monica Lewinskys among us have what it takes to carry the moniker of "Hero".
Consider now, just as I do, where our country has come from and where we are at this time. Consider the even more frightening thought of where we are headed if this trend continues. Everyone would like to be a hero but how many of us really are? Even more, by what standard should we choose those that we call "Our Hero"?
Remember Hollywood produces fantasy and can never give us a real hero (only reel ones). No heroes ever came from the "team locker room". Even the main stream media, no matter how much they claim the opposite, has never spawned a life saver.
Anything for a fee in Chicago
There have been two big 'Chicago' news stories over the past week or two. The failed attempt by some members of the city council to lower the city gasoline tax by four cents per gallon and a plan to bring gondolas to the city.
At first glance you might look at these two stories and think that they have nothing to do with each other. One, after all, is about relieving citizens of some of the burden of one of so many taxes that we are all compelled to pay. The other is giving us all the opportunity to have fifteen minutes of entertainment. Entertainment that many people would consider both pleasurable and romantic.
So, what do they have in common? And what do they have in common with other aspects of Daley's Chicago?
Well, here's a hint. I think that it's fitting that "Little Richie" should want Chicago to emulate Venice Italy. Venice, in case you've never been there, is the most expensive city in all of Italy. It's even more expensive than Rome. The Venetian gondola in Chicago will, of course, be no different. The proposed cost will be a whopping $60.00 for a fifteen minute ride. Of course the gondolier will sing to you (a maximum of one song). The city is saying that the cost is only $15.00 for fifteen minutes but the fine print says that you have to pay for at least four people.
I really don't have anything against the gondolas in Chicago perse. At least it's voluntary, unlike the gasoline tax or the states highest priced vehicle sticker.
Lets let that bring us to the topic of the gasoline tax. The mayor would have us believe that the city only receives five cents out of every gallon of gas and the evil city council wants to give back four cents of it. In fact, when they refer to the nickel per gallon tax, they're talking about one specific piece of tax legislation. That means that the nickel per gallon was, at one point, added to previous existing taxes. The federal government tried to use the same tactics when there was murmuring about reversing a specific federal gasoline tax hike. They tried to make it sound as if that's the only tax that exists on gasoline and they just can't live without it.
With a vehicle sticker fee that, up until recently, was even higher than the state license plate fee you'd think that doing without four centsper gallon of gasoline wouldn't be a big deal. Look at other cities in Illinois, or for that matter just in Cook County. In the northwestsuburbs we have the Village of Streamwood with a $15.00 vehicle sticker and gas is $1.98 per gallon, Elgin and South Elgin have no vehiclesticker according to someone I know that lives there and gas is $1.96 per gallon. Granted, they don't have all of the really great perks that Chicago has but they also don't have all of the massive sources of revenue that Chicago has either.
I know where all of this money in Chicago is coming from; it's coming from you and me. What I suddenly can't help but wonder is where all the money is going too. We see taxes and fees forever going up. Our mayor, like most politicians, doesn't seem to have ever heard of a tax that he didn't like. But you'll notice that whenever the city "gives" us something new lately it's never something that we can just go and use, there's a large fee attached to it (like gondolas that cost $60.00 for fifteen minutes).
Maybe it's time that the residents of our great and greatly overpriced city petitioned for a citywide audit to find out where our money is really going. I mean if it's not a problem to spend time, effort, and money to put up little brown street signs showing an honorary name change but we can't give four cents per gallon back to the people who ultimately pay for all of this, something is not quite right.
The city spent resources without even blinking an eye to put up signs to honor Diana, the Princess of Whales who wasn't even an American. They fought vehemently, against the will of a large portion of Chicago tax payers, to name a street after Hugh Hefner. Or, my personal favorite, the city put up little brown signs all along Pulaski Rd. to rename it, you guessed it, "Pulaski Rd.". Such waist!
But when it comes to giving the people who foot the bill for all of this a four cent per gallon break, suddenly faces get red and the cry "we just can't afford it" resonates through city hall.
This has to stop! Everyone please recite the following chant with me: Audit…Audit…Audit… Keep repeating this until we get a break. In the event, however, that this doesn’t work there is another chant that will certainly work. It goes like this: New Mayor, New Council… New Mayor, New Council… New Mayor, New Council…
WHY DO YOU GO TO THE GAME?
I know it's hard to believe but I have never in my whole, entire life, ever been to a baseball game. That is, up until about a week ago.
My boss is the President of the company that I work for and I should also add that she (yes, I said she) is one of the best people that anyone could hope to work for. From time to time she decides that everyone could use a diversion so she closes up the whole company and takes everyone out somewhere. Once or twice every summer she schedules a day at the ballpark.
I always opt out of these baseball outings because I really don't care much for baseball. This time, however, I decided to go. I still don't know why but I have to say I learned a lot.
For one thing, I learned that people don't seem to go to the ball game to watch the game, at least not the ones who sit in the bleachers. A lot of people didn't even face the field; they sat by the wall with their backs to the field, facing the 'fans in the stands'.
I, myself, found it more interesting and more entertaining to watch the people around me than to watch the game. Even the folks I came with were now strangers to me (or you can say they were stranger to me than before). They were not the same people whom I worked with every day. I don't know, maybe it was the whole idea of being able to drink beer and be at the ballpark while "at work" (by the way, we did get paid for the day).
Aside from the people I was with, I looked around and was treated to quite a view of the real reason for the popularity of 'going to the game'. The drinking was no surprise, I mean, I haven't been living under a rock. Well, at least not all the way under a rock. I went there expecting to see drinking. I was even reasonably sure I would see a lot of drinking. What surprised me a little was that by the end of the sixth inning even those few who started out watching the game, no longer really cared.
I also wasn't surprised to see betting on the game but what was funny was some of the creative things people found to bet on. We're not talking about betting on the score or whether or not Sosa would hit one into the stands, although that went on too. We're talking about betting on whether or not the ball touched the pitcher's mound when it was tossed in at the change of sides or how many times the pitcher would spit during an inning.
There was a girl in the bleachers, I'll call her 'cupcake', who smuggled a package of store bought cupcakes into the park. After sitting in the sun for a few innings she decided she didn't want them any more because the icing had melted. So, what to do? She got up and shouted, "who wants a cupcake?" "Right here!" someone shouted back. At that she grabbed one from the package and threw it at him. This went on until the package was empty…what a mess. Even the ushers laughed. Heaven help you, however, if you were seated next to someone who wanted a cupcake (as I was).
By now it was getting late in the game and things were starting to really get weird. The biggest surprise of all was coming, something I not only never expected but also wouldn't have believed if someone had told me to expect it. Prostitution in the park! That's right, prostitution. And it wasn't under wraps either (I know, poor choice of words), it was right out in the open. So I figure that the usher would throw the girl out. Silly me. The usher volunteered to be the 'bag man'. When she, in the upper rows of the bleachers, agreed on a price with a guy in the lower part of the bleachers for the preliminary 'viewing' it was the usher that the guy gave the money to. He then walked it up to the girl and gave it to her. Once paid she lifted up her dress to her shoulders showing that she wore no underclothes.
Now the negotiating began. Guys from all over the stands started flashing twenty, fifty, and even hundred dollar bills trying to outbid each other. Even one guy in my group got into the bidding. I didn't notice who finally won the bid but the guy who started the whole thing did finally get kicked out. For what you might ask. Soliciting a prostitute? No! Getting rowdy? No! Sitting on the bleacher wall? No! He got kicked out for tossing his empty beer cup over his shoulder onto the field.
So, why are people so attracted to the ballpark? Certainly not to watch the game. I never really knew that before but I guess I know it now.
"It's a free country" …or is it?
Last Sunday was the last Sunday in January. Of course we all know what that means, …SUPERBOWL!
Now, I really have to admit that I'm not a real big sports fan and … um … well, what I guess I'm trying to say is … well … ok, ok, already, I didn't watch the game. There, I said it. I didn't watch the super bowl. In fact, I've never seen a super bowl. Not even when the Bears were playing. That's the kind of a sports fan I am.
Well, now that we've established that professional sports isn't among my interests and the laughter has subsided enough for you to read on, we can get to the point. Even without the benefit of firsthand viewing there are sometimes occurrences in sporting events that strike people so strongly that EVERYONE soon hears about them. One of these occurrences took place during, or more specifically after, the super bowl. I'm referring, of course, to Kurt Warner's interview after the game.
You'll recall that his reaction to his big win (I say his because, it seems, the quarterback always gets the credit) wasn't "…yes, look what I did, I won the super bowl all by myself". It wasn't even "…well, the rest of the team helped a little". It was, as I understand it, something like "…I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior up above…".
Monday morning the radio news and call in shows were packed with comments, not about the game, but about Kurt Warner's "prayer" after the game. It's funny, usually on the post super bowl Monday radio shows each year I listen to a combination of cheers from fans who won in the pools and complaints and excuses from those whose wallets no longer hurt when they're seated on an unpadded chair. This year, although I still heard a combination of cheers and complaints, none were about the game. In fact, I never heard a single word about the game itself. I don't even know the score.
What struck me about the whole thing enough to write about it was all of the negative comments about Warner's post game interview. Over the next couple of days I heard things like "…he shouldn't be allowed to say things like that at a football game" and "It's ok that he feels that way but he should keep it to himself".
"Shouldn't be allowed to say things like that…"?
Really?! Wow!
I'll bet Jefferson and Madison perked up and took notice of that one. I mean after all, their intention was that everyone should have the freedom and the right to say anything they wanted. Of course, they gave no guarantee that anyone had to listen; so you don't have too.
When I heard all the tolerance being shown for Warner's first amendment freedom of speech it started me thinking. In this country we've allowed a lot of our constitutional rights to be systematically eroded away. Think about it. Just in the first amendment alone there is a guarantee of freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition. And the thing is only one paragraph long. Each and every one of these rights, although guaranteed by the constitution, has been tampered with by the very government that they were intended to protect us against.
Maybe we should take a look at them in order.
§ Freedom of Religion, huh. Well this one has taken a pretty big beating over the years. The most obvious is probably the fact that the words "separation of church and state" never appear in the US Constitution even once. So where did the idea of the separation of church and state come from?
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802 to reassure the Baptists that the first amendment to the constitution guaranteed them protection from government oppression and interference. Part of Jefferson's letter is as follows:
"…believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
'…make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof '. This is saying that the government cannot impose its will on any religion or make its own religion and tell everyone that they have to be a member. That, after all is what many of the colonists were trying to get away from when they left England in the first place.
Both the public and personal writings of all of the founding fathers and the framers of the constitution are replete with profound reference to their faith. Even their casual correspondences read like excerpts from scriptural commentaries. It's clear to anyone who looks into the character of these people, in even the most cursory way, that they never meant for religion to be disparaged as it is today.
Another important point to recognize is that, as Jefferson explains, the 'legislative powers of government reach actions…and not opinions'. In all fairness, it must be pointed out that you are allowed by the constitution to believe anything and in any way that is according to your chosen religion but actions that are against the law are not permitted by the constitution just because your religion says it's ok. So if your religion, for instance, requires public animal sacrifice and the law says that this isn't permitted, your constitutional rights concerning religion are not being violated.
I guess when you have Justices whose job it is to interpret the constitution and their sole interest is their own anti-value agenda, the constitution and its intended meaning doesn't matter much.
§ Let's see if we have better luck with freedom of speech. Well we've seen what happened when Kurt Warner gave thanks after the super bowl but we can ignore that for now. Maybe pretend that it had more to do with religion than speech (we've already seen how openly religion is viewed).
At the opposite end of the spectrum is John Rocker. (I suppose I should preface this part by saying that my own opinion of Mr. Rocker's comments is that he's entitled to them but they are his and, as far as I'm concerned, his alone). John Rocker has come under fire, been suspended, and has now been ordered to begin (lets call it what it really is) psychiatric reconditioning.
Is this a good idea? Is this the reaction we should have to someone voicing their opinion?
If freedom of speech is to have any real meaning then the speech that offends us needs to be equally as protected as the speech that we like. I'm not saying that we should embrace it or even give it an audience but the kind of reaction we've seen to Warner and Rocker isn't going to change attitudes. If anything, it will foster resentment and keep people from being honest about their ideas. If you consider people who espouse unsavory attitudes as being societies enemy then think about what it would be like to have an enemy that you can't identify. Ignoring "hate speech" may not make it go away but advertising it is sure to cause it to proliferate.
Although it's certainly true that freedom of speech, like many of the rights outlined in the constitution was never meant to be absolute, we have to be careful where we allow restrictions to be placed. Certain limitations have always been accepted but even they are not always enforced. A good example of this was during the impeachment hearings when talk show host Conan O' Brian and a guest called for people to find Congressman Henry Hyde and his family and publicly kill them all. This was clearly illegal and not constitutionally protected speech and yet no action was taken. I can only assume that the reason was that the venue was supposed to be comical.
If freedom of speech only extends to what the most number of people or what the government thinks is palatable, then there is really no freedom of speech at all. The only question that remains is will the people of this free country of ours realize that they are being talked out of their freedom of speech before it's too late for them to even talk about it?
§ And here we are brought to a look at the freedom of the press. The press in the United States has, arguably, more power of persuasion than any other single group in the country. On the surface it might seem as if the press is immune to the erosion of our constitutional guarantees. In fact, I came very close to citing the freedom of the press as a soleexception to the idea that we are loosing our freedoms.
Even though it's tough to find concrete examples of the press being successfully coerced or tampered with by forces of the government, U.S. history is peppered with suits against the government due to attempts to take control of what the press can and cannot report.
The press in this country is sometimes, however, a willing participant in government influenced misinformation. Like any other group, the U.S. press has its own agenda and when a governmental officeholder espouses a similar agenda the media will often report only favorable news while ignoring the negative. Many times they will even report the negative about opponents without regard for truth or facts. Even this is protected by the freedom of the press.
The press in this country is in a perfect position, if responsible, to act as the American people's ultimate watchdog simply by reporting on all of the corruption that they find. However, in order for this to work they would have to be both as unbiased as they claim to be and have the integrity to police themselves. So far that's not happening, although we are meant to believe that it is.
What we need to realize is that being a willing participant in the government tampering, as the U.S. press tends to be is, in effect, setting a precedent of allowing abuse of power and the erosion of yet another constitutionally guaranteed freedom. When this kind of bias flourishes, it's only a matter of time before those who benefit from it grow to expect and even demand it.
The victim, once again, is the American public. How, after all, can you make an informed decision when the information is actually misinformation? So much for freedom of the press.
§ The next piece of the first amendment for us to consider is the freedoms of assembly and petition. These two together have been under recent attack although, to my knowledge, no actual infringement has taken place yet.
The freedom to peaceably assemble has been a touchy one lately, especially here in Chicago. Mayor Daley has been pushing for the establishment of loitering laws in order to combat street gang activity. This has been a tough one for me personally because I'm in favor of anything that gets gangs off the streets, however, this can be a dangerous precedent to set. It's ok to have a law like this and apply it to gangs, and the police have generally seen enough gang activity to recognize it by sight but there will always be the chance of innocent people being harassed or arrested. Also consider what could happen once a law like this is on the books. Who decides what the next application of it should be?
Lastly we have the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. Two years ago the Clinton administration attempted to pass a broad piece of legislation that would heavily tax all Washington lobbyists. The idea, as presented, was to limit the amount of financial influence that a lobbying group could have on individual congressmen or on congress as a whole. If this were only the limit to the extent of this proposal it would already be in violation of the first amendment but it didn't stop there. The wording of the bill indicated that anyone who contacted a member of congress was a lobbyist and, therefore, subject to the tax (I think the exact wording called it a fee but a tax by any other name still stinks). This means that if you or I were to call our congressman to make our opinion on a particular bill or vote heard we could end up having to pay a rather large tax for the call.
Fortunately, this bill was voted down by an overwhelming margin. But be aware and be vigilant! The erosion of our freedoms is a slow, subtle, and sneaky process and can be accomplished, if we're not careful, before we realize it. The one thing that's in our favor is that it can't be done if we don't let it. Be alert and never take for granted that those whom you elect to represent you are representing you. They only represent you when you're looking, when your back is turned they represent themselves.
BEWARE THE KILLER SQUIRREL
(Terrorist of the Bike path)
It's come to my attention that this has been a bad summer in the Schaumburg Bicycle Club for cycling accidents. Well, maybe these accidents weren't really accidents after all. Conspiracy theorists of the world, listen up.
Although I haven't seen it, I’m told that there's a really good commercial on TV that shows a car swerving to avoid hitting a squirrel. The car then goes careening into a tree. In the next scene you see two squirrels giving each other a high five.
You've probably seen it and laughed…thought it was funny, cute, and creative. But what if it was true? Hmmm? If you're like most people,you probably think of squirrels as these cute, bushy tailed, tree dwelling, little creatures. I'm here to tell you that they're not…what they are, are furry terrorist who will stop at nothing to ensure the destruction of anything with wheels. Just like in the commercial.
By now you're probably saying to yourself “how could anyone be so cold and heartless, that they would say these things about those cute, bushy tailed, tree dwelling, little creatures?” Well, I'll tell you.
For the last few years I've become addicted to bicycle riding. I suppose that if you're going to have an addiction it may as well be one that doesn't hurt you (or so I thought).
I was on a 55 mile ride along the Fox River one bright Sunday afternoon about a month ago. The route I planned was from Elgin to Crystal Lake, back to Elgin, then south a ways and back again. About 33 miles into the ride a squirrel ran across the path in front of me and I swerved to avoid hitting it (sound familiar?). This is nothing unusual, anyone who spends any amount of time on a bike knows that it happens all the time. When I swerved I went off the path. Also nothing out of the ordinary, that happens sometimes, too. So far, so good.
Well, not long ago they had rebuilt part of the bike path in this area. There was a rut next to the path, probably from the repair work that had been done. Not to have its observation skills brought into question, my front wheel, without too much trouble, found the rut. At that instant I went from something over 20 mph to something under 0 mph. Well, at least my bike did. I, however, decided that it was such a nice day I would keep going. I don't know how fast I was going because I left my speedometer on the bike.
I guess you could say that I fell on my asphalt (I won't say it because I'd probably get slapped, but you can).
All I can say is that it's a good thing I'm such a pain in the butt about protecting my head. I ALWAYS wear a helmet. I landed on my head and left shoulder and slid onto the bike path. As I landed I heard a very loud 'crack' and had the uneasy feeling that the sound didn't come from my helmet.
I thought, at first, that I had dislocated my shoulder so I laid there moving my arm around, putting pressure on my shoulder, in an attempt to 'pop' it back in. Well, there was nothing to 'pop' in because the shoulder wasn't dislocated. As I did this I was aware that the squirrel was watching from the bushes…laughing.
Later, in the Emergency Room, I found out that what I had was an AcromioClavicular Separation (AC Separation). It was what is called a grade 3 separation which means that the tendons that hold the clavicle in place were completely torn away. As a result, my polo shirts now tend to look a little crooked.
I suppose it wouldn't be quite so bad if only the furry little terrorist were a rabbit instead of a squirrel. At least then I could just pass it off as having had a bad 'hare' day.
In February of 2002 was the first time, but not the last, that I climbed to the top (94th floor) of Chicago's John Hancock Building in an event known as "Hustle up the Hancock". The circumstances were such that this was more than just a usual event. I guess someone thought that it was worth a newspaper article. This was quite exciting for me. This is that article.
Resident hustles up Hancock to prove something to himself
By: Rukmini Callimachi & Sue Ter Maat; Local beat
Published in "The Daily Herald" Wednesday, February 27, 2002; Neighbor section
Streamwood resident David Stasinos climbed 1,632 stairs of the John Hancock Center in Chicago with the American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago in the fifth annual "Hustle Up the Hancock... The Marathon of Stair Climbs" Sunday.
Stasinos, a first-time participant, has been training for the event since November.
A smoker for 14 years, Stasinos at one time was so dangerously overweight he could not get onto a normal scale. Today he does not smoke and weighs less than 195 pounds.
"At 42, I'm in better health than I was at 17," Stasinos said. "I've been asked why I want to 'hustle'; I guess the answer is because I can."
Stasinos finished the climb in 24:45, coming in 1,434th place out of 1,891 runners who made it to the top, said Liz Zweigle, spokeswoman for the American Lung Association. About 3,600 people climbed Sunday. Terry Purcell of Springfield reached the top first in 10 minutes flat, a record climb for the event.
The 1,000-foot vertical climb up the John Hancock Center takes place in two stairwells. Individuals of all ages participate in one of two divisions: The 42-floor or the 94-floor climb.