Hypocrite, thy name is Chicago Tribune

By Don Frost

            Six years ago I took the Chicago Tribune to task for its misuse of the word “rights.” I pointed out that combining it with “abortion” in news columns was unethical because marrying “rights” to any issue constituted endorsement of that issue. This is something ethical journalist do only in editorials, op-ed pieces, or clearly labeled opinion columns.

            I cited as examples our Declaration of Independence’s mention of our “unalienable rights,” our Bill of Rights, the terms “civil rights,” “criminal rights,” “victim rights,” “immigrant rights,” “gun rights,” and “women’s rights.” The list goes on.

            The Trib’s response: My goodness, we certainly don’t use “abortion rights” to take sides on this controversial issue; to endorse abortion. We use “abortion rights” only because the Supreme Court, in Roe vs. Wade, has declared that women have a right to have an abortion. It’s a right, for mercy’s sake. The highest court in the land says so.

            Poor helpless Chicago Tribune. To hear them tell it they use “abortion rights” because the Supreme Court forced them to.

            Well, the Supreme Court has revised its ruling. Now the court says women have no right to have an abortion.

            Freed of the Supreme Court “forcing” them to use the term “abortion rights,” what’s the Trib’s revised policy? No revision at all. Six years ago the Tribune regarded the Supreme Court’s ruling as virtually holy writ, now the Trib doesn’t give a damn what the highest court in the land says. So they’re going on, and on, editorializing in news columns in favor of abortion by calling it a right; a right the court unequivocally says doesn’t exist.

            The fix is so simple. Here’s how it works: “The senator spoke out on the abortion issue.” See how easy that was? It’s factual; it clearly says what the issue is, yet it’s neutral in tone and is bias-free. But in the Trib it’s, “The senator spoke out on the abortion rights issue.” Why “rights” if not to make an editorial stand in favor of abortion?

            Hypocrite, thy name is Chicago Tribune. R.I.P., a once-great newspaper.

            P.S. Not that it matters, but I regret Roe has been overturned. I wish abortion still was a legal option.

A new bureaucracy is foisted on Illinois

By Don Frost

            Illinois has been awarded $760 million over 18 years, its share of a $26 billion settlement three opioid distributors will pay multiple states. The companies had been sued, charging they were to blame for over-prescribing the drugs, leading to an epidemic of addiction to the pain relievers. The money is required to be used for “treatment, education, and prevention” of addiction.

            Sounds good, doesn’t it? Alas, this is Illinois, a state with an unblemished tradition of graft, corruption, and mismanagement. Logically, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker would turn over to the state’s Department of Human Services the task of seeing to it that the money is well spent.

            Again, this is Illinois, and a $760 million windfall is just too great an opportunity to let pass. So of course, Pritzker, by executive order, has created a new bureaucracy, the Opioid Settlement Administration within the existing Department of Human Services.

            Someone in that department will, in turn, appoint a “settlement administrator” who, in turn, will create an advisory board made up of appointees who, in turn, will decide how the cash is to be spent.

            No doubt, buried deep in Pritzker’s executive order, salaries for the settlement administrator and his appointees are specified. It’s a good bet it’s well above minimum wage. Then, too, all these people will require clerks and secretaries who also will need to be paid. They’ll also need office space; computers will have to be purchased; there will be phone bills and bills for pencils, pens, printer paper, staplers, staples, paper clips, rolls of Scotch tape, and a lot more. In other words there are lots of jobs to pass around to future voters.

            Surely the head of the Office of Opioid Settlement Administration will need an expense account for travel around the state to see how things are going in the various treatment, education, and prevention programs. Maybe it would be deemed instructive to visit other states – perhaps Florida in the winter – to see how they’re doing with their share of the $26 billion settlement. Too outrageous to believe? Never forget, this is Illinois.

            Eighty-five percent of the fund is required to be used for treatment, education, and prevention, leaving 15%  – or $11,400,000 (chump change in government circles) – for “administrative” costs. That will be eaten up long before the last check is cashed 18 years from now. Since it is required that only 15% of the settlement can be used for the costs of distributing the money, and that $11,400,000 was long ago spent, guess who gets to pay to keep the new bureaucracy running? That’s right, taxpayers.

            As Ronald Reagan observed, “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.”