Latest news with #TribuneEditorialBoard
Chicago Tribune
5 days ago
- Health
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board should give RFK more credit in his campaign against sugar
In reference to the editorial 'As sugar is attacked, Chicago candymaker Ferrara keeps the Nerds coming' (May 27), the Tribune Editorial Board should do more research and also admit some harsh realities concerning sugar consumption. Is the board aware that about 1 in 5 children are classified as obese, some severely so? Sadly, many parents don't have the heart to deprive their children of something considered by society (and the board) as a 'treat.' But as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy so accurately pointed out, it is a form of poison and an addictive one at that. Just examine the percentage of people suffering the effects of Type 2 diabetes. That one disease alone accounts for enormous health care costs — costs that the government must absorb when a patient is on Medicare or Medicaid. So, the government indeed has a vested interest in controlling the manufacturing and consumption of sugar. Ferrara Candy Co. CEO Katie Duffy stated that 'everything we produce is safe to eat.' That does not mean it is 'healthy' to eat! The board states that it has 'long recoiled against Uncle Sam telling Americans what to eat.' And that 'if a food product is safe from a scientific standpoint, the government has no business blocking it from the marketplace.' Again, that ignores the fact that the government shares some of the burden for the cost of medical care for the health disorders caused by sugar consumption. And just to enlighten the board further, pay for the government. So, it costs us all as a whole. The board further states that 'armed with that information, we believe people are smart enough to make their own decisions without Nanny State intervention.' The board has to be joking. It gives people far more credit than they deserve. Sugar is being consumed in quantities that most people are not likely aware of. And that is what I think Kennedy is trying to address. I appreciate what he is trying to achieve, and the board should as well. Keep in mind that a country is only as strong and as healthy as its people. We have an epidemic of obesity in this country. Don't gloss over the facts in the name of some false sense of sovereignty over and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is absolutely correct about the American diet. There's too much salt, sugar and bad fat; not enough fiber; and too many additives. The consequences are substantial: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer and more. He is dead wrong about vaccinations, 'dead' not being just an expression: People are going to die, needlessly. During a measles epidemic in Samoa, Kennedy campaigned against vaccination; too few people were vaccinated, thousands got sick and dozens died. Almost all healthy individuals who get measles completely recover. About 1 in 1,000, however, will have serious complications or die. Great odds in a casino but not for a preventable disease. In contrast, there have been no reports of the measles vaccine causing death in healthy people, and the incidence of permanent harm is less than 1 in 500,000. Kennedy's efforts to restrict the messenger RNA-based COVID-19 vaccine is not based on credible evidence of significant harm. Worldwide, at least 5 billion people have received COVID-19 vaccinations, including hundreds of millions of Americans. Many have sore arms, and some, brief flulike illness. Very rarely does serious short-term illness occur. In contrast, more than 1 million Americans have died from COVID-19, and 20 million Americans have been diagnosed with long COVID-19, sometimes with debilitating symptoms. People who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 have dramatically lower rates of hospitalization, death and long COVID-19. Kennedy proposes a clinical trial against a placebo to test the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. In any clinical trial, when the drug being studied against a placebo is found to be safe and effective, the trial is stopped. The safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine has already been proved; there is no need for a trial. Kennedy's proclamation restricting recommending who should receive the vaccination is medical idiocy. Infants have poorly developed immune systems and are very vulnerable to infections, including COVID-19. If pregnant women are vaccinated, their babies get some protection against COVID-19. Being under 65 is no guarantee against COVID-19 causing hospitalization or death, and the incidence of some forms of long COVID-19 is actually higher in young people. It is worth noting that Kennedy made these recommendations on his own without input from recognized experts. There is a new COVID-19 variant, and the need for vaccinations is still great. When the Senate confirmed Kennedy, it failed the American J. Medley's letter ('What our nation needs,' May 29) regarding President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which has been passed by the House, is on point but misses one very important issue. This bill contains a buried provision seeking to limit courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from enforcing their rulings or orders. In short, it states: 'No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued.' What I have read says that this means the courts cannot enforce decisions unless the plaintiffs have posted a bond. Federal courts do not require plaintiffs to post bonds; therefore, this provision would mean that the courts would not be able to enforce their rulings. And Trump and his administration could proceed to do anything they want to, regardless of whether it is unconstitutional. When setting up the federal government, our Founding Fathers did not feel any one person should have all the power. Therefore, they set up a government of three equal parts: executive (president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (Supreme Court). Trump has already taken over the legislative aspect — with no pushback from the Republican majority — by overturning many aspects of the government and funding that had previously been put in place by Congress. Now he wants to make judicial rulings unenforceable. If Trump does that, he will be king. This country was developed as a democracy, and I believe the majority of Americans do not want a king. Readers should call their senators and demand this bill not be passed with this provision in it. Save our democracy and our Constitution!I'm thrilled National Public Radio has legally challenged the administration's misguided executive order targeting its appropriately sourced federal funds and relationships with local stations. I've grown accustomed to the measured objectivity and factual analysis of the reporting through daily programs such as 'All Things Considered' and 'Morning Edition.' We financially support NPR's frequent funding drives, the real lifeblood of its operations, not only because its revenues significantly rely on voluntary contributions by listeners, but also due to its prize-winning journalism that opens our eyes to hard-hitting domestic and international news analysis. The president's bizarre claims that NPR fails to provide 'fair, accurate or unbiased' programming can be summarily rejected by those who actually listen to the variety of viewpoints included. NPR routinely covers important events like it did with the president's speech to a joint session of Congress in March and even presented rare audio of Supreme Court oral arguments about the birthright citizenship case, followed by riveting independent coverage. Cutting this funding is more than just a violation of free speech. America should refrain from emulating autocratic leaders in other societies that deliberately silence views it does not Public Radio is suing President Donald Trump's administration because it stopped taxpayer funding to the network; NPR contends that curtails its free speech. What nonsense. NPR remains free to utter what it wants, but the public does not need to pay for it. NPR can fund itself and say whatever it pleases. Its reflexive lawsuit is frivolous and vexatious without merit.
Chicago Tribune
28-05-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Rep. Regan Deering: Illinois doesn't need a bigger budget — it needs a better one
Later this week, the General Assembly is expected to pass a new state budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Most Illinoisans won't even know it's happening. It will likely be done late at night, without real discussion, transparency or input from the very people who will be forced to pay for it. The Democratic majority is talking about new tax hikes, more spending and more empty promises. And once again, these lawmakers are doing it behind closed doors. As a freshman lawmaker, this is my first session in the Illinois House. And I can tell you that this isn't how things are supposed to work. Before serving in public office, I was a small-business owner and a nonprofit leader. I've worked with budgets, made tough calls and felt the pressure that comes when needs grow and resources shrink. In the real world, when money runs out, you prioritize. You stretch. You reform. But not in Springfield. Since just before Gov. JB Pritzker took office in 2019, state spending has increased by more than $16 billion. This year's budget is projected to hit $55 billion, nearly $2 billion more than last year. Pritzker and legislative Democrats celebrate this explosion in spending, suggesting that attempts at reform are extreme. And now, as the Tribune Editorial Board recently warned, they are considering new tax hikes. Let's be clear: There's nothing compassionate about taking more from families who already have to get by with less, as persistent inflation drives up the price of everything. Compassion isn't measured by how much we spend; it's measured by whether people are actually better off. Take Medicaid as just one example. Enrollment has more than doubled in Illinois since 2000, fueled by COVID-19-era policies and emergency federal funds. That emergency is long over, but the spending continues. Worse, this expansion is celebrated. Medicaid was designed to be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a permanent crutch for a system that refuses to reform. Yet any effort to restore balance is met with political spin and fearmongering. Instead of addressing waste and fraud and providing adults with a path to productive and independent lives through meaningful work, the Pritzker administration attacks these reform efforts. Taxpayers are left holding the bag, and those truly in need are no better off. I've seen what real help looks like. Through my work with the Northeast Community Fund and a food bank in Decatur, I've stood alongside families in crisis. I've seen the power of community, the power of dignity and the power of hope. I know what it takes to help people rebuild their lives. But that's not what's happening in Springfield. There, the goal is growing government, not growing opportunity. More dependency. More bureaucracy. More power for those in charge. And, heartbreakingly, less hope for the people they claim to serve. When we talk about Medicaid and this budget, we should be asking the hard but fundamental questions: Why are so many families forced to rely on what was a last-resort safety net? Why have Pritzker and the majority destroyed opportunity, driven out good careers, failed to educate our kids and forced so many families to rely on broken government programs, instead of helping them build lives of independence and prosperity? We should be lifting people out of poverty, not locking them in it. We should be creating jobs and driving growth, not exploding Medicaid rolls and taxing working families to fund it. We should be empowering people, not expanding bureaucracy. There are better paths forward. We need a budget that is truly balanced, offers property tax relief and includes no tax hikes. We need to reform the major drivers of government spending, restore honest budgeting and transparency, audit every program for its impact and efficiency, and refocus taxpayer dollars on results, not rhetoric. This debate isn't just about one budget line or one vote. It's about the kind of state Illinois has become and whether we still have time to change course. I believe we do. And we must because this is about whether my three kids and an entire generation of families will be able to build the lives of their dreams right here at home. We need to stop pretending that unlimited spending is a sign of compassion. It's not. It's a sign of failed leadership. Illinois doesn't need a bigger government. It needs a better one. State Rep. Regan Deering, R-Decatur, represents Illinois' 88th District.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Yahoo
Editorial: A reminder of the state's ultimate power — Indiana executes again
Indiana's second execution in 15 years is a grim reminder of the dual tragedy at the heart of capital punishment — the horrific violence inflicted by killers, and the irrevocable power the state wields in taking a life in return. This board has long questioned whether any human system is equipped to administer such final justice, a stance shaped by decades of reflection and the Pulitzer-winning work of former Tribune Editorial Board member Cornelia Grumman, who challenged readers to confront the fallibility beneath the death penalty's finality. Before Illinois ended capital punishment in 2011, this board urged reforms such as videotaping interrogations and banning executions of people with intellectual disabilities. 'Now's the time to get it right. Get it right or get rid of it,' we wrote in 2002. Former Gov. Pat Quinn listened, and we applauded. Capital punishment can feel far removed in Illinois these days. Yet this execution, carried out Tuesday just across the state border in Michigan City, Indiana, makes it feel closer to home. Prisoner Benjamin Ritchie was 45 when he died at 12:46 a.m. Tuesday, punishment for killing a Beech Grove police officer in 2000. His was one of 12 executions scheduled across eight states this year, including others this week in Texas and Tennessee. Lost in the bigger conversation about capital punishment are the victims, a frustration that eats away at families grieving loved ones. Officer William Toney, a husband and father, was a day from his 32nd birthday when Ritchie shot and killed him. His daughters, just 18 months and 4 years old at the time, grew up without him — a burden no child should bear. We do not pass judgment on those whose loved ones have been taken by violence, and we recognize that for grieving families, life may feel easier when the person responsible is gone. But as a society, we do have to grapple with how our justice system handles punishment for those who commit the most grievous crimes. This board has long held grave concerns when it comes to the death penalty. Indiana is one of 27 other states that continue to practice the death penalty, and is one of just two states that bans reporters from being present at executions. Even in states where the death penalty remains on the books, legal, ethical and political hurdles have led to yearslong delays in carrying out executions. Indiana's 15-year pause in executions stemmed largely from difficulty obtaining lethal injection drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies, especially in Europe, refused to supply drugs for use in executions. Pharmaceutical companies are right to have qualms about manufacturing products used to end life, and they're not alone. Too many people have been sent to death row, only to be exonerated years later. Northwestern University research found that 20 people sentenced to death in Illinois between the 1970s and 1990s were later exonerated. Beyond the system's fallibility is the moral dimension of capital punishment. People have long used the Bible to justify both sides of this issue. The Old Testament is full of the type of justice that gives credence to pro-death penalty advocates, while the compassion of Christ provides evidence for those against the death penalty. We're not theologians, but Chicago's own Robert Prevost — now Pope Leo XIV — once shared his view on his now-deleted personal Twitter account. 'It's time to end the death penalty,' he posted a decade ago. That view is consistent with Catholic teaching from our recent popes, including Francis, who called capital punishment 'inadmissible,' and John Paul II, who viewed the death penalty as an option of last resort in the event that no other option to protect society existed, adding 'such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.' Human justice is never perfect. That's why the death penalty is so dangerous. When a punishment allows no room for error, the question remains: Why are we still willing to take that risk? Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Chicago Tribune
21-05-2025
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: A reminder of the state's ultimate power — Indiana executes again
Indiana's second execution in 15 years is a grim reminder of the dual tragedy at the heart of capital punishment — the horrific violence inflicted by killers, and the irrevocable power the state wields in taking a life in return. This board has long questioned whether any human system is equipped to administer such final justice, a stance shaped by decades of reflection and the Pulitzer-winning work of former Tribune Editorial Board member Cornelia Grumman, who challenged readers to confront the fallibility beneath the death penalty's finality. Before Illinois ended capital punishment in 2011, this board urged reforms such as videotaping interrogations and banning executions of people with intellectual disabilities. 'Now's the time to get it right. Get it right or get rid of it,' we wrote in 2002. Former Gov. Pat Quinn listened, and we applauded. Capital punishment can feel far removed in Illinois these days. Yet this execution, carried out Tuesday just across the state border in Michigan City, Indiana, makes it feel closer to home. Prisoner Benjamin Ritchie was 45 when he died at 12:46 a.m. Tuesday, punishment for killing a Beech Grove police officer in 2000. His was one of 12 executions scheduled across eight states this year, including others this week in Texas and Tennessee. Lost in the bigger conversation about capital punishment are the victims, a frustration that eats away at families grieving loved ones. Officer William Toney, a husband and father, was a day from his 32nd birthday when Ritchie shot and killed him. His daughters, just 18 months and 4 years old at the time, grew up without him — a burden no child should bear. We do not pass judgment on those whose loved ones have been taken by violence, and we recognize that for grieving families, life may feel easier when the person responsible is gone. But as a society, we do have to grapple with how our justice system handles punishment for those who commit the most grievous crimes. This board has long held grave concerns when it comes to the death penalty. Indiana is one of 27 other states that continue to practice the death penalty, and is one of just two states that bans reporters from being present at executions. Even in states where the death penalty remains on the books, legal, ethical and political hurdles have led to yearslong delays in carrying out executions. Indiana's 15-year pause in executions stemmed largely from difficulty obtaining lethal injection drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies, especially in Europe, refused to supply drugs for use in executions. Pharmaceutical companies are right to have qualms about manufacturing products used to end life, and they're not alone. Too many people have been sent to death row, only to be exonerated years later. Northwestern University research found that 20 people sentenced to death in Illinois between the 1970s and 1990s were later exonerated. Beyond the system's fallibility is the moral dimension of capital punishment. People have long used the Bible to justify both sides of this issue. The Old Testament is full of the type of justice that gives credence to pro-death penalty advocates, while the compassion of Christ provides evidence for those against the death penalty. We're not theologians, but Chicago's own Robert Prevost — now Pope Leo XIV — once shared his view on his now-deleted personal Twitter account. 'It's time to end the death penalty,' he posted a decade ago. That view is consistent with Catholic teaching from our recent popes, including Francis, who called capital punishment 'inadmissible,' and John Paul II, who viewed the death penalty as an option of last resort in the event that no other option to protect society existed, adding 'such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.' Human justice is never perfect. That's why the death penalty is so dangerous. When a punishment allows no room for error, the question remains: Why are we still willing to take that risk?
Chicago Tribune
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The lurking agenda in the argument for having more babies
The editorial about women having fewer children is shameful ('Should we worry about American women having fewer kids?' May 4). There is a pathetic patronizing attempt to walk the misogynistic message back with the reassurance that of course the Tribune Editorial Board supports any choice a person makes about childbirth. Overall, however, this editorial is a more sophisticated-sounding message than usual that woman are baby-making machines who just don't know what they should be doing to maintain the vitality of this country and perhaps we can remind them. Women are indeed making different choices than 50 years ago. We are more educated, on the whole, with more opportunities for fulfilling our aspirations. The editorial board notes that many women now earn college degrees and prioritize career. The implication is that they really be having children instead, such as the editorial's examples of women in Afghanistan and Yemen. We all are aware of the tragic status of women in those countries. But perhaps that is embedded in the editorial's message. Women have forgotten their role and place in society? Wouldn't this all be better if women did not care so much about other aspects of their lives and just did their duty as defined by the patriarchy? The board also leaves out other considerations that people have for delaying or not having children: the environmental crisis, for one example. Yes, work for better child care and parental leave, which is essential for those who choose to have children, but respect the growing numbers of men and women who are making other choices. And search for what agenda lurks underneath what appears to be a reasonable argument. In the meantime, if the board insists on talking about women's bodies, please consider impassioned editorials about, for example, abortion and contraception access, equitable research on women's health concerns, and the miserable mortality rate in childbirth, particularly among women of reference to the editorial 'Should we worry about American women having fewer kids?': One viable solution is to relax our collective sphincter muscle about . Newly arriving immigrants tend to be younger, healthier and fertile. This would would add to our population. As a 76-year-old Black American woman, I know that it has happened before in our country. Successive waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Ireland weren't readily accepted due to their traditions, foreign tongues, different foods and, of course, their poverty. But with the passage of time, they became Americans. And then, as now, we the people of the United States of America became changed, as reflected in the foods we eat, our entertainment and our fashion. Look at them now — so many 'ethnic' success stories. Some opponents of present immigration benefited from past immigration, such as Christopher Rufo and Steven MillerThere are two main reasons the 'brilliant' (as the Tribune Editorial Board calls him) Elon Musk wants more babies. First, he wants more white babies, because he fears, like other white supremacists, that nonwhites will take over by outbreeding. Musk and his ilk see this the pathway to civilizational wrack and ruin. There are more than a few people in the MAGA hierarchy who are totally on board with this assessment. The second reason is to defend corporate capitalism, which survives only by ever-expanding markets for ever-expanding profits. It won't be sufficient to simply hollow out government resources and plunder public treasuries, although that will continue to occur. Capitalism needs a new baby boom (and the editorial mentions 'baby boom' approvingly) in order to keep demand spiking upward. Resources might be getting scarcer as the world's population soars past sustainability tipping points, but the eyes of capitalists will never be cast anywhere else but on their own balance sheets. We do need babies and families, as the editorial board says, to replace the current population, but a stable, sustainable Earth requires limits to growth and population. Make family life more affordable by fully funding perinatal care programs, housing assistance and day care programs. Raise wages and expand parental leave benefits. Our nation needs more of a commitment to, and investment in, people in general, not merely to have more kids but to have the means to achieve a more decent life. Yet we are called upon only to make more sacrifices of our social framework in order to provide billionaires like Musk with further tax cuts. How is that pro-family? Quality, not quantity, of life is what matters. Let's do first thought after reading the editorial was: Is someone trying out material for 'Saturday Night Live' or possibly a remake of 'The Boys From Brazil'? I applaud the Tribune Editorial Board for refraining from saying women should remain barefoot and pregnant. Remember, in general, men regulated women to second-class citizen status in this country. If the board wants women to have more babies, then give us back the right to control our own bodies, the right to say 'no' and in the workplace and at home. Perhaps the board should be wondering why we would want to bring more children into today's world. Who would knowingly want to bring new life into an authoritarian society?While I admire Timothy Shriver's larger point in his op-ed ('Pritzker, if you want to solve problems, lose the contempt,' May 8) that contempt should not be a part of our political discourse, I cannot let Shriver's blatant hypocrisy go without its own share of my own contempt. That horse is out of the barn, released by Republicans, and enabled by media pretending that old norms apply when they do not and have not since 2015, when Donald Trump began his first presidential campaign by impugning all Mexican immigrants as drug dealers and rapists. Pretty contemptible, yes? When any Democratic politician, including Gov. JB Pritzker, dares to stand up to extreme Republican rhetoric with any language beyond polite pablum and pious platitudes, pundits tell Democrats to lower the volume, cut the contempt and be nice. Democrats might alienate some putative centrist voter, and it just lowers the dignity of our political discourse. Heaven forbid Democrats do such damage to our precious polite political discourse! Meanwhile, Republicans such as our current president spew contempt like volcanoes of hatred, prejudice and madness. And that's regrettable, but Democrats should be nice? While the Republican lava flow of contempt incinerates our constitutional separations of powers, our economy and (especially for women) our very bodily liberty, we must be Timothy Shriver's thoughts are pleasant enough for a normal person, one just needs to recognize who Gov. JB Pritzker is addressing. President Donald Trump is the most offensive bully and contempt-monger in the history of the U.S. presidency. Pritzker must fight fire with fire.
