7:01 PM
BELVIDERE — The Boone County Pomona Grange will host Candidate’s Night at 7 p.m. March 2 at the Boone County Community Grange Hall, 8791 state Route 76.
The public will be able to ask questions of the candidates for Boone County state’s attorney, circuit clerk and board districts 1, 2 and 3.
For information: 815-262-7793.
Above is from: http://www.rrstar.com/article/20160217/NEWS/160219620
By Irwin Redlener February 17
Irwin Redlener is president and co-founder of Children’s Health Fund, a professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness. His Twitter handle is @IrwinRedlenerMD.
As a pediatrician — and grandfather — I ask myself: What would I do if I had family members raising kids in Flint, Mich., right now?
The answer is anything in my power to get them out of that toxic, distressed and struggling city. And if that’s the right answer on a personal basis, it offers a critical insight into what has to be considered on a general policy level for the health and well-being of a community where water for drinking and bathing has been contaminated with lead for almost two years.
Given the threat of ongoing lead exposure and the community’s well-founded mistrust of government, should families be offered at least temporary resettlement while upgrades, repairs and enhancements are made to Flint’s badly contaminated water infrastructure?
I ask this fully aware of how unprecedented and complex such a policy would be. After all, some 9,000 young children may have been exposed to contaminated water. Safely and efficiently resettling children and their families would be an enormous challenge. But such a step needs to be on the table, because lead, as most of us know by now, is a bad-news neurotoxin that can permanently affect brain development and learning. That won’t happen to every child in Flint; many will not suffer measurable consequences of exposure. But no parent can be reliably assured that his or her child will not suffer intellectual or behavioral consequences from prolonged exposure.
While families are relocated to a safe interim community, two things need to happen.
First, every family with a potentially lead-affected child — whether relocated or remaining in Flint — needs comprehensive health services, developmental assessment and access to parenting enrichment programs, high-quality preschool and Head Start opportunities, and special support programs for school-age children. The state of Michigan and philanthropic organizations are working to fulfill these needs. But while terrific programs are increasingly available in Flint, nobody can be certain that continued exposure to lead will not be a problem until all of the damaged pipes are replaced.
Second, emergency funding must be identified — at sufficient scale — to rapidly and definitively repair and replace the damaged water infrastructure. This agenda is being pushed hard by Flint Mayor Karen Weaver, who recently declared that “we’re going to move quickly to get this done.”
But the necessary replacement of corroded pipes could require more than $1 billion, the bulk of which will probably need to come from the federal government. Efforts to secure these funds are being driven by Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D), but even if the funding is forthcoming, completing the job could take years.
In the meantime, every additional day in a home with lead-contaminated water puts a young child at further risk. This is especially worrisome for children living in poverty who already experience a high prevalence of conditions, such as hearing and vision deficits, chronic asthma and recurrent hunger, that may interfere with optimal development and learning.
As a deeply frustrated mother of three young children told me in the parking lot of a Flint pediatric clinic, “I’m so afraid for my kids [and] I don’t believe anyone in government. They let us all down.” Crying, she added, “All of my friends say the same thing: If we could afford it, we would be out of Flint.”
There will be time enough to fully investigate how and why this debacle began and was allowed to fester under what appears to be ill-conceived money-saving schemes and an unconscionable state coverup . In the meantime, the children of Flint remain in harm’s way. Protecting them should be the first priority, even if it means temporarily removing them and their families from the beleaguered city.
Above is from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/get-flints-families-out-of-harms-way/2016/02/17/e8553e40-d4dc-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html
A state-of-the-art tool making campaign contributions and expenditures
available in an easily searchable format at
Data sourced from Illinois Sunshine and the Illinois State Board of Elections. For more information, contact Sarah Brune at 312-436-1274 or sarah@ilcampaign.org.
By Mark Berman and Jerry Markon February 17 at 7:45 PM
Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death over the weekend at a West Texas ranch raised questions about the nature of his travel, who paid for the trip and whether justices are subject to the same disclosure guidelines as other judges or federal officials.
Where did Justice Scalia die?
Scalia was at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort tucked away in the Big Bend region of Texas about 30 miles from the border with Mexico.
The ranch is 30,000-acre getaway that is home to John B. Poindexter, according to the website of J.B. Poindexter & Co. It is a remote location that has reportedly attracted the likes of Mick Jagger, Jerry Hall and Bruce Willis. When Tommy Lee Jones directed a movie more than a decade ago, he filmed several scenes at the ranch, according to the Houston Chronicle.
The top elected official in the Texas county where Antonin Scalia was found dead says the U.S. Supreme Court Justice died of natural causes. (AP)
Who paid for his trip?
All of which raises the question: Who pays for a Supreme Court justice to make this kind of trip?
Not Scalia, it turns out. Poindexter told The Washington Post that Scalia was not charged for his stay, something he described as a policy for all guests at the ranch.
“I did not pay for the Justice’s trip to Cibolo Creek Ranch,” Poindexter wrote in a brief email Tuesday. “He was an invited guest, along with a friend, just like 35 others.”
Poindexter added: “The Justice was treated no differently by me, as no one was charged for activities, room and board, beverages, etc. That is a 22-year policy.’’
However, Poindexter said he did not pay for Scalia’s charter flight to Texas.
A person familiar with the ranch’s operations said Poindexter hosts such events two or three times a year.
Poindexter, who would not identify Scalia’s friend, is a Texas native and decorated Vietnam veteran who owns Houston-based J.B. Poindexter & Co., a manufacturing firm.
However, Poindexter said he did not pay for Scalia’s charter flight to Texas.
A person familiar with the ranch’s operations said Poindexter hosts such events two or three times a year.
Poindexter, who would not identify Scalia’s friend, is a Texas native and decorated Vietnam veteran who owns Houston-based J.B. Poindexter & Co., a manufacturing firm.
The company has seven subsidiaries, with combined annual revenue of nearly $1 billion, according to information on its website. Among the items it manufacturers are delivery vans for UPS and FedEx and machine components for limousines and hearses. The company has 5,000 employees, the site said.
One of Poindexter’s companies was involved in a case that made it to the high court. Last year, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving an age discrimination lawsuit filed against one of these companies, court records show.
The nature of Poindexter’s relationship with Scalia remained unclear Tuesday, one of several lingering questions about his visit. It was not known whether Scalia had paid for his own ticket to fly to the ranch or if someone else picked up the tab, just as it was not immediately clear if Scalia had visited before.
It is also still not known who else was at the Texas ranch for the weekend, and unless that is revealed, there could be concerns about who could have tried to raise an issue around Scalia, said Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal and judicial ethics at the New York University School of Law. He compared it to unease that arises when judges and officials from major companies are invited to seminars or educational events that bring them together for periods of time.
“People worry at those kinds of things; there’s a creation of access on the part of people with an interest in the courts, and that is unfair,” Gillers said Tuesday
How do justices disclose their gifts and investments?
Much the same way other federal judges do: by filing reports outlining their outside income, gifts and times they are reimbursed for things.
The 1978 Ethics in Government Act, passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal, states that all federal judges — up to and including the chief justice and the associate justices — are required to report certain gifts. It also requires them to identify and describe when someone who is not a relative gives them “transportation, lodging, food, or entertainment” worth a certain amount.
A review of Scalia’s recent financial disclosure reports posted online by OpenSecrets.org shows that, like his colleagues, he regularly filed for unspecified reimbursements from universities, legal societies and other organizations like the conservative group the Federalist Society after making trips for lectures and speeches. Scalia was among the court’s most active travelers. However, these disclosure forms offer scant details about who else attends events with the justices.
Judges must report reimbursements related to travel totaling $335 or more, according to filing instructions posted by the group Judicial Watch. And judges are not allowed to accept anything of value from a person who has a case in their court, the document notes.
These instructions include an exemption for “food, lodging or entertainment received as a personal hospitality,” which includes a stay at a property owned by a person. As a result, it is unclear if Scalia’s stay would have ultimately been reported, said Gillers. (Travel, however, is not exempt.)
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. devoted part of his 2011 report on the state of the federal judiciary to the topic of disclosures. He also made sure to note that it was not entirely clear, in the court’s eyes, whether Congress could even extend such disclosure requirements to the justices.
“The Court has never addressed whether Congress may impose those requirements on the Supreme Court,” he wrote. “The Justices nevertheless comply with those provisions.”
Are there other ethical questions regarding justices?
The biggest ethical questions involve when justices should recuse themselves from cases, says Gillers.
“Is [the justice] the final arbiter of whether or not he has to recuse himself? And the answer is yes,” he said. “Every other federal judge below the Supreme Court, every other federal judge’s decision about whether or not he should be recused is potentially subject to the review of a higher judge or other judges on his court. But no one reviews the decision of a justice.”
He pointed to perhaps the most famous case involving a justice and recusal, which involved Scalia himself. Scalia joined then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney on a hunting trip while Cheney was the subject of a lawsuit over his energy task force, and in response to calls that he sit out the case, Scalia issued a highly unusual 21-page argument explaining why he refused to do so.
There are also calls for recusal stemming from things justices did before they joined the bench. Justice Elena Kagan, who served as the Obama administration’s solicitor general before her appointment, dismissed suggestions to recuse herself from decisions on health-care reform. Kagan had said that while in the administration she was not involved in preparations for legal challenges the act would face.
[For his part, Roberts has defended the court’s policy allowing justices to decide for themselves if they should step away from certain cases, defending the court’s members as capable of making this decision themselves.
In his 2011 report, Roberts noted that while lower courts can substitute for one another, there is only one U.S. Supreme Court, “and if a Justice withdraws from a case, the Court must sit without its full membership.” The justices have “an obligation to the Court” before making the decision on recusal, he wrote.
Roberts issued his report at the end of a year in which more than 100 law professors nationwide asked Congress to give the Supreme Court an ethical code of conduct after it emerged that Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas had attended private political meetings sponsored by billionaire conservative donors David and Charles Koch. That same year, Kagan was called on to recuse herself from hearing challenges to health-care reform, and a watchdog group said Thomas had failed to report his wife’s income from a conservative think tank before he amended his financial forms.
While Roberts did not specifically mention those issues, he said it would not be wise for justices to review the recusal decisions made by their peers. He said that “it would create an undesirable situation” enabling justices to play a role in determining which others get to weigh in on cases.
“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” he wrote. “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”
Alice Crites contributed to this report.
ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRLINER — Inserting himself into the Republican presidential race, Pope Francis on Wednesday suggested that Donald J. Trump “is not Christian” because of the harshness of his campaign promises to deport more immigrants and force Mexico to pay for a wall along the border.
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis said when a reporter asked him about Mr. Trump on the papal airliner as he returned to Rome after his six-day visit to Mexico.
The pope’s remarks came during a wide-ranging, midair news conference in which he also waded into the question of whether the Roman Catholic Church should grant an exception to its prohibitions on abortion and birth control in regions where the Zika virus is causing a public health emergency, including in much of Catholic-dominated Latin America.
Researchers say pregnant women are especially at risk, noting that the virus may be responsible for a spike in cases of microcephaly, a condition in which newborns have unusually small heads and brains.
People tried to get a glimpse of Pope Francis as he left the outdoor Mass in Ciudad Juárez on Wednesday. Credit Gregory Bull/Associated Press
In answering the question, Francis made a distinction between abortion and birth control. He flatly ruled out condoning abortion, which he described as “a crime, an absolute evil.” But he seemed more open to making an exception for contraception, citing Pope Paul VI’s decision in the 1960s to make an emergency exception and permit nuns in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives because they were in danger of rape.
“Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil,” Francis said. “In certain cases, as in this one, as in that one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these mosquitoes that carry this disease.”
Francis’ comments on Mr. Trump and the possibility of using contraceptives to prevent the spread of the Zika virus are certain to garner strong reactions. On Thursday, the World Health Organization advised the sexual partners of pregnant women to use condoms or abstain from sex if they live in Zika-affected areas or are returning from them.
The church has long opposed the use of artificial contraceptives, a ban reaffirmed by Paul VI in his 1968 papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae. Many Catholics across Latin America and elsewhere ignore the edict, however.
Francis made his remarks about Mr. Trump barely three hours after he had concluded his Mexico trip by presiding over a huge Mass in the border city of Ciudad Juárez. He first walked to the edge of the Rio Grande — as American security officers watched from the other side — to lay flowers at a new memorial commemorating those who have died trying to cross the border.
Francis then celebrated Mass, as a crowd of more than 200,000 people stood barely a stone’s throw from the border and listened to the pope call for compassion for immigrants fleeing chaos, poverty and war.
Mr. Trump has staked out controversial positions on immigration, vowing to force Mexico to build a wall and also increase deportations. He has also made inflammatory comments accusing Mexican immigrants of being rapists and criminals.
Asked whether he would try to influence Catholics in how they vote in the presidential election, Francis said he “was not going to get involved in that” but then repeated his criticism of Mr. Trump, with a caveat.
“I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that,” Francis said. “We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”
Mr. Trump responded immediately at a campaign rally in Kiawah Island, S.C. Discussing the Islamic State, “their primary goal is to get to the Vatican.”
“If and when the Vatican is attacked,” he said, “the pope would only wish and have prayed that Donald Trump would have been elected president.”
Earlier in his remarks, he said, “I like the pope.”
In the days before Francis arrived at the border, Mr. Trump criticized the visit, calling the pope a political person and accusing him of acting at the behest of the Mexican government. “I think that the pope is a very political person,” he said.
Mr. Trump, in an interview with Fox Business Network, said: “I don’t think he understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico. I think Mexico got him to do it because they want to keep the border just the way it is. They’re making a fortune, and we’re losing.”
Mr. Trump is a Presbyterian and has been trying to make inroads among evangelical voters as he seeks to win the coming set of Southern primaries.
Asked about the comments, Francis laughed. “Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus,’ ” he said.
“So at least I am a human person,” the pope said. “As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people.”
Francis also took questions on a handful of other issues.
Throughout his appearances, he spoke repeatedly about the human costs of Mexico’s drug violence, yet he never met with the families of the 43 students who disappeared in Guerrero State, a case that has caused deep embarrassment for the government. Francis said that he had wanted to meet the families in Juárez, but that practicality and dissension among the families prevented a meeting from happening. Mexico’s drug violence, he said, is “a great pain that I’m taking with me, because this country doesn’t deserve this drama.”
Asked about the continuing problem of clerical sexual abuse, Francis defended his record despite criticism that he is not sufficiently focused on the issue. He listed the things he has done to speed up prosecution of cases in the Vatican’s judicial system, but agreed that “we need to work faster, because we’re behind with the cases.”
The pope made no mention of the recent controversy that erupted after an outspoken member was suspended from his duties on the special commission Francis appointed for the protection of minors. But he described clerical sex abuse as “a monstrosity” and said bishops who transferred abusive priests to protect them should resign.
Francis noted that as soon as next month he is expected to release his much-awaited document on the theme of family, in which one topic on the table is whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive communion. It is an acutely delicate subject within the church, and the pope ducked a direct answer. When pressed, he said that “all doors are open” but that the church could not simply say “from here on, they can have communion.”
Finally, Francis was asked about recent reports about newly disclosed letters revealing the closeness of the relationship between Pope John Paul II and Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, a philosopher and author who collaborated with John Paul. Francis argued that a close friendship between a man and woman “is not a sin, it’s a friendship. A romantic relationship with a woman who is not your wife — that is a sin. Understand?”
He said that popes were men but that they needed advice and friendship from women. Such relationships need not stir suspicions, he said. “The pope, too, has a heart that can have a healthy, holy friendship with a woman,” he said
Doug Schneider, USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin 10:32 p.m. CST February 17, 2016
)
Two months after its health officer ruled she could not blame people's health problems on a controversial wind farm in Shirley, county lawmakers are taking another tack to assist residents who blame wind turbines for a range of illnesses.
Under pressure from a citizens' group representing residents of the Glenmore and Morrison areas, the County Board will consider forming a task force in an effort to address residents' concerns.
Erik Hoyer, a Green Bay supervisor, on Wednesday proposed creating a group of "scientists, physicians, citizens and supervisors" to tackle an issue that has vexed the county since shortly after the Shirley Wind farm began operating in 2010. Dozens of residents have complained of sleep problems, vertigo and other health issues they blame on low-frequency noise from the windmills. A handful have abandoned their homes.
Hoyer's proposal goes to a committee next month for study.
County residents living near the eight wind turbines continue to beseech the county for help.
One accused the county of "malpractice" in its handling of the issue, saying Wednesday the Health Department has a formal, professional process for dealing with complaints about odors and other nuisances, but has unfairly set the bar higher for people who claim wind-related health problems.
"Are residents submitting odor complaints forced to submit scientific evidence … Have any of them abandoned their homes?," asked Steve Deslauriers of Hollandtown. "I can't call this anything other than a discriminatory process."
The county's Board of Health in 2014 declared the turbines emit low-frequency noise that can endanger health. But Health Director Chua Xiong ruled in December 2015 that insufficient scientific evidence exists to say that the wind farm definitely caused people's health issues.
Duke Energy Renewables, which operates the site, has said repeatedly that sounds produced by the turbines cannot be linked to health problems. North Carolina-based Duke, which operates more than 1,000 turbines around the country, purchased Shirley Wind in 2011.
Wind-farm operators, in response, point to studies saying there is no clear link between turbines and health issues claimed by people who live near them. Studies in Massachusetts and Canada do not connect turbines to illnesses reported by people living near them, though one southeastern Massachusetts community began shutting turbines off at night after neighbors complained of sleep problems.
Operators also point out that wind produces energy without directly burning fossil fuels or using expensive and potentially dangerous nuclear material.
Electricity produced at Shirley, which can power about 6,000 homes, is sold to Wisconsin Public Service Co.
Above is from: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2016/02/17/brown-county-considers-wind-farm-task-force/80516510/
