Updated May 31, 8:00 pm-Tonight's guest on Public Affairs is Cong.Jesse Jackson, Jr.

The city edition of our show, "Public Affairs," airs throughout the City of Chicago, tonight, Memorial Day, at its usual Monday night slot, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21.

Tonight's show features Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D- Homewood, 2nd CD) debating and discussing The War and democracy; the Al Qaeda threat; Brown v. Board of Education, Zelman v. Harris, School Choice/school vouchers, Education in general and Constitutional Amendments; Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Barack Obama; a Third Airport in Peotone-- and O'Hare and Midway Expansion; a casino for the South Side or south suburbs and growing the Economy on the South Side and in the south suburbs with Jeff Berkowitz, show host and legal recruiter.

Partial Transcripts of and commentary about the show with Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. are included, below at entries dated, May 26, 12:30 am and 12:00 pm; May 25, 9:00 pm; and May 21, 2:30 am.

New content added daily to this blog. Watch for an upcoming blog re the Jack Ryan/Barack Obama senate race, perhaps added as soon as tonight.

Next Monday night's [June 7] City of Chicago Edition of "Public Affairs," features Jack Ryan, U. S. Senate Candidate, answering the question-- Can Jack beat Barack Obama at his own Game? and much, much more.
**********************************************
You can reach Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of "Public Affairs," and legal recruiter at JBCG@aol.com
**********************************************

Dated May 31, 2004 at 3:55 am and revised, May 31, 1:45 pm.

Blogging Blago. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. TANSTAAFL, except perhaps in the imaginative, populist, quirky mind of Illinois' Governor, Rod Blagojevich.

On Friday, WTTW aired an interview that Bob Sirott did with Gov. Blagojevich. Most of it was the soft stuff we have become accustomed to from Sirott on Chicago Tonight in the last year. However, when concluding the interview, Blago, made some creative, albeit unsupported, allegations that the corporate robber barons in Illinois were getting tax breaks at the expense of the school kids. As Jim Ryan said almost two years ago, also on WTTW, has Blago no shame? Well, has he?

The interview with Gov. Blagojevich was conducted some time prior to Friday night, but WTTW didn’t tell us when it was taped. Indeed, if you were not a regular viewer of Chicago Tonight, you might have thought it was airing live. A little deceptive, don’t you think? On my show, “Public Affairs,” we announce, at the beginning of the show, when it is being taped and include the taping date as a graphic at the end of the show. If nothing else, it protects the guest from looking stupid by answering a question on say, May 25, when events would dictate a different answer on May 28, 2004.

The division of labor, in part, between Phil Ponce and Bob Sirott on WTTW [Public TV in Chicago] seems to be that Ponce tends to do the political, substantive public policy interviews and Sirott the "lighter stuff," of which there has been a not inconsiderable amount since Sirott and Friends re-formatted Chicago Tonight. The allocation between Sirott and Ponce is perhaps WTTW’s loose application of comparative advantage theory, or as Dirty Harry said, “A good man knows his limitations.”

However, I think Sirott may have interviewed a big wig, or two, over the last year [Mayor Daley?] and now, Sirott has added Gov. Blagojevich to his resume. Maybe the big guys think they can control Sirott, or at least they can expect softballs and T-Balls from Bob-- so they request Sirott and WTTW obliges? What else did Blago’s folks ask for and get from the Friday Night Show?

This time around, Sirott seemed to turn the 30 minute interview into an infomercial for Blago. Not much substance to the questions, not much follow-up and not much interview. I kept looking around for the Vegematic- it splices, it dices, it…How’s that for a WTTW commercial, or whatever Chicago’s once proud public television station now calls its non-commercial commercials.

For his last question, Sirott asked Blagojevich if he could really be happy without running for POTUS [President of the United States], as the staffers on "Left Wing," I mean "West Wing," like to refer to Jed Bartlett.

Hot Rod seemed to have a ready answer for that T-Ball, but not just as to why Blago was too high minded to even think about that in such tough budget times, as these. No, Hot Rod, was ready to lecture the viewers on how those mean old corporate robber barons were taking the funding for the teachers and books right out of the classroom. Huh? Yes, really. Blago went that far. Have you no shame, Blago? [As Jim Ryan said to Hot Rod during the WTTW gubernatorial debate; it was the high point of Jim’s campaign, if not political career] See the transcript of the closing portion of the Sirott interview, below this rant of mine, for the actual phrasing of Blago's rant against the Illinois corporate robber barons.

Hot Rod, apparently having gone from mastering the list of Presidents to mastering Illinois’ fiscal trends, tells us that from 1980 to the present, the SHARE of total income taxes in Illinois paid by corporations has declined from 20 % to
10 %. Also, over a similar, but not identical, time period, 1976 to 1996, the SHARE of total spending by the State of Illinois Government on education in Illinois has declined from 48% to 32%, argued Blago. [BTW, state taxes currently account for about 7 billion dollars in Illinois education spending, feds for about 3 billion dollars and local property taxes for about 10 billion dollars, meaning we spend about 20 billion dollars on K-12 public schools to educate about 2.2 million kids in Illinois; or an average of about $9,000 per kid across the state, which is a little lower than the $11,200 per kid spent in the Chicago Public Schools]. Why do you suppose Blago was using 1976 to 1996 for his trend line? Wouldn't, say 1980 to 2004, be more consistent with the rest of his argument?

As an aside, didn't Gov. George Ryan, from 1998 to 2002, increase state government funding of education significantly in Illinois? I seem to remember George saying 51 cents of every new dollar spent by state government was to go to education, as if that would somehow improve the quality of education.

With no factual support provided or cited, and of course unchallenged and uninterrupted by Sirott, Blago tells us the above referenced “corporate tax breaks,” came “at the expense of funding education.” Where does Blago get this stuff? Blago's answer to a 15 second question rolled on for about 3 minutes, uninterrupted by Sirott. A set-up?

If Blago were facing a serious interviewer, here are a few things he might have been asked:

Most importantly, three primary questions:

1. Is it the case that from 1976 to 2004, the absolute level of spending on education in Illinois by the state government increased dramatically, but not as fast as that of the absolute level of spending on education in Illinois by local school districts. Did those local school districts choose to ramp up their spending on education and corresponding local property taxes dramatically, resulting eventually in the state legislature passing tax caps, circa 1995. Isn’t that a lot of what is going on, here? Blago’s Illinois constituents [especially suburbanites] prefer, for a variety of reasons, to finance education, through local taxes, which gives them greater local control of education? Isn't this the very accountability that Blago says he favors and purportedly was behind his desire to be given the power to dismiss State Board of Education members at will, or was something else at work there?

2. Blago speaks as if he thinks a corporation is a physical entity with a pot of money to pay taxes. He seems to think if only he could tax [soak] the companies, he could lessen the tax burden on individuals. However, the incidence of taxes on corporations falls on individual taxpayers, including shareholders-- who would pay in the form of lower dividends or lower stock appreciation; employees- who would pay in the form of lower wages and greater unemployment; and customers—who would pay in the form of higher prices. In short, corporations don't so much as "pay," taxes as they "collect," taxes for the government from people. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL.

3. Is Blago aware of the academic studies done by University of Chicago economists, and others, indicating that the the greater the share of education funding coming from local school districts, the greater the quality of education [presumably reflecting the benefits of greater accountability by local entities than by state or federal entities].

And three questions of lesser importance, if we had time to ask Blago:

4. Did the share of income taxes paid by corporations decline as a percentage of all income taxes paid by individuals and businesses, or was the declining ratio the percentage of all taxes paid by individuals and businesses in Illinois? In other words, do the Governor's numbers reflect business income taxes declining or total business and individual taxes increasing, with the corporate income tax becoming a less important component of all Illinois taxes as a result of the growth of other taxes and not as a result of the growth of "corporate tax loopholes," as Blago likes to say.

5. Were total business income taxes paid in Illinois decreasing because major companies were leaving Illinois? or because such companies moved their headquarters out of Illinois?

6. Has tax law changed, in general, in terms of how national companies have their income tax liability allocated among the states in which they do business? Or, in which they are headquartered? Due to these and other tax law changes during the last twenty years, or so, did the companies doing business in Illinois pay greater state income taxes in other states, over time, and less in Illinois?

Now, that would be a tough, but fair, interview. Moreove, I think one could make it entertaining, provocative and informative- and it could be done in a manner that would increase WTTW's ratings. But, who that would be who could ask such questions in an interview of the Governor, I just don’t know. I just don’t know.

Although, I did interview the Governor once or twice, but never in our studio. Blago cancelled his scheduled studio appearance on "Public Affairs," at the last minute, but, to his credit, gubernatorial candidate Blago gave me a "make-up," 40 minute interview. The interview was done with the two of us standing side by side, in the Winnetka Community House, after he spoke during the 2002 Primary to the New Trier Township Democratic Organization, seeking their endorsement-- which was given, of course, to Paul Vallas. The interview was not a bad one, and we edited it into a 30 minute show.

However, interviews never are quite as good when done outside the studio. You always have the fear that if you get too tough, the guest may suddenly remember he has to be somewhere else [Indeed, this actually happened with Colin Powell when he was doing a Satellite interviw on Meet the Press a few weeks ago from Jordan. A Powell staffer thought Russert's last question was too tough and shifted the direction of the camera away from Powell to a Palm tree. To the credit of Powell, he directed the staffer to bring the camera back to him, and he answered Russert's last question. It looked, however, like something from SNL].

On the other hand, I have done 303 studio shows, and I have never had a guest walk off the set before the show concluded. Not yet, at least. Governor Blagojevich, of course, is quite capable of answering tough questions. Too bad WTTW didn't ask them. Another squandered 30 minutes by WTTW.

www.Archpundit.com has a very interesting, recent piece [Illinois Budget Legislative Session] indicating that Blago has been outsmarted on the budget by Speaker Madigan. Perhaps, but I will be interested to see if Blago has yet another rabbit to pull out of his hat by the end of Memorial Day. Blago may be no Bill Clinton, but like “W,” Blago benefits from being consistently underestimated, intellectually and otherwise, by his political opponents.

***************************************
Bob Sirott: I know you have your hands full right now, and you are thinking about this job and nothing else, but—

Gov. Rod Blagojevich: Nothing else.

Sirott: But, knowing what I know about you, can you ever really be completely content professionally in your life if someday, many years from now, you don’t run for President [of the United States]?

Blagojevich: I appreciate that question. God save the Republic.

Sirott: [Laughter] And, by the way, feel free to announce your candidacy-- right here.

Blagojevich: Well, I am for Kerry, by the way. No, I don’t think like that. I know a lot of people talk like and say that. I think anybody who is the Governor of the 5th largest state and now that Arnold Schwarzanegger was elected [Governor] in California--there is no longer a Democrat Governor in California-- Illinois is the largest state with a Democrat Governor in it. And, so I think naturally there is going to be some speculation that the person, whoever he or she might be, who is in this position in Illinois, might have those kind of aspirations or could be on somebody’s list at some point in time. But, Illinois has so many difficult challenges. We have got the worst fiscal crisis in our state’s history that we are working on; there is a progressive agenda that I am trying to move forward-- as we deal with these budget deficits. We are trying to undo a generation of misplaced priorities.

You know, back in 1980, for every five dollars that came into the state by way of the income tax, one dollar was paid by corporations, and then, nearly twenty five years later, we find ourselves where for every dollar that a corporation pays, it’s nine dollars [that] is paid by working people. So, while the corporations and some of the big companies through their lobbyists and accountants and lawyers have been able to get special tax breaks at the expense of working people, at the same time, there has been a diminution in education funding from the state. In 1976, the last time- while when Dan Walker left- I am loath to almost use that example, but the state share of education spending was 48 cents on every dollar. Hmmm, 20 years later, in 1996, that share went down to 32 cents on every dollar. So, as the corporate tax breaks were increasing in Illinois, it was coming at the expense of funding education. We are fighting within this budget to change those priorities, that’s what you are seeing here.

Last year, we invested 400 million dollars in new spending for education, in spite of a 5 billion dollar budget deficit, without an income tax or sales tax increase. This year we are asking for another 400 million dollars in new spending for education without an income tax or sales tax increase by closing corporate loopholes, prisons we don’t need and other consolidations. Those battles and those fights take 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so, I have no time to think about anything like that. And, again, [Ah, shucks] I just want to be the best possible [darned] Governor I can be.

Sirott: Thank you for your time. It is good to see you again.

Blagojevich: Thank you, Bob. Thanks for having me.

Sirott: All the best to you and your family and I hope you will come back and see us, again.

Blagojevich: Look forward to it.

Sirott: And, that’s the Friday night show. We’ll be back, Monday night, at 7:00 [pm]—on Chicago Tonight, until then, for all of us on the late shift here at Ch. 11, thanks for watching, have a great Week-end.
***********************************
Chicago Tonight’s Friday night show, WTTW, Aired on May 28, 2004; Taped on an undisclosed date.
***********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at: JBCG@aol.com
***************************************

Dated May 29: significantly revised and supplemented at 4:20 pm.

I knew Ronald Reagan and trust me, John Kerry is no Ronald Reagan.

The below paragraph is from a recent posting by Archpundit.com (which is sourced and linked to politicalwire.com), reflecting an attempt by Larry and others to analogize John Kerry's election challenge today to that of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

"This simple fact has set the strategies for the campaign. To attract on-the-fence voters, Kerry is expanding the use of biographical ads to introduce himself, while President Bush is running negative ads to try to define his opponent first.
In many ways, the presidential race mirrors the 1980 campaign when incumbent Jimmy Carter faced declining approval rates yet the public was unsure of Ronald Reagan, a candidate viewed by many on the ideological fringes of his own party. Reagan's challenge then -- to make himself more appealing to the average voter -- is the same as Kerry's today."

Not quite, [Archpundit, political wire, et al], I knew Ronald Reagan and, trust me, John Kerry's no Ronald Reagan. Indeed, despite all of Reagan's national TV exposure promoting American ideals and business products, his gubernatorial days in California and his presidential run in '76, Reagan was not all that well known in the country, except by establishment Republicans who [sound familiar to anybody in Illinois] thought a belief in the free market and a strong, well prepared military were ideas that wouldn't sell. Boy, were those Rs wrong.

Kerry, on the other hand, may be "too well known,"-- known, that is, as a trimmer. All of that flip-flopping stuff that came at him in the primaries from Democratic opponents was not without a basis. It may seem odd that a guy who the National Journal rates as one of the U. S. Senate's most consistent liberals, in terms of voting records, can be such a trimmer.

For example, Kerry's senate colleague from Massachusetts, that well known expert Chappaquiddick swimmer, diver, charmer of boiler-room female interns and moralist Ted ["I dived repeatedly"] Kennedy, can be accused of a lot of things, but trimming is not one of them. Teddy votes very liberal, talks very liberal, walks very liberal and is proud of it. Kerry, on the other hand, votes very liberal, but talks on all sides, walks on all sides and is proud of his intellectual dexterity. Very different ducks are the two U. S. senators from Massachusetts.

Kerry's problem is not whether he can produce and finance a big ad campaign telling Americans what a great life story he has. No problemo. That can be done and is being done, even as I write this. His problem is to persuade that dwindling set of independents in the middle, the 10-15%, or so, of middle voters in each of those 18 battleground states, that America needs someone with a flexible vision, an adaptable vision-- not someone who has, as his campaign should and perhaps will argue, the tunnel vision of George W. Bush.

I am not saying that I agree with that characterization of W--tunnel vision--I am just saying that if I were someone like Kerry's new Illinois Field Director, Avis [former Clinton, Daley, CPS, University of Chicago honcho] Lavelle, that's the line I would try to sell. Tunnel Vision- really, it is quite catchy-- and perhaps could be tied in with, "No light at the end of the tunnel." And, I give both of those items to the Democrats, with no charge- a free lunch, so to speak, just to show everyone what a fair and balanced guy I am.

But the important theme of this blog is, as I said: Trust me, I knew Ronald Reagan, and John Kerry's no Ronald Reagan. Not then, Not now, Not ever.

Jeff Berkowtiz can be reached by email-- JBCG@aol.com

And, remember, airing throughout the City of Chicago this coming Monday night, Memorial Day, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21, our show, Public Affairs, features Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D- Homewood, 2nd CD) debating and discussing The War and democracy; the Al Qaeda threat; Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Barack Obama; a Third Airport in Peotone and O'Hare and Midway Expansion; Brown v. Board of Education, Zelman v. Harris, School Choice/school vouchers, Education in general and Constitutional Amendments; a casino for the South Side or south suburbs and growing the Economy on the South Side and in the south suburbs with Jeff Berkowitz, show host and legal recruiter.

Partial Transcripts of and commentary about the show with Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. are at the blog entries, below, dated: May 26, 12:30 am and 12:00 pm; May 25, 9:00 pm; and May 21, 2:30 am.

Next Monday night's [June 7] City of Chicago Edition of "Public Affairs," features Jack Ryan, U. S. Senate Candidate, answering the question-- Can Jack beat Barack Obama at his own Game.

Added Friday, May 28 at 7:40 pm.

The suburban edition of Public Affairs, featuring Cong. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D- Homewood; 2nd CD) debating and discussing domestic and foreign policy issues with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz, airs tonight at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 in 10 Northshore suburbs, including Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka. The same show will air through-out Chicago this coming Monday night, Memorial Day, at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.

A detailed discussion of the show and partial transcripts of the show are included, below, at blog entries dated May 26, 12:30 am and 12:00 pm; May 25, 9:00 pm; and May 21, 2:30 am.
*********************************************

Dated May 28, 2004, 5:30 am

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune Columnist (Metro Section, P.1; online at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-ericzorn.columnist), ends his interesting Thursday column on government employee pensions, with the question: for whose benefit does Government operate? [Qui Bono? Qui Costo?]

Of course, a certain amount of government involvement in our lives is benign, e.g., national defense-- that is, true public goods-- goods for which individuals A's consumption does not detract from individual B being able to consume it, as well, without any additional cost.[Even the libertarians might agree with this]. For example, a missile shield to protect Zorn's home in Albany Park can fairly easily protect mine in Winnetka, without any additional cost. Having Zorn, me and others buy a missile defense privately would result in too little missile defense in the aggregate when we look at the true benefits and costs. However, there are relatively few such true "Public goods," of the type just described. Education, for example, is not a true public good. We may still choose to subsidize, for a variety of reasons, education- but, most likely, to be efficent, we would have government finance, not provide, education. A very important distinction. One which would, of course, catch the ear and eye of the teachers' unions.

Instead, we find a great many programs in government that are neither appropriate as a government service nor run efficiently. Instead, they tend to more labor intensive than would be justified on efficiency grounds. This is simply because people vote, not capital or machines-- so politicians use the production process to win over votes by employing too many employees (that is, the government production process is too labor intensive). Look at Cook County, 27,000 employees, or so-- almost half of whom are under the discretion of Cook County Board President John Stroger. Even a Democrat, such as Cook County Board Member Forrest Claypool, would agree with me that Cook County Government is very bloated, especially on the employment side. Indeed, to be fair, I stole the word, bloated, from a Claypool campaign slogan.

Further, I think Democratic Cook County Board members Quigley and Suffredin would also agree with me about the bloat, as would Republican Cook County Board Members Hansen, Peraica, Silvestri, Gorman and Goslin. Indeed, President Stroger, who I doubt would agree with me, was defeated in his effort earlier this year to raise taxes to finance his bloated budget-- when Democrat Earlean Collins voted with the bi-partisan block of 8 aforementioned board members to knock the tax boost down, forcing Stroger to "find," some additional money in his Bloated Budget, without a tax increase. BTW, Collins is to the County Board what Kennedy and O'Conner are to the U. S. Supremes, that is, the swing vote-- and perhaps she might have the votes to become the next Cook County Board President, should John Stroger step down sometime in or after January, 2005.

Of course, the above waste on the County level is worse than the City of Chicago, if you can imagine, and much worse than a local village, but not as much as the State, which in turn, is not as bad as the Feds. Thus, the rationale for federalism. That government which governs least governs best. And, of course, the higher up on the food chain you go, the further from the people you go, and the more inefficent you get. Of course, almost always, the free market bring us closer to the individual than would government, making the free market preferred to government-- except, of course, when we have true public goods, which is where we started.

And, yes, as Barack Obama is wont to tell us, there are some cases of market failure. But, as we learned at the University of Chicago from Economics Nobel Prize Laureates Ronald Coase and Gary Becker, and recently on "Public Affairs," from Jack Ryan [See Blog entry, below, updated May 25 at 5:00 am], there are also instances of government failure. Indeed, Professor Gary Becker reminded us, "Demonstrating that a set of government decisions would improve matters is not the same as demonstrating that actual government decisions would do so." So, Eric, you have to ask, in any given instance, which is more likely to fail? The Government or the Free Market?

If we answer Eric's question that governments operate, in large part, for the people and pols in government, and the free market operates, in large part, for consumers, i.e., the people, I say, "Power to the people," or put another way, "All we are saying is, give [school] choice a chance." That is, on average, governments are more likely to fail than free markets. Indeed, we had a controlled experiment, of sorts-- The Soviet Union and the United States. QED.

BTW, folks, in an effort to pick up market share by good, clean, free and open competition, we will be blogging away this Memorial Day Week-end on this, your "Public Affairs," site. Check at least daily for stuff on Obama/Ryan; Antonio Davis Fairman/Danny Davis in the 7th; Fair and Balanced with Carol Marin; Fair and balanced with Chicago Tonight [a target rich environment for media critics]; Fair and Balanced with Fox and Moveon.org and oh, so much more.

Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. If you would like to receive an "email alert," telling you that we have posted a new Public Affairs blog entry and you are not currently receiving same, please send an email to JBCG@aol.com with "Blog alert," in the subject matter and we will add you to our PA blog alert list.

Updated May 26, 1:30 am and then again on May 26 at 12:00 pm.

Politics, School Choice and Hypocrisy: How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see.

I interviewed Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. a week ago and the show is airing this week in the suburbs and next Monday night, May 31, at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 through-out the city of Chicago. The blog entry below the instant blog entry discusses the show in much more detail. Cong. Jackson was charming, interesting and articulate and I hope he is not offended by this note, as I genuinely like him, respect him and hope he returns to the show.

However, I wouldn't respect myself in the morning if I didn't write this note. I was struck when I read the quote, below [even more so than when I heard it on the show], of the contrast between the school choice his own parents exercised and his unwillingness to support, at least conceptually, choice for his constituents and by his vote, choice for low income parents in DC. Even more striking, his parents sent him to one of the most elite private high schools in DC (St. Albans, known for also instructing former Veep Gore, Senator Kerry and President Bush's younger brothers Neil and Marvin), after Jackson attended an Indiana Military academy (Le Mans) in grades 7-8, and Jackson states that there was no hypocrisy because his parents paid taxes "to insure that high quality schools exist for other children." What high quality public schools could he be referring to-- for DC? for Chicago? And if there are a few, what percentage of the DC or Chicago students can they accommodate? More to the point, I would like to know which of Jackson's constituents would turn down a 10K school voucher that would allow his kid to exit one of Jackson's tax supported public schools.

And the kicker, as Sneed would say-- it is left to Jeff Berkowitz to explain to Jesse Jackson, Jr. that parents in Jesse's District can't really afford to finance and choose St. Albans, but they could have a 10K school choice voucher in Chicago (which they would love to have) if Cong. Jackson would put his considerable leadership skills to work on behalf of school vouchers/school choice. And, that takes no shift in political power. We could do it tomorrow with no increase in taxes to anyone.

Instead, Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. promotes his constitutional amendment, which at best might become a part of the U. S. Constitution by the year, say, 2050, and then what-- the Amendment will require that we tax the relatives of Bush, Kerry, Gore and Jackson, Jr. who will continue the family tradition of attending St. Albans. The power elite, so to speak. That is, we ramp up federal taxes to get the funds to increase federal aid to education, so we can ship more tax dollars to more failing public schools to do what? to level the playing field?

These additional tax dollars will reach the current crop of kids entering the CPS when they are 51 years old. That is, just in time, at best, to help their grandkids. Well, maybe better late than never, but I think they would rather get the help tomorrow, May 27, or at least in time to start the Fall, 2004-05 academic year. I have a different vision-- indeed, I have a dream: Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. announces tomorrow, May 27, 2004, that he would like to see, for starters, every parent in the CPS given a backpack with a 10 K school voucher in it to be used, this fall, at the school of the parent's choice. The parents rejoice, shouting, "Free at last, Free at last, thank God Almighty, Free at last." Finally, Freedom to Choose.

Now, Cong. Jackson supported Howard Dean for President. And, Dean told Cong. Jackson and everyone else, "You have the Power." And, that is one thing Howard got right, at least with respect to Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Cong. Jackson has the Power.

Finally, there are many other pols out there, about whom we could make the same argument and who also have the Power. But, worse for them and us, e.g. AG Lisa Madigan [previously of the Latin School], they decline to come on "Public Affairs." Winnetka (or Skokie we imagine)is way too far to travel-- for a statewide official from Chicago-- we are told by Lisa's press aide. Lisa Madigan, and those pols like her, are not anxious to debate the issues and they don't seem to be rushing to support school choice--at least, not for those with less money than their parents had. On the other hand, someone like Cong. Jackson, who may differ with me on school choice, does not shy away from discussing and debating any issue and for that we respect and applaud the Congressman.

*********************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: No, but answer that question. I am not critical of your parents looking for a quality education [for you, in Washington, DC] but they opted out of an inferior public school to send you to a private school [St. Albans]

Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.: Not true.
***************************************************************
Jackson: My parents made the best decision for their child that they could possibly make and at no point in time did they stop paying taxes into the public education system. And so, to that extent, my parents already have a choice: to put me in the school of their choice-- but they never stopped paying taxes to insure that high quality schools exist for other children.

Berkowitz: Many of the parents in your District are earning $20,000 or $30,000; they don't have the income that your parents have [and had]; therefore they can't opt out and go to the private schools that might do a better job of teaching these kids how to read, write and do math. Try it, [all we are ssying is]just give choice a chance. You know that phrase.

Jackson: [Laughter] Jeff, thanks for having me.
********************************************************************
Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D- 2nd Cong. Dist), interviewed on "Public Affairs, filmed on May 16, 2004, and as is being cablecast this week in the suburbs and as will be cablecast on Memorial Day through-out the City of Chicago on Cable Ch. 21 at 8:30 pm.

Updated May 25, 9:00 pm

Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. debates and discusses The War, democracy, Al Qaeda, a Third Airport in Peotone, School Choice, a casino for the South Side or south suburbs and growing the Economy on the South Side and in the south suburbs with Jeff Berkowitz, show host and legal recruiter.

The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," this week features Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D- Homewood, 2nd CD). For more details about the show and the suburban airing schedule, as well as a small portion of the show transcript, see the 5th blog entry, below, updated May 24, 1:30 am. The show will also air through-out the City of Chicago, Memorial Day, May 31, at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21

A partial transcipt of the show's exchanges between Cong. Jackson and Jeff Berkowitz, "Public Affair's host and producer, is included, below.
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You attended the elite, as they say, [private] St. Albans school in Washington, DC [Other former attendees of St. Albans include Gore, Kerry, Evan Bayh, Harold Ford, and yep, two Bushies--Neil and Marvin. Cost, as of 2000, 20K/year]

Cong. Jackson: Great high school.

Berkowitz: Great high school....

Jackson: I went to Le Mans Military Academy [Grades 7-8] in Rolling Prairie, Indiana with my brother Jonathan. then to St. Alban's...
**************************************
Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.: Everybody deserves a New Trier [High School], let's start there.

Jeff Berkowitz: Everybody deserves a choice to improve the quality of their education. You said to me there aren't 435,000 slots in private schools [to accept all the students who might want to leave the Chicago public schools-if they had a school voucher-- giving them the purchasing power to leave]. You are familiar with the free market- demand creates its own supply. No. 1, I don't think all of the Chicago Public School students are going to leave. A lot of people are happy with their [public school], they are not in failing schools. Say, half of the students in the CPS leave, that is roughly--

Cong. Jackson: Still a down payment. Still a down payment on a private education in a private school. So, the question is-- if you want to answer the question of repairing public schools for all 53 million children [in public schools across the country] not just the 435,000 students in Chicago, but all 53 million--

Berkowitz: Why not start here with the kids in Chicago?

Jackson: I am in Congress...

Berkowitz: Wait a second. You had a choice- Washington, DC is controlled by Congress-- and you had a choice to give children in similar [to Chicago] failing schools in Washington, DC an opportunity to get a voucher, did you vote against that?

Jackson: What I chose to vote for, rather than voting against anything, was a fundamental right guaranteeing all Americans [Jackson's proposed U. S. Constitutional Amendment establishing a minimum quality of education]

Berkowitz: But, you had a choice

Jackson: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: Your parents had a choice and they opted to give you a private school, didn't they.

Jackson: And, the Congresswoman from Washington, DC was against it. And the people in Washington, DC were also against it. [Were they? the Mayor of Washington, DC was for school vouchers, as were many parents from Washington DC who testified on behalf of vouchers].

Berkowitz: No, but answer that question. I am not critical of your parents looking for a quality education [for you, in Washington, DC] but they opted out of an inferior public school to send you to a private school

Jackson: Not true.

Berkowitz: Is that being hypocritical?

Jackson: No, not at all. My parents made the best decision for their child.

Berkowitz: I am not critical of that decision. I am complimenting them.

Jackson: Are you going to let me answer, Jeff?

Berkowitz: Yes

Jackson: My parents made the best decision for their child that they could possibly make and at no point in time did they stop paying taxes into the public education system. And so, to that extent, my parents already have a choice: to put me in the school of their choice but they never stopped paying taxes to insure that high quality schools exist for other children.

Berkowitz: Many of the parents in your District are earning $20,000 or $30,000; they don't have the income that your parents have [and had]; therefore they can't opt out and go to the private schools that might do a better job of teaching these kids how to read, write and do math. Try it, [all we are saying is]just give choice a chance. You know that phrase.

Jackson: [Laughter] Jeff, thanks for having me.

Berkowitz: Thank you very much, Cong. Jesse Jackson...
********************************************
Jackson: I think after the events of 9/11 the President of the United States sought to morph the events of Al Qaeda and the Al Qaeda's very legitimate threat to the United States and to the people with that of Saddam Hussein...The President sought to make a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commissions, other Commissions and hearings on Capitol Hill have now shown very cleaerly that there was no relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There clearly were no WMD in Iraq and it is clear that the War in Iraq was a war of choice, not a war that represented some imminent threat to the United States of America. And, so, I think the House in this instance, was a more thoughtful body.

Berkowitz: Even if you take that, and there are some who might argue with what you just said.

Jackson: They shouldn't; its the facts.

Berkowitz: Well, we'll see. But, perhaps more importantly, you know some would argue that there were some Al Qaeda being harbored in Iraq. They were being cared for[as to serious health issues] in some cases. The extent of that, the scope of that-- whether that would be sufficient to justify the military action, I think it is an arguable issue. But, perhaps a more important issue, you know the administration argued this on a variety of bases, one was the WMD, which so far have not turned up, but they also argued in terms of regime change and the importance of regime change in Iraq and what that meant for the rest of the Middle East. That was an argument that was made [Indeed, regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton Administration from 1998-2000].

Jackson: Jeff, there have been a number of changing rationales and so, you can adopt whatever changing rationale and suggest it is the basis for the conflict, but
I remember a very careful and a very detailed rationale for why the President made this judgment and it included Saddam Hussein's time had run out--that he had not allowed the various inspection regimes back into the country. That the issue was WMD...now the issue is Democracy, now the issue is whether or not we can establish a Democracy in Iraq...let's not have a shifting rationale, we need a single rationale and that rationale presently cannot be justified...that there are WMD and if we stick to the issue, the President should be held accountable based upon his judgment and based upon that information.
***********************************
Berkowitz: Is it possible that a democratic goverment, or something closer to it may emerge than what was there under Saddam Hassein. Is that possible and if that happens, could that have a very healthy effect on Iran, on Syria, on Saudi Arabia that is, in the whole area to spread democracy. Is this a case in which for whatever reason we are not on the side of propping up another dictator, like Saddam Hussein. We were on the side of trying to remove a dictator and bring democracy [to Iraq]. That has not always been the case for the United States. You might applaud that.

Jackson: Well, its another changing rationale and you can look back upon it with hindsight and suggest that removing Saddam Hussein and engaging in regime change is the appropriate policy. The danger, however, with Americans losing their lives on a daily basis and the likelihood that American soldiers will be pulled out of Iraq in the not too distant future, hopefully; the danger is that the void can be filled by a dangerous fundamentalist cleric in Iraq and that Iraq could become even more fundamentalist, particularly as these images and photos from the Prison begin to emerge and the Arab World begin to react to the images that come from Abu Graib: How Americans and America's allies are treating Muslim men, how they are treating Muslim women...

Berkowitz: Depends maybe on the scope. If we are able to persuade people that that was a very limited scope-certainly not authorized and certainly not something of which the U. S. Government approves and certainly the government will prosecute those individuals. That may be a demonstration of the way democracy deals with abhorrent acts. So, it may be a positive. We would not set out to do it for that demonstration effect but again, how we handle it, may, in fact, persuade people in the Middle East that the United States is not the enemy they often hear about. Possibly.
************************************
Jackson: Two companies... have now stepped forward and they say they want to develop and build an inaugural airport that they say can be built for under 200 million dollars and handle a substantial new market. Low cost carriers cannot get into O'Hare because of the price point of getting into O'Hare and because of capacity constraints of Midway airport, they are suggesting that they can handle that additional capacity at a third airport site in Peotone. Now, what does that mean economically and that is an important point.....In the O'Hare region, there are three jobs for every one person. On the south side and souths suburbs where I represent, there are 60 people for every one job. 60 people for every one job.

Berkowitz: You need economic growth and you need jobs.

Jackson: Most tourists who visit the City of Chicago never go south of the Museum of Science and Industry and that's why the airport becomes a significant anchor in insuring the future of that economy.
*******************************************
Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D- 2nd Cong. Dist), interviewed on "Public Affairs, filmed on May 16, 2004, and as is being cablecast this week in the suburbs and as will be cablecast on Memorial Day through-out the City of Chicago on Cable Ch. 21 at 8:30 pm.

Updated May 25, 2004 at 12:30 pm.

Larry (www.archpundit.com) nicely posted, today, the partial transcript of my interview with Jack Ryan (See blog, entry, below), and he commented, “Now, of all the hot button issues, a serious issue is missing from most interviews with Ryan. During the primary he called for a withdrawal of troops from Europe. General Borling called him on that and asked him how Ryan would then reorganize the force structure to support forward deployments, as I understand it. I think this would be a great question for the ambitious Mr. Ryan if he wants to radically restructure American military forces. Any takers? Jeff?"

Well, I will be happy to ask Jack Ryan about this when I get another opportunity. There were a number of such items on my list that we just could not cover in a half hour interview. Certainly, I can't speak for Jack (or Barack), but I think Archpundit may be a bit off in how he characterized Jack Ryan's statements from the Primary, as indeed was General Borling, from time to time. I don't think Jack called for a withdrawal of troops from Europe, at least not a complete one.

As we know, Generals are often fighting the last war. And, I think Jack suggested, simply, that 60 years after WWII, and almost 15 after the fall of the Soviet Union and with the degradation of much of the threat of Russia to Europe, perhaps it is time to re-allocate U. S. troops-- placing them closer [in terms of military preparedness] to some areas where the danger has increased (say, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran) and further away from some areas, e.g., Europe, where the danger has decreased.

Also, for those of our troops that stay in Europe, etc., Jack suggested that some of those countries, including those in NATO, that are now stronger economically than they were circa 1945, could pick up some of the economic costs of our troops [a more equitable sharing of the costs of a mutual defense]. I don't know that any of that presents great problems for forward deployments, and once the general policy is worked out, I am sure the military could provide some options consistent with the above. I think I know both Jack Ryan and Barack Obama reasonably well, having heard quite a bit from both during and before their respective primaries, and I would think the above could be more common ground for Barack and Jack-- but I can speak with more certainty after I get to ask them some more questions.

Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************************************************

Updated May 25, 2004 at 5:00 am

Discussing Public Policy Issues with Jack Ryan,
Republican candidate for the U. S. Senate:

The War, Terrorism, Libya, Israel, North Korea, the Free Market, the Great Society, Market failures, Government failures, Helping the least fortunate in society, Empowering individuals, Empowering institutions, Capital Gains Taxes, Supply side and Transparency
**************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: ...[You were at] Goldman, Sachs, for 10-11 years, as an associate and then you became a partner in 1996?

Jack Ryan: Yes, 15 years [total] at Goldman Sachs and I became a partner in '96 and, as you know, I left [in 2000] to teach high school [at Hales Franciscan on the South side of Chicago]

Berkowitz: [You were a ] colleague of [now New Jersey U. S. Senator] Jon Corzine?

Ryan: Well, colleague is a bit of an overstatement; he was about three levels ahead of me. But, he made me a partner at Goldman Sachs.

Berkowitz: He did. And, you thanked him for that.

Ryan: I thanked him for that. ...now he is trying to do everything he can do to make sure I am not a partner of his in the U. S. Senate.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: As we sit here on May 23... how is it going [in Iraq]? Would you say that the War, the military action in Iraq is going as well as we expected [it would], about as we expected, or worse?

Jack Ryan: Well, in some ways it is going very well; in some ways, not so well, as you know. The ways it is going very well are (1) Saddam Hussein is removed from power- an obvious tyrant who was threatening peace in the middle east and had, in the past; we also have the second order ramifications of our involvement: Colonel Qadafi suddenly says after we capture Saddam Hussein-- "Oh, maybe you want to come in and look at my nuclear weapons program [in Libya]." And, suddenly we have other regimes saying maybe we should try to cooperate-- North Korea gets involved in negotiations with six countries that they are now speaking with about their nuclear program. And, so not only was it a success in terms of removing a tyrant from power, but also the reverberations have been very successful in terms of trying to get other rogue regimes to join the international community, so in that way it is a success. The way it is not a success, as you know, is all of the turmoil we are having since we declared victory almost a year ago—with the destabilization of the Iraqi government and not really near term possibility, it seems, of a less violent, stable country.

Berkowitz: Well, No. 1, your opponent opposed this war from the get go…Barack Obama has argued that there was no imminent danger, that we should have worked with other countries, that we should have worked multi-laterally, that we should have contained Saddam Hussein. What do you say to that?

Ryan: I think it is a very risky proposition; We found this [out] on 9/11. [it is a] very risky proposition to wait until something is imminent. When would we have stopped the terrorists under that theory who attacked us on 9/11? What we learned from 9/11 is better [to] be proactive, better there than here, better now than later…and remember the first rule of government is to make sure that we keep our children and our families safe from harm…
*************************************
Berkowitz: …You are a supporter of Israel?

Ryan: I am a big supporter of Israel. They are our only ally in the Middle East that we can really depend upon. [They are] the only democracy in the Middle East. And, we found out, first hand, after 9/11, what the Israelis deal with every single month- we found out first hand what they are up against. And, so we have got to stand by our friend-- Israel. And, they are in the forefront in this War on Terror—sadly enough, they are our forward ally in this War on Terror—so we have got to support them.

Berkowitz: Can we be, as we often liked to say in the past, an honest broker of peace in the Middle East, if we say, as you have, that you are a strong supporter of Israel? Does that mean that we can’t broker a peace there; we can’t be in a sense, disinterested? Neutral?

Ryan: Well, I think we have to keep trying to be a broker for peace. That is our responsibility as a powerful nation in this world…

Berkowitz: Now, you support the Wall, some people refer to it as a fence, some as a security wall, that Israel has [erected] and is erecting; primarily, I think, tracking the post-1967 War borders, you support that?

Ryan: I do support the Wall. Because, the Israelis didn’t put that wall up. The terrorists didn’t put that wall up. If there weren’t constant terrorist attacks from the other side of that wall, there would be no need for a fence. And, imagine here in Illinois if we had people coming in from Indiana, blowing up our cities and our towns and our children and our schools, we would certainly put a wall up, so we have got to have a wall. And, that wall can come down—as soon as the cycle-- not the cycle-- the culture of terror stops on the other side of the wall, the wall can come down…
***********************************************************
Berkowitz: …Barack Obama argues…and this is something where I think there is common ground between the two of you—he says that the free market is the most effective mechanism ever invented to create wealth…but, he says that he is concerned that Republicans—President Bush and to the extent that you follow this—he would say that you folks may let people slip through the cracks when there are market failures, so first, do you agree with Barack Obama that there are some free market failures?

Ryan: Well, there probably- there are free market failures occasionally, but, this is why this race will be so interesting, Jeff. Because, I think, where people have fallen through the cracks is the failure of the [Lyndon Johnson, et al?] Great Society programs of the last 35 years. What will be so interesting about this race is that you have two candidates saying, “We have a plan, or a policy or ideas for those who have been left behind, the least fortunate in society, and my understanding of Mr. Obama is that he wants to tweak some of the Great Society programs. But, what I have been doing on the south side [of Chicago], the west side of Chicago, East St. Louis, Peoria, Rockford, Cairo- I have been saying look around your communities after 35 years- after 35 years of the Great Society programs.

Berkowitz: So, you say—

Ryan: Are they [the communities] safer? Are the schools better? Are the job opportunities greater? If the answers to those questions are no, give someone else a chance. And, most people who look at it objectively say things aren’t better than they were 35 years ago. And, so, my idea is- take those resources—I give Democrats high marks for good intentions—but take those resources and empower people, not institutions.

Berkowitz: So, you are a member of the Empowerment Wing of the Republican Party, right?

Ryan: Right. Let’s go to individuals, families and give them the resources so that they can find the right housing for themselves, the right school for themselves, the right training project for themselves and not give the money to institutions that have been somewhat callous to those who have been left behind.

Berkowitz: …You certainly agree with Barack [Obama] that the free market is the most effective mechanism ever invented to create wealth? You two agree on that, right?

Ryan: I do, but it is easy to mouth those words-- but watch what someone does.

Berkowitz: So, you are suggesting that you don’t think that Barack Obama really does have a belief in and wants to implement uses of the free market? Is that your allegation?

Ryan: Well, I think so, based on what he has said- you know he is criticizing my saying that we should eliminate the capital gains tax- which in a capitalist economy, now why would you want to tax capital in a capitalist economy? Capital is the lifeblood of a capitalist economy. Democrats and Republicans want to tax cigarettes to get less smoking. They want to tax—

Berkowitz: But, you have to have some taxes, right? And, Barack Obama would say- he would say—and he has said this- that you are fiscally irresponsible because you want to lower the capital gains tax to zero and [I believe] he would say that you need some revenue from some sources and you are not disputing that. If you are going to have some government, you do[ need some tax revenue], right?

Ryan: Yes, you do—

Berkowitz: So, the question is-should you not tax-- there are other things you would tax, not capital gains, is that your point?

Ryan: Right, because I think that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the free economy that he says that he supports because actually if you remove the capital gains tax—it is a net revenue producer for the country. Why? There are more businesses, more expansion of businesses, more entrepreneurs--- all those companies and corporations pay corporate income tax. There are more employees as these businesses expand; that means there is more income tax…

Berkowitz: So, this is a supply side argument and you would say, as you lower taxes, you get… growth in the economy and therefore a growth in tax revenue and not a decrease in tax revenue.

Ryan: When you tax something, you get less of it and less capital is the wrong thing to want in a capitalist economy.
***************************************
Berkowitz: … the sealed records. You have been transparent in terms of your financial records.

Ryan: Yes

Berkowitz: You have been transparent in terms of your divorce case.

Ryan: Right.

Berkowitz: But, when it comes to child custody records, you have said you don’t want those documents released. The hint is, the allegation is they [those child custody records] don’t relate simply to your child, but do relate to things that would be embarrassing to you.

Ryan: Um-hum.

Berkowitz: Where does that stand and how are you going to address it. How are you going to get that issue off the table or will it dog you from here until November 2nd?


Ryan: Well, a referee was appointed in California [by the judge in the case; California is the venue for the Ryan divorce and the venue where the Chicago Tribune has filed a petition with the Court to unseal the child custody records] to go through those documents. People were saying- get a third party to go through those [documents] and those things that pertain only to you-release them; those things that pertain to or affect my son, keep those sealed. And, the referee in California is going through those [documents] right now. I suspect any day now there will be a recommendation as to the release of those custody documents- as you mentioned, I have released my divorce records, tax returns, financial assets—

Berkowitz: The judge will make a decision on the basis of that recommendation [by the referee]. Will you adhere to it or would you appeal it?

Ryan: No, I’d adhere to it.

Berkowitz: You’d adhere to it. Quickly over to social issues.

Ryan: And, by the way, we have said as fast as possible. Our—

Berkowitz: You want to get that done?

Ryan: Yeah, our encouragement to the Judge was, “Great, do it as fast as possible. Just protect my nine year old son.”

Berkowitz: Are you concerned maybe the Democrats, not Barack Obama, other {Obama] supporters have those records, even though they are now sealed and they will come out a week before the [November 2] election and then you will have to deal with it then?

Ryan: No, because the judge is going to release all of those things that pertain to me so—

Berkowitz: I know, but if he doesn’t release some other things—is there a hint that could be a problem in the last week [of the campaign] even though you are adhering to the law here?

Ryan: I don’ t think so.

Berkowitz: You don’t think so. Okay, social issues. Gays, guns and God, as they say…
*******************************************
Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Jack Ryan, interviewed on “Public Affairs,” filmed on May 23, 2004; The above is a partial transcript of the show that will be cablecast in the North Shore and Northwest suburbs of Chicago on Comcast Cable Ch 19 or Ch. 35 [depending on the location] during the Week of May 31 and that will be cablecast through-out the City of Chicago on Monday night, June 7 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, the Host and Producer of the cable television show "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************************





Updated May 24, 2:10 am.

A "Public Affairs," Double Header, so to speak, airing tonight, Monday night, May 24, from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm on Cable Ch. 21 through-out the City of Chicago. First up, at 8:00 pm, tonight, is a special airing with State Board of Education Member and leader in the Coalition for Jobs, Growth and Prosperity, Ron Gidwitz, debating and discussing the issues with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz. The show with Ron Gidwitz is described at the May 11, 13, 15 and 17 blog entries, below.

Then, at 8:30 pm, tonight, on Cable Ch. 21 is The Fire Next Time: Follow the Money and the Mikva Commission Report [coming out in June?]. Did the Mikva Commission avoid the Clout issue? Do Claypool and the other County Board Reformers have the right stuff to handle the County Building fire issues in the right way?

Is Forrest Claypool doing a "Cool Hand Luke," and speaking carefully and responsibly, below, about the Fire at the 69 West Washington Cook County Government Building that killed six Cook County employees last fall?, Or, is he avoiding questions that Cook County Board members should be confronting, if not asking, even before the Board Members get the Mikva Commission Report?

Jeff Berkowitz asks, among other questions, if this is a case where we need a truly Independent Counsel with the power to issue subpoenas and convene a Grand Jury. Well, do we? Can you expect State's Attorney Devine to investigate public corruption in Cook County Government, or in City of Chicago Government? To my knowledge, Devine has not shown much inclination to do so, nor has Attorney General Madigan. The U. S. Attorney for the Northern District, Patrick Fitzgerald, seems to have his hands full. So, who would have the power or the inclination to appoint an independent counsel, with power of subpoena and grand jury, to investigate the potential public corruption behind the County Building Fire. Where are the goo goos when we need one? Yet another case of liberal hypocrisy? We ask, you decide.

A partial transcript of our show with Forrest Claypool, Cook County Commissioner, is included below. The show is airing through-out the City of Chicago tonight, Monday night at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.

******************************
Jeff Berkowitz: ...Did Clout kill six people?

Forrest Claypool: ...I would not want to be in the position to ... even try to speculate without letting this process take place...

Berkowitz: ...He [Patrick Murphy] said this then, it was last November [on our show] and I don't think anything has been said [since then] to change it, he said they were told during the fire drills [at 69 West Washington] "go to the nearest stairwell, they will be smokefree and you can live up to four hours." That obviously wasn't the case, right?

Claypool: Right.

Berkowitz: That obviously wasn't the case that they could live up to four hours there[in the stairwells]. They were told [that], apparently. I don't think anyone has challenged that. So, is this a case of obvious negligence on [the part of] building management and of the [Chicago] Fire Department?

Claypool: Well, there may again, again, with something of great, not only of loss of life, but they are going to have trememdous legal ramifications for the taxpayers of Cook County when this is all said and done, it would be irresponsible of me to speculate on anything--

Berkowitz: Because this would be an admission against interest [and therefore admissible against Cook County as a hearsay exception to the rules of Evidence in any trials on this matter?]

Claypool: Well, it is not just that; it is not just that. I just think that we don't have all of the facts. That's why we have the [Mikva] Commission. Obviously, there are issues of management that are going to be put under a bright spotlight here...we want a factual, documented report and to find out what really happened, rather than you know the kind of rumor and speculation that's taking place.

Berkowitz: Well, here are a few things, one of the criticisms, it appears to be valid, that Patrick Murphy made--is that the [Mikva] Commission is not looking in the right areas or at least there are certain areas they are carving out and saying they won't go there. Elzie Higgonbottom, you know Elzie, right? An owner of one of the companies that was managing the building at 69 West Washington...is he still Chairman of the Illinois Gaming Board?

Claypool: I believe so.

Berkowitz: He is a pretty well connected guy, right?

Claypool: [Nodding with his head]

Berkowitz: That's a yes?

Claypool: Oh sure, sure. Of course he is.

Berkowitz: And, Robert Wislow- he is the owner of the other company managing...I think he is a big time contributor [to politicians]. Higgonbottom is a big contributor. They contribute to the Mayor [of Chicago, Daley]. They contribute to the State's Attorney [of Cook County, Devine]. They contribute to the Attorney General [Lisa Madigan; they contribute to County Board President Stroger]. You understand that?

Claypool: Yes.

Berkowitz: You don't disagree with any of that. Okay. And this guy [Elzie Higgonbottom] [Elzie is in the news again tonight [May 19], saying on Chicago Tonight that "our company did a great job in managing that building [69 West Washington, the County Building where 6 people died in the fire last October]]got a contract to manage a [County]Government building, and the government poured in five or six years ago, before you were on the Board (as Cook County Guardian Patrick Murphy said), the Cook County Board poured in 22-25 million dollars. They didn't put in sprinklers, which would cost, I believe, 2-3 million dollars; they didn't put in ...an automatic mechanism to unlock the doors, which I think Patrick Murphy said would cost nickels and dimes. They didn't have pressurized stairwells, which would be nickels and dimes. Is anybody looking at that. He [Patrick Murphy]says he has asked and that Ab Mikva [said he] ...is not looking at that; He [Ab mikva] said that is outside his purview. So, doesn't that kick the ball back to you guys.

Forrest Claypool: I think all of the questions you raised are going to be answered by the Mikva Commission.

Jeff Berkowitz: Is that right? By the Mikva Commission [appointed by the County Board President)?

Claypool: I believe they will. Because those are factual questions you are talking about. The question is of all those things you just mentioned--should those things have gone in. Those are a product of a number of things. One, what did the Building Code require at the time. What would common sense tell you, essentially. Those issues-- experts can look at them and make conclusions--some objective; some subjective, as to whether or not they should have been done and whether or not they were legally required to be done; or whether they should have been done even if they weren't legally required to be done because of changes in technology, or as you said, because of the cost--some of those issues--and, who is responsible for those things, that's what should be determined...the County Government was the Landlord that made these decisions, obviously they are going to be the primary point of focus. But, I certainly wouldn't say just because somebody made a campaign contribution to somebody that they are not going to try to manage those buildings to protect life and health and safety. The issues of management, how they were run... the issues of what should have been done, those issues will come out.

Berkowitz: Look, there may be some things that are easier if you get 22 million dollars, and contracts for that amount-- there are some things that perhaps are easier to maybe do no work and get the money, you would agree with that, right?

Claypool: I'm sorry. State your point, again.

Berkowitz: There are some contracts for which it is easier to make a contract, do no services, get paid and virtually do nothing--

Claypool: Well--

Berkowitz: If you have to put in sprinklers, you have to do something.

Claypool: Well, obviously, those contracts, they are again in black and white. The facts are there. Do they require it or they don't require it.

Berkowitz: That's right.

Claypool: Was it done or was it not done?

Berkowitz: It wasn't done. But the question is, was it not done as a connivance between these folks with certain board members because this would be a good way to disburse 20 million dollars to benefit various people?...For that, you need a grand jury.

Claypool: Well, that is a criminal offense, obviously, if that occurred.

Berkowitz: Right, but the Mikva Commission doesn't have the right to issue subpoenas-- so they really couldn't get into this. Nor could the Governor's panel. Only the Attorney General [Lisa Madigan] could and--

Claypool: Or, the State's Attorney.

Berkowitz: She [Lisa Madigan] said she is leaving it to others [The Fire Marshall]. And, I don't know--

Claypool: Or, the State's Attorney [Dick Devine] could as well. If the State's Attorney made that judgment, I believe he would proceed.

Berkowitz: You think he would?

Claypool: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: You think he [State's Attorney Devine] is entirely independent? He is sufficiently independent? Is this a case where you need a truly Independent Counsel with-with the power to issues subpoenas, with the power to convene a grand jury?

Claypool: Well, I think--

Berkowitz: These folks [Mikva Commission and the Governor's panel] are independent but they don't have the power; the people who have the power [Madigan and Devine] may not be independent.

Claypool: Well, that may or may not be.

Berkowitz: Well, what do you think? You are the guy on the hotseat.

Claypool: Well, I will tell you what I think. I think that Dick Devine is an honorable and honest State's Attorney who would not let campaign contributions or political influence or anything else stop him from issuing criminal indictments if there was loss of life as a result of criminal behavior. That is what I believe.

Berkowitz: He [Devine] may have a conflict. I am not questioning-- he is a former guest [of this show]; I think he is a very honorable guy. But when someone has a conflict, it doesn't mean that he is not honorable-- it means that he has a conflict of interest [This is the same obvious point that 9/11 Commissioner Richard BenVeniste pretended not to know when he said-- how could 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick have a conflict of Interent, in light of what a good, honorable person she is].

Claypool: Well, I don't think these types of conflicts you are talking about would rise to the level of preventing the elected prosecutor of the County [of Cook] from pursuing criminal claims over an issue so significant that it cost the lives of these young people-- so I really don't believe that would be the case.
********************************
Berkowitz: ...Not run for it. If [County Board President] Stroger were to step down [next year], would you let your name be used as someone to be nominated and elected by the County Board as President?

Claypool: No, there are a lot more popular people on that Board than me. No, I would not.

Berkowitz: Who would that be [that you might support for County Board President]?

Claypool: [Laughter]. That is premature. I would not want to speculate on that.
**********************************
Forrest Claypool, Cook County Board Member, interviewed on "Public Affairs," filmed on May 8, 2004, and as is being cablecast on "Public Affairs," and as will be cablecast through-out the City of Chicago tonight, May 24 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] on "Public Affairs."
************************************

Updated May 24, 2004 at 1:30 am

This week's (Week of May 24) suburban edition of "Public Affairs," [See, the last two paragraphs of this blog entry for our suburban airing schedule] features Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.(D- Homewood; 2nd Cong. District), debating and discussing with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the War in Iraq, building model democracies in the Middle East, Building Peotone Airport and expanding O'Hare Airport, Economic Development in the south side of Chicago and the South suburbs, a casino for the 2nd Cong. District and school vouchers/school choice. A partial transcript of the show with Cong. Jackson is included, below, and a supplemental transcript will be added to this blog, probably later in the day on Monday.

The show with Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.(D- Homewood; 2nd Cong. District), will also air through-out the City of Chicago next Monday night, May 31, Memorial Day, at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
*********************************************

Jeff Berkowitz: Let me just ask you if you would concede two things: would you concede that it is possible that there still are WMD in Iraq that we haven't found? And, two, would you concede that it is possible that at some point between the time we made it clear that we were likely to take military action in Iraq and the time that we did, which was at least five or six months, that those WMD were shipped out, whether it was to Syria, or some other place, So, would you concede those two things as possibilities, not necessarily as things you believe are accurate?

Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.: I am not going to concede hypotheses. What I will concede is that there are WMD in North Korea and we are not doing anything about it. And, we are not even having a conversation--

Berkowitz: Well, we are more limited as to what we can do there, aren't we?

Cong. Jackson: Well--

Berkowitz: Unless we want to take a higher risk of nuclear war.

Cong. Jackson: The message we are sending to our children, Jeff, is that is that the means justifies the ends-- in this case, the end itself justifies the means and what we are also suggesting is that we have a different standard for North Korea and the people in the Middle East and that different standard unfortunately could very well come back to haunt future generations of Americans. The precise goal that we sought to avoid-- the way in which we handled this conflict would be a message-- to future generations.
**************************************************
Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.(D- Homewood; 2nd Cong. District), filmed on May 16, 2004, and as will be cablecast on "Public Affairs," the Week of May 24 on Comcast Cable in the suburbs and on Memorial Day, May 31 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 through-out the City of Chicago.
****************************************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*****************************
Please send any comments about this blog or the Public Affairs show to
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of "Public Affairs." He can be reached at JBCG@aol.com

Updated May 23, 2004 at 11:45 pm:

Family Values, Same Sex Marriage, School Choice and Eric Zorn:
Can Zorn do what he said he could?

In a bit of a rant in his Chicago Tribune column of today [located in his usual Tuesday/Thursday Metro Section, p. 1, Left side space, but not at his usual Saturday space, which is to be buried somewhere in the Metro Section of Section 1- today was a special Zorn Sunday column-- online at www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-ericzorn.columnist], Eric Zorn notes that liberals, at least until recently, did not cherish the notion of “family,” quite as much conservatives have-- at least not in the same sense that conservatives have. One manifestation of this was that liberals tended not to use the word “family,” in the description of their organizations. Another is that they have not been too interested in studying which attributes of government tend to promote or retard the growth of families, at least with respect to what most people have previously thought the word, "family," to encompass. [BTW, you will want to track human interest, public policy and political discussions in Eric Zorn’s always interesting blog every weekday at www.Chicagotribune.com/notebook].

Now that Eric Zorn would like same sex marriages to be blessed by governments everywhere, not just the narrow 4-3 majority on the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he seeks to grab back the name “family values,” for himself and other liberals, to use, apparently indiscriminately—or at least to cover a broader range of combinations of people in a “family unit,” than has previously been the case.

So, I guess Moveon.com will now be known as Rightonfamilies.com. And, I guess when we have an antiwar protest similar to that of the 60s-- Mark Rudd, or his 2004 counterpart- will no longer say, "Chicks up front." Instead, it will be "weakest and most attractive (on average, of course) members of the protest family," up front. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

But Zorn goes further, asserting, "I could make the case that it reflects good family values to... devote our energies to boosting public education...I could but I won't...Family is too important to many of us to drag its name through the muck of our bitter socio-political debates...no one owns it."

Another Berkowitz challenge to Eric Zorn:

Go ahead Eric, make my day: having teased me-- this I have to hear. You don't say it explicitly, but I would imagine you mean to argue for boosting "public PROVISION OF education," as opposed to "public FINANCING OF education," as a means of promoting families [Same sex or not]. Public provision of education, of course, is near and dear to your heart as a voucher-phobe and public financing of education, of course, is near and dear to my heart as a voucher-phile. So, go ahead, make your voucher-phobe argument. I will make sure all the viewers and readers of "Public Affairs," left and right, give you a dispensation for dragging "Family" through the muck, just this once.

Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com

Updated May 22, 2004 at 3:20 pm

Michael Sneed/Rich Williamson/John Negroponte/The War/George Will/Winston Churchill/Chirac/Judy Baar Topinka

Who is Rich Williamson and will he replace U. N. Ambassador John Negroponte? And, much, much more in this blog entry.

[Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com]

Michael Sneed, in her Chicago Sun-Times column on May 9, 2004, wrote that Rich Williamson:

(1) is on the short list to become our nation's next U. N. Ambassador.

(2) is considered one of the best and brightest [Sounds like a Kennedy, right? Rich does live near Chris Kennedy] administration officials at the U. N.

(3) has been a loyal deputy to U. N. Ambassador John Negroponte.

and (4), and that Bush is worried about Illinois in the upcoming presidential election, and it wouldn't hurt to have a son of Illinois get such a top job.

In terms of accuracy, how did Sneed do? Well, not so well, as they say on NPR's Saturday morning game shows.

Item 1 is correct. Item 2 is half correct. Item 3 is half correct and item 4 is kind of silly.

On the other hand, two out of four is a pretty good batting average for Sneed, especially when it comes to politics and not aging the ageless.

First, former Ambassador Williamson is on the short list to return to the UN as an ambassador. Sneed did nail this one. When I asked Rich last night, as he was walking into an Illinois GOP fundraiser at the Ritz whether he was going to return to the U. N. to replace Amb. Negroponte, Rich responded, diplomatically, "that is not my decision." My guess is that the list is short, but not yet a list of one. I would also guess that Rich would take the position, if offered, but it is not an easy decision- the job might be for only 6 months, or so, and the move could be quite disruptive to his family and his legal career. On the other hand, I hear the food and treats are usually better at the UN gatherings than the fare offered up by Illinois GOP Chairman Judy Baar Topinka or Mayer Brown Rowe and Maw, even when the Funder is at the Ritz.

Second, Rich is probably considered one of the best and brightest of the pols who have held significant positions at the UN. Sneed did get this part of item 2 correct. However, Sneed implies that Rich Williamson is now at the UN. But when Rich taped my show, "Public Affairs," last fall, he had left his post at the UN at least a few months earlier, and returned to the law firm where he had previously been a partner, the [1307 attorney, 14 office-- including 6 foreign offices] major league(Chicago based--509 attorneys in the Loop) law firm of Mayer Brown Rowe and Maw. So, Sneed is about a year behind the times on that point. And, Sneed (Winnetka) and Williamson (Kenilworth) are almost neighbors-unless Sneed has moved out of my neighborhood without telling me. And, of course, if Sneed has cable, she would have had three, count them, three opportunities to watch my show with Rich Williamson. In Winnetka (and in 9 other Chicago North Shore suburbs) "Public Affairs," airs M, W, and F at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19. Perhaps Sneed should become a Berkowitz watcher, in addition to being an Antonio, Ponce and Oprah watcher.

Third, although former Amb. Williamson was loyal to Amb. Negroponte(and probably vice versa), Rich told me that there are five ambassadors to the UN from the US, and that they are equals. So, I don't think Rich was a deputy to Negroponte, as Sneed states. Rich's formal title was U. S. Ambassador and Alternate U. S. Representative to the UN for special Political Affairs. On the other hand, some of the US ambassadors to the UN appear to be "more equal" than others, and Negroponte, perhaps because he was assigned to spend most, if not all, of his time on Iraq (as he will do as the new Ambassador to Iraq) was the "most equal," of the five. But, still, I can only give Sneed half credit on this item.

Fourth, having lost Illinois to Gore in 2000 by 12 points, I am sure Bush is "worried about Illinois," if he gives it any thought at all-- but Sneed's suggestion that appointing Rich Williamson as an Ambassador to the UN will do anything to help Bush win Illinois is, well-- peculiar, at best. Sorry, Michael, no points on this item.

Okay, boys and girls, as a reward to you for reading through the above trivia about a Trevian, I have included, below, some serious stuff about Iraq, as well as a cute story from George Will via Rich Williamson, all from the "Public Affairs," vault, if I can steal a line from Chicago Tonight.
********************************
Rich Williamson: ...France wants to create a world where they are the second pole; unfortunately [for France?] their economic, military and cultural reach, their might, their strength don't sustain that.

Jeff Berkowitz: Shouldn't they [the French] be removed from the Security Council, as a permanent member of the Security Council?

Rich Williamson: Well, I think what they [the French] have done-- is they have helped de-legitimize their position on the Security Council. Now, I don't know whether they should be taken off the Security Council, or not. They were added at the end in 1945, at the San Francisco conference. There were initially only four permanent members- France was let on in the end. My friend, George Will, had the comment that, at the time, Winston Churchill said France should be added to help them psychologically, and George Will said, after 50 years of psychoanalysis, that's enough...he [Jacques Chirac] ended up, with Germany and France being more isolated, he [Chirac] will have to live with the ramifications...
*****************************
Berkowitz: It appears that the Democratic Presidential [primary] candidates would all say that there was insufficient use of diplomacy [by the US before the Iraq War]; they would say that Bush insulted Germany and France and therefore they and other countries didn't join [the Coalition of the Willing], and your response would be?

Williamson: We were seriously disappointed we couldn't get an 18th resolution on Iraq that would have allowed a greater participation, but it is inaccurate to say we didn't have a broad coalition...the war was enormously successful...
************************************
Rich Williamson, former Ambassador to the United Nations, interviewed on "Public Affairs." The program was recorded on October 2, 2003 and was cablecast in October, 2003 through-out the City of Chicago(Mondays, 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21) and in 34 Chicago Northshore and Northwest suburbs on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 or Ch. 35 at various times, depending on the location of the suburb.
**************************************

Updated 2:40 am, May 21, 2004

Index of Recent Blog entries, below:

May 21:

--Zorn and Gay Marriage
--Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

May 20:

--Elzie Higginbottum gets another good deal-- Phil Ponce keeps the tough questons on the County Building fire to himself.

--Cook County Commissioner and Reformer Forrest Claypool plays it cool on the Hot County Building Fire.

May 17,

--On the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Educaton, most Democratic pols and many Republican pols hypocritically stand in the schoolhouse door and block the exit from failing schools by low income minority students
**************************************

Updated May 21, 2004, 2:30 am; Eric Zorn and Gay Marriage, an article of Faith?

Cong. Jesse Jackson on "Public Affairs" : Iraq, North Korea, WMD and Nuclear War.
*****************************************************

An intellectual lapse by Eric Zorn: reaching for faith and discarding analysis and empirical evidence.

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune Columnist and Godfather to serious Bloggers everywhere-- every once in a while likes to throw up frivolous arguments by intellectual opponents and then knock them down, e.g., the notion that gay marriage would destroy civilization, as we know it, in three days. Of course, one can do that- set up the proverbial straw man [or woman], but to what end? to caricature your intellectual opponents as lacking in brainpower?

Is gay marriage a good idea, Zorn implicitly asks? It is a somewhat complicated issue. I, like most thoughtful people, can argue, theoretically, why such arrangements, may be good or bad for society, at large. We can then look at some empirical evidence-- say, countries that have already tried such, in varying forms, for a reasonable period of time (probably more than three days), and see-- whether the family, as we know it, has been strengthened, or weakened, over time-- by collecting and analyzing the data. If Eric doesn't know where to start on this type of an exercise, he can call Milt Rosenberg, who did a radio show, during the last year, with some academics [or with some guests who discussed some academics] who have done some such analyses. I would follow up on this myself, but Eric is the lucky one who has chosen to live the leisure of the Theory Class-- so that is his assigment for the day.

Instead of following what he must have known would be my advice, Eric Zorn, on his blog, tells us that he asked two of his friends in Massachusetts (quite a representative sample) what they think-- after the institution of same sex marriage has been in place for three days, gets two flip answers (See, below, from www.chicagotribune.com/notebook) and somehow that is supposed to illuminate? If it was just for humor, that is fine. But, one senses that there are certain issues, such as this one (and School Choice/school vouchers), that Zorn does not want to subject to serious debate and empirical evidence [notwithstanding that he has
placed the voucher issue on his rhubarb patch]. Instead, I think he wants us to decide such issues as a matter of "faith."

A somewhat odd position for a humanist, who I thought took very little on faith. Further, this approach, deciding this issue as a matter of faith, is somewhat similar to that of those, on the other side, who would like to reject same sex marriage as a matter of "faith." Call me old fashioned, but I would like to take the University of Chicago approach: look at the theories, look at their testable implications, look at the empirical evidence and reach some conclusions about the theories after analysis, debate and discussion.
***********************************************

From Eric Zorn's blog at www.chicagotribune.com/notebook:

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004
last updated 12:43 p.m.

DISPATCHES FROM THE LAND OF GAY WEDDINGS

Referencing the alarmist rhetoric from conservatives that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will harm the institution of marriage, I [Eric Zorn] wrote to my two closest married friends in Massachusetts:

How are your marriages bearing up this week under the eroding assault of legal gay weddings?

Does your union feel cheaper and degraded now that homosexuals can have something just like it?

Pete, from Falmouth, replied:
Remarkably, we're holding up pretty well. Shoot, we even know people-- I mean gay people!-- who have done the deed and yet our union has the same solidity it did last week.
Robin, from Amherst, added:
I can only report that accounts of the jubilate deo around here have not been exaggerated, and you know how joy is infectious. It's gotta be really hard work this week for those trying to hang onto their conviction that this isn't about love, life, and laughter. From where I sit, the institution of marriage is thriving.
I've asked them to let me know immediately when they see straight marriages begin to crumble around them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Week's suburban edition of "Public Affairs," features, as its guest, Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D- Homewood):

Jeff Berkowitz: Let me just ask you if you would concede two things: would you concede that it is possible that there still are WMD in Iraq that we haven't found? And, two, would you concede that it is possible that at some point between the time we made it clear that we were likely to take military action in Iraq and the time that we did, which was at least five or six months, that those WMD were shipped out, whether it was to Syria, or some other place, So, would you concede those two things as possibilities, not necessarily as things you believe are accurate?

Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.: I am not going to concede hypotheses. What I will concede is that there are WMD in North Korea and we are not doing anything about it. And, we are not even having a conversation--

Berkowitz: Well, we are more limited as to what we can do there, aren't we?

Cong. Jackson: Well--

Berkowitz: Unless we want to take a higher risk of nuclear war.

Cong. Jackson: The message we are sending to our children, Jeff, is that is that the means justifies the ends-- in this case, the end itself justifies the means and what we are also suggesting is that we have a different standard for North Korea and the people in the Middle East and that different standard unfortunately could very well come back to haunt future generations of Americans. The precise goal that we sought to avoid-- the way in which we handled this conflict would be a message-- to future generations.
**************************************************
Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr.(D- Homewood; 2nd Cong. District), filmed on May 16, 2004, and as will be cablecast on "Public Affairs," the Week of May 24 on Comcast Cable in the suburbs and on Memorial Day, May 31 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 through-out the City of Chicago.
****************************************************

Updated May 20, 2004, 2:00 pm

Elzie Higginbottom, the owner of one of the joint venture partners that managed 69 West Washington-- the County building in which six people died in a fire last fall, did a little tap dance on Chicago Tonight last night in an interview with Phil Ponce. For reasons that are unclear, when Elzie talked about the good job that his company did in managing the building where the Fire occurred, Ponce chose not to challenge him with some of the obvious questions that one would expect to be asked. Those questions, not asked by Phil, are listed below.
*******************************
Karen Griffen sustained severe injuries in the County Building fire. Her husband, Gene, testified before the Mikva Commission investigating the County Building fire today [May 19] and told the Commission what Karen Griffen had to "say," immediately after she escaped from the building. A couple of hours after escaping from the building, Karen Griffin came to and wrote a question to her husband, "did people die." Her husband and others responded, "Yes, six people died. Karen started crying and wrote,"But, we did what they told us to [do]."

From Chicago Tonight's News Update, May 19, 2004.
********************************************************
Elzie Higginbottom: ...We do a good job of managing [buildings].

Phil Ponce: So, there was nothing in retrospect that you would do differently.

Higgonbottum: No, I don't think there is anything in retrospect that we would do differently, certainly we are concerned and saddened by the loss of life. But, we feel that we did a good job. Our joint venture managing partner, U. S. Equities-- they manage several buildings downtown. So, you had a lot of experienced management from the ecompanies that were managing that building. 69 West Washington, LLC was the Manager of that building, East Lake Management [Elzie's company] was a member of that Limited liablity Corporation, as was U. S. Equities [Robert Wislow's company].

Ponce: Okay, let's get back to the Casino issue...
**************************************************************
From Chicago Tonight, May 19, 2004.
**************************************************************
Some of the questions that Phil Ponce should have asked Elzie Higginbottom but chose not to ask. Maybe next time:

Who was responsible for telling the County Government employees at the building to go into the stairwells, either at the fire drills or at the time of the fire? Not building management? Who was responsible for telling the County Government employees to evacuate? Not building management? Who was responsible for telling the county employees that they could stay safely in the stairwells for four hours? Not building management? Why were the stairwells not a safe place for the employees? Why did building management not know about that? How much would it have cost to install sprinklers in the building? Did 69 West Washington ever make a recommendation to the building owner-- the County, to install sprinklers? Same questions as to an automatic door unlocking mechanism and pressurized stairwells. When Karen Griffen wrote, "We did what they told us to," who does Elzie think Karen was referring to when she wrote, "They told us to."
***********************************************************
For more on the county building Fire, see the transcript and discussion of the "Public Affairs," show with Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool, immediately below.

Updated May 20, 2004 at 2:20 am

The Fire Next Time: Follow the Money and the Mikva Commission Report [coming out in June?]. Did the Mikva Commission avoid the Clout issue? Do Claypool and the other County Board Reformers have the right stuff to handle the County Building fire issues in the right way?

Is Forrest Claypool doing a "Cool Hand Luke," and speaking carefully and responsibly, below, about the Fire at the 69 West Washington Cook County Government Building that killed six Cook County employees last fall?, Or, is he avoiding questions that Cook County Board members should be confronting, if not asking, even before the Board Members get the Mikva Commission Report?

Jeff Berkowitz asks, among other questions, if this is a case where we need a truly Independent Counsel with the power to issue subpoenas and convene a Grand Jury. Well, do we? Can you really expect State's Attorney Devine to investigate public corruption in Cook County Government, or in City of Chicago Government? To my knowledge, Devine has not shown much inclination to do so, nor has Attorney General Madigan. The U. S. Attorney for the Northern District, Patrick Fitzgerald, seems to have his hands full. So, who would have the power or the inclination to appoint an independent counsel, with power of subpoena and grand jury, to investigate the potential public corruption behind the County Building Fire. Where are the goo goos when we need one? Yet another case of liberal hypocrisy? We ask, you decide.

A partial transcript of our show with Forrest Claypool, Cook County Commissioner, is included below. The show is airing in the suburbs this week [Week of May 17] and will air through-out the City of Chicago this coming Monday night at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. For more details on the suburban and city airing schedule of "Public Affairs," and more details about the show, see the blog entry immediately below the transcript.
******************************
Jeff Berkowitz: ...Did Clout kill six people?

Forrest Claypool: ...I would not want to be in the position to ... even try to speculate without letting this process take place...

Berkowitz: ...He [Patrick Murphy] said this then, it was last November [on our show] and I don't think anything has been said [since then] to change it, he said they were told during the fire drills [at 69 West Washington] "go to the nearest stairwell, they will be smokefree and you can live up to four hours." That obviously wasn't the case, right?

Claypool: Right.

Berkowitz: That obviously wasn't the case that they could live up to four hours there[in the stairwells]. They were told [that], apparently. I don't think anyone has challenged that. So, is this a case of obvious negligence on [the part of] building management and of the [Chicago] Fire Department?

Claypool: Well, there may again, again, with something of great, not only of loss of life, but they are going to have trememdous legal ramifications for the taxpayers of Cook County when this is all said and done, it would be irresponsible of me to speculate on anything--

Berkowitz: Because this would be an admission against interest [and therefore admissible against Cook County as a hearsay exception to the rules of Evidence in any trials on this matter?]

Claypool: Well, it is not just that; it is not just that. I just think that we don't have all of the facts. That's why we have the [Mikva] Commission. Obviously, there are issues of management that are going to be put under a bright spotlight here...we want a factual, documented report and to find out what really happened, rather than you know the kind of rumor and speculation that's taking place.

Berkowitz: Well, here are a few things, one of the criticisms, it appears to be valid, that Patrick Murphy made--is that the [Mikva] Commission is not looking in the right areas or at least there are certain areas they are carving out and saying they won't go there. Elzie Higgonbottom, you know Elzie, right? An owner of one of the companies that was managing the building at 69 West Washington...is he still Chairman of the Illinois Gaming Board?

Claypool: I believe so.

Berkowitz: He is a pretty well connected guy, right?

Claypool: [Nodding with his head]

Berkowitz: That's a yes?

Claypool: Oh sure, sure. Of course he is.

Berkowitz: And, Robert Wislow- he is the owner of the other company managing...I think he is a big time contributor [to politicians]. Higgonbottom is a big contributor. They contribute to the Mayor [of Chicago, Daley]. They contribute to the State's Attorney [of Cook County, Devine]. They contribute to the Attorney General [Lisa Madigan; they contribute to County Board President Stroger]. You understand that?

Claypool: Yes.

Berkowitz: You don't disagree with any of that. Okay. And this guy [Elzie Higgonbottom] [Elzie is in the news again tonight [May 19], saying on Chicago Tonight that "our company did a great job in managing that building [69 West Washington, the County Building where 6 people died in the fire last October]]got a contract to manage a [County]Government building, and the government poured in five or six years ago, before you were on the Board (as Cook County Guardian Patrick Murphy said), the Cook County Board poured in 22-25 million dollars. They didn't put in sprinklers, which would cost, I believe, 2-3 million dollars; they didn't put in ...an automatic mechanism to unlock the doors, which I think Patrick Murphy said would cost nickels and dimes. They didn't have pressurized stairwells, which would be nickels and dimes. Is anybody looking at that. He [Patrick Murphy]says he has asked and that Ab Mikva [said he] ...is not looking at that; He [Ab mikva] said that is outside his purview. So, doesn't that kick the ball back to you guys.

Forrest Claypool: I think all of the questions you raised are going to be answered by the Mikva Commission.

Jeff Berkowitz: Is that right? By the Mikva Commission [appointed by the County Board President)?

Claypool: I believe they will. Because those are factual questions you are talking about. The question is of all those things you just mentioned--should those things have gone in. Those are a product of a number of things. One, what did the Building Code require at the time. What would common sense tell you, essentially. Those issues-- experts can look at them and make conclusions--some objective; some subjective, as to whether or not they should have been done and whether or not they were legally required to be done; or whether they should have been done even if they weren't legally required to be done because of changes in technology, or as you said, because of the cost--some of those issues--and, who is responsible for those things, that's what should be determined...the County Government was the Landlord that made these decisions, obviously they are going to be the primary point of focus. But, I certainly wouldn't say just because somebody made a campaign contribution to somebody that they are not going to try to manage those buildings to protect life and health and safety. The issues of management, how they were run... the issues of what should have been done, those issues will come out.

Berkowitz: Look, there may be some things that are easier if you get 22 million dollars, and contracts for that amount-- there are some things that perhaps are easier to maybe do no work and get the money, you would agree with that, right?

Claypool: I'm sorry. State your point, again.

Berkowitz: There are some contracts for which it is easier to make a contract, do no services, get paid and virtually do nothing--

Claypool: Well--

Berkowitz: If you have to put in sprinklers, you have to do something.

Claypool: Well, obviously, those contracts, they are again in black and white. The facts are there. Do they require it or they don't require it.

Berkowitz: That's right.

Claypool: Was it done or was it not done?

Berkowitz: It wasn't done. But the question is, was it not done as a connivance between these folks with certain board members because this would be a good way to disburse 20 million dollars to benefit various people?...For that, you need a grand jury.

Claypool: Well, that is a criminal offense, obviously, if that occurred.

Berkowitz: Right, but the Mikva Commission doesn't have the right to issue subpoenas-- so they really couldn't get into this. Nor could the Governor's panel. Only the Attorney General [Lisa Madigan] could and--

Claypool: Or, the State's Attorney.

Berkowitz: She [Lisa Madigan] said she is leaving it to others [The Fire Marshall]. And, I don't know--

Claypool: Or, the State's Attorney [Dick Devine] could as well. If the State's Attorney made that judgment, I believe he would proceed.

Berkowitz: You think he would?

Claypool: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: You think he [State's Attorney Devine] is entirely independent? He is sufficiently independent? Is this a case where you need a truly Independent Counsel with-with the power to issues subpoenas, with the power to convene a grand jury?

Claypool: Well, I think--

Berkowitz: These folks [Mikva Commission and the Governor's panel] are independent but they don't have the power; the people who have the power [Madigan and Devine] may not be independent.

Claypool: Well, that may or may not be.

Berkowitz: Well, what do you think? You are the guy on the hotseat.

Claypool: Well, I will tell you what I think. I think that Dick Devine is an honorable and honest State's Attorney who would not let campaign contributions or political influence or anything else stop him from issuing criminal indictments if there was loss of life as a result of criminal behavior. That is what I believe.

Berkowitz: He [Devine] may have a conflict. I am not questioning-- he is a former guest [of this show]; I think he is a very honorable guy. But when someone has a conflict, it doesn't mean that he is not honorable-- it means that he has a conflict of interest [This is the same obvious point that 9/11 Commissioner Richard BenVeniste pretended not to know when he said-- how could 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick have a conflict of Interent, in light of what a good, honorable person she is].

Claypool: Well, I don't think these types of conflicts you are talking about would rise to the level of preventing the elected prosecutor of the County [of Cook] from pursuing criminal claims over an issue so significant that it cost the lives of these young people-- so I really don't believe that would be the case.
********************************
Berkowitz: ...Not run for it. If [County Board President] Stroger were to step down [next year], would you let your name be used as someone to be nominated and elected by the County Board as President?

Claypool: No, there are a lot more popular people on that Board than me. No, I would not.

Berkowitz: Who would that be [that you might support for County Board President]?

Claypool: [Laughter]. That is premature. I would not want to speculate on that.
**********************************
Forrest Claypool, Cook County Board Member, interviewed on "Public Affairs," filmed on May 8, 2004, and as is being cablecast on "Public Affairs," this week [week of May 17] in the suburbs, and as will be cablecast through-out the City of Chicago this coming Monday night, May 24 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] on "Public Affairs."
************************************