I always liked the kinetic type pieces.

The Fleecing of Illinois

Having assisted in foisting Rod Blagojevich on the voters of Illinois, the Democrats in Springfield have refused to strip him of the power to appoint a new Senator for fear that they might lose a special election, as voters seethe over Blagojevich's corruption. Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan refused to allow passage of legislation mandating a special election, insisting that Obama's replacement be chosen by the governor - however corrupt he may be...

...Every major spot in Illinois state government is now held by a Democrat. One party government, by either party, breeds the kind of arrogant corruption and self-seeking of which Blagojevich has become the poster child.

Holy crap. Is this thing on? I've been on that stump for years now. Add Stroger-Gate in 2006, and Daley's continued stranglehold on Chicago in 2007 and you can get an idea of how Illinois is completely fucked. Add Judy Baar Topinka's comments towards blago and I want to stick a fork in my head. Not that Judy was a great candidate. It just seems that the Blue ticket in this town is a forgone conclusion. And the way Chicago goes, is the way the state goes, sadly.

Quick update for our three riders: The wife and I could not tolerate the dogless home any longer. We adopted a nearly one-year vizsla/lab mix on Saturday. We think she has some pitt in her. It's nice having some yound energy in the house.

Low-fat salad dressing vs. Condoms

Chicago Tribune: Feds take Gov. Blagojevich into custody

Blagojevich and Harris were accused of a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy that included Blagojevich conspiring to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama in exchange for financial benefits for the governor and his wife. The governor was also accused of obtaining campaign contributions in exchange for other official actions.

For the rider's reference: Timeline of the Blagojevich investigation.

I'm a huge fan consuming media on my own schedule. I've had tivo since it first came out, and first my iPod and now my iPhone is stuffed with podcasts of all varieties, including things that are simply rebroadcasts of television or radio shows.

One of the ones I've been listening to a lot seems like it might be up the alley of some of the riders.

Should I Drink That is a couple of guys focusing on the endlessly fascinating subject of beer. Funny chatter, interesting brews, good conversation, home brewers. Highly recommended. Plus, they're in the Burgh, so I'm pretty much duty bound to give 'em a shout out.

Under a deal approved Thursday by a 40-5 City Council vote, the cost to park at two-thirds of the meters in Chicago will quadruple next month. Neighborhood spots that cost a quarter an hour will cost $1 an hour and will increase to $2 an hour by 2013. The top meter rates in the Loop will go from $3 an hour to $6.50 within five years.

My quick math tells me that $20m annual income x 75 years = $1.5b. The $1.2b lump sum is 20% less cash over the term of the contract, even if the city never raised the cost of parking or added any meters over that time.

Does anybody else wonder how much of this lump sum of cash will be swindled allocated for Daley's 2016 Olympics, if Chicago is selected?

And, does anybody else notice that the city of Chicago is hemmoraging assets such as the Skyway, Midway Airport, parking garages and now public parking meters, to cover its ass for years of mismanagement, from pension funds to public transportation? But you know, the city voted for a dead guy as county board president. Nothing surprises me.

This came across my desk earlier this week. I thought I would toss it around on this venue and see what sticks.

Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

Art. 4 of the constitution is most commonly associated w/ a patient's right to an abortion. By the same galactic stretch of the imagination one could suggest that privacy between a physician and patient is equal to employer and employee. If a patient can confide in their physician and privately obtain an abortion, then an employee should be afforded the same considerations. The actual article in question is in reference to private papers and belongings, not benevolent universal healthcare, or imposing collective thought. Both arguments that stretch the intentions of a 200 year old legal document are baked. But, it is a slippery slope.

Even as an atheist, I would have to admit that individuals that take issue with aiding in what they perceive as immoral practices takes priority over what the State permits. Push the argument further and consider what the public reaction would be if the State decided to endorse Kevorkian practices, while trying to limit the payouts of entitlement programs such as SS and Medicare. Would HC employees be obligated by their current employment contracts to loosen their moral standings to appease the State? We are not talking about cops that think the speeding limit is too low and refuse to issue tickets. People who are religious tend to think that there is a higher authority, right? The State can attempt to impose its moral compass but that is not how we are really set up here.

That leads to the community, which decides morals and norms, etc. My best guess, is that this is non-issue. Worst-case scenario, you end up at a hospital where every staff member refuses to aid in the procedure, which leads me to think that the community has spoken. Most likely, federally funded hospitals will evolve to compensate for staff members that take issue. Otherwise effective staff members that refuse certain tasks could be shifted around, etc. If consistency of care is an issue, a new employee contract could include an agreement to provide such services.

I do not disagree that there is an obligation between HC staff and the patient. The question is whether or not the State can impose a moral system on its citizens. A patient's right to receive an abortion is at best a negative right. By that, the State is obligated to not produce a barrier to a patient receiving medical treatments. That is not the same as the State coercing one citizen to provide a procedure for another. If the agreement between employee and employer is up front, I do not have an issue with it.

State run hospitals could require a new contract between employees that states that employees will perform all the procedures in the playbook. That way we know upfront who is willing to perform a late term abortion on the 14 year old girl who lacks parental consent. If an employee is into that type of thing, they can sign on the dotted line. If not, they can find a saint-sponsored facility of their choosing. From a patient's perspective, it'd be nice know which procedures hospitals provide.

It's not that I am against abortion. It's just that I don't think one person's moral flexibility should be imposed on another. With all the disincentives that appear on the horizon for HC: legal liability, reduced earnings, increased education costs, etc. Moral standing is not something I want to add to the list that discourages otherwise competent HC professionals.