Downstate Illinois just moved WAY up in my mind

Ha:

TAYLORVILLE, Ill. — The sign on the door of the American Tap warns patrons not to smoke. But sitting at the bar, customers merrily puff away, sharing cigarettes with the bartender and the owner while openly defying and mocking the state's ban on indoor smoking.

"I told the health department weeks ago, 'Go ahead and fine me,' " said owner Gary McWard, flicking an ash from his cigarette into an empty beer can on the bar top. "And I'm still waiting."

Enforcement could be a long time coming. Light up indoors in Chicago and the suburbs and get caught, and it's virtually certain the law will try to snuff it out. But in Downstate Illinois, where state smoking rates are the highest and opposition to the smoking ban is most vociferous, some communities are refusing to halt indoor smoking or levy fines.

Why?

Some rural prosecutors and county health departments say they are in a legal bind: The law that took effect Jan. 1 is not specific in how it should be enforced.

Though the law spells out fines from $100 to $250 for smokers and from $250 on up for business owners, it does not detail a due process to enforce it, they say.

And it leaves it up to local authorities to wrestle with the ambiguity. Officials in Chicago and the suburbs are enforcing the ban despite the lack of certain guidelines, but some Downstate prosecutors are reluctant to—especially with strong pockets of public sentiment against the ban.

This guy is kind of my new hero:

Peoria attorney Daniel O'Day, who believes the ban infringes on personal liberty, travels across the state working for free to represent smokers cited under the law. He said the ban has a number of flaws, including no specific requirements for bartenders to enforce the law; no penalty for failing to remove ashtrays; and no legal limit on the dollar amount of fines for bar owners.

I recommend reading the whole thing. It's the most heart-warming article I've read in a long time. It ends with one last nanny-stater sniffing:

"We would like to get this stopped, but we can't," said Gerry Grigsby, administrator for the Christian County Health Department. "We're stuck with a bad law, and it's a health hazard."

Ha ha!

Do you dislike the huge taxes in Cook County?

Board member Tony Peraica wants to do something about it. Apparently the Board's ability to raise taxes as it pleases comes from a special status the state legislature granted Cook that no other county in the state has. Here's the kicker:

Rescinding Cook County’s home rule authority would require voter approval for future tax increases. In the recently passed FY 2008 budget, the Cook County Board passed a massive half-billion tax increase to shore up an alleged $280 million deficit. On the same day this tax increase was enacted, a federal court monitor’s report lambasted the county for continued rampant illegal patronage hiring.

Go for it, Tony!

They tricked me because I'm old and stupid

That's the theme of this article claiming that some mortgage broker schooled some geezers out of their house.

First, the article is being deceptive. It's starts with this:

Retirees Ozell and J.W. McBee are in disbelief. They never expected to be forced out of the home where they have lived with their three teen grandchildren for years, and they're left clinging to hope that an Illinois attorney general office's lawsuit will help restore their shattered world.

For years? My first thought was why a couple of old people needed to refinance the house they've owned forever. Of course, here comes the only really tricky thing in the article (buried at the end by the liberal reporter Francine Knowles), not anything done by the mortgage broker:

The couple said they had to use money from their credit cards to make the two payments on their 4½-bedroom, two-bath home, where they had lived since 1999.

1999? Oh my, they go way back. The woman moved in as a youngster at the age of 77. Such an emotional attachment they must have.

Second, the type of loan they got is so common I wonder how these two ever fell for it. From what I understand, everybody and their brother was getting ARM's (except me) to "save money". I could have too, but I knew those rates were eventually go up. These two don't have anyone they could talk to about this? You'd think people who have lived this long would have built up a certain amount of skepticism about things.

Anyway, it's too bad they couldn't pay for their house. One other thing is bothering me, though. They live with multiple teen grandchildren, none of whom apparently work to help pay for things. Um, why not? There are jobs out there if they want them. My guess is they are too busy playing XBox 360 and telling their grandparents they are soooooo busy with schoolwork that they can't. Either that or they are social rejects who are unhirable (to invent a term).

As for me, I've been busy drinking and studying lately, thus the weak posting. One of those things is ending, but the other is increasing. I can't guarantee how much will be coming, but as you can read here, my misanthropy only builds like a volcano between postings.

Column of the year

I'm declaring this one already.

It's about the smoking ban here in Illinois. I agree with every single word of it, so I encourage you to read the whole thing. Here's the first part I'll quote. Surprise:

And yet the smokers are not without hope. Less than a year after Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the smoking ban, and gushed, "This law will save lives. The realities are that smoking kills people...My only regret is that this took so long," the news out of Springfield is that the owners of taverns, casinos and strip clubs may soon be able to buy a "special license" that will allow their patrons to smoke inside.

So all of that talk about saving lives from second-hand smoke was all just a bunch of...second-hand smoke. Or was it just another Chicago-style scam so the state could sell expensive smoking licenses to bowling alley operators? The fact is officeholders thought the smoking ban was a terrific idea -- or at least an efficient way to get those annoying single-issue pressure groupees out of their offices and off their backs -- until they discovered that Illinois would have a budget shortfall of $750 million next year, and learned how much tax revenue the state made off its smokers, boozers, gamblers and stripshow devotees.

Illinois bar owners report that revenue is down in some cases by 50 percent. Casinos report that the ban has caused a 17 percent drop in gaming. I haven't spoken to any strippers recently, but I bet they are feeling the pinch too.

Then there is this later:

These aren't the quaint, looney laws that you read about on the comics page. ("A Kirkland, Illinois, law forbids bees to fly over the village or through any of its streets.") Instead these laws create new classes of criminal behaviors; conduct that only yesterday was perfectly legal. Cynically the state assumes that, with time, the masses will get used to fewer rights, and to an ever-expanding, ever-meddling nanny state. All is well as long we are stripped of our rights gradually and imperceptibly.

Again, I recommend reading the whole thing.

Smoking ban claims its first victim

The Chicago violation under Illinois' draconian law is a craphole near my house. As an aside, the "two-way" in the title refers to the fact that it is contained between Fullerton and Milwaukee (which is at a 45 degree angle), and there are entrances and exits facing both streets.

Anway, they send around inspectors to enforce this nanny-statism? Nauseating.