Thursday, February 04, 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Some Illinois Bars Violate Smoking Ban with Customers Help
From Chicago Tribune
By Angie Leventis Lourgos and Jackie Bange
November 25, 2009
"The air was hazy and the ashtrays were full on a recent night at the Crowbar Inc. tavern on the Southeast Side, despite Illinois’ nearly 2-year-old indoor smoking ban.
Patrons say they like it that way. They’re even willing to pay a little extra to light up.
Owner Pat Carroll said his customers – smokers and nonsmokers alike – contribute to a “smoking fund” canister that often sits on the bar, to subsidize the fines he’s incurred for flouting the law.
Carroll said he’s been ticketed twice and paid at least $680. He fears that if he forbids smoking, his cigar-and-cigarette crowd would switch to bars that permit smoking just a few blocks away in Indiana.
“So guess what, everybody can smoke in here,” he said, fingering a lit cigarette balanced on an ashtray. “I’m not losing my customers.”
The Tribune and WGN-TV found patrons smoking at several Chicagoland bars, defying the Smoke-free Illinois Act that has prohibited smoking inside public places since Jan. 1, 2008.
Bar patrons and owners seen smoking indoors had varying explanations for ignoring the law. At Boem Restaurant in Albany Park, where one visit found the room filled with smoke, the bar’s owner said the place was booked for a private party, which exempted it from the law. But it doesn’t, officials say.
The public can lodge complaints against establishments that skirt the law, triggering a site inspection. Violators face fines that can grow steeper with each infraction, starting at $250 for a business and $100 for an individual smoker.
“We think it would become very expensive to continue to rack up fines,” said Kelly Jakubek, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Public Health. “That would become very burdensome.”
Health officials say smoking-ban scofflaws are the exception and that indoor smoking in public has drastically decreased over the last two years. Jakubek added that she hopes Indiana and other states that allow indoor smoking in public places pass a ban similar to the one in Illinois, evening the field for competitive business owners such as Carroll.
“There are always some bad apples out there who will try to get around the law,” said Tim Hadac, spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health. “If you look at the big picture, compliance is widespread.”
For example, in Chicago, which has its own smoking ban similar to the state law, an accused violator gets several warning letters, then an inspection. Last year, there were 603 complaints and 24 inspections, which led to nine tickets. So far this year, those numbers were down to 286 complaints and 18 inspections, resulting in four tickets, Hadac said.
He said data showed warning letters generally spurred compliance.
Soon “it will be as socially unacceptable and even unthinkable to smoke in a bar or restaurant as it currently is in a movie theater,” he said in an e-mail.
Katie Lorenz of the American Lung Association in Greater Chicago said she was disappointed that some bars weren’t complying; she added that the secondhand smoke harms employees and non-smoking patrons. “This is a health issue, and it affects every single person who happens to be in the bar,” she said. “What’s in the best interest of everyone is to not inhale those toxic fumes.”
Sabrina Lockett, a veteran restaurant worker with asthma, said she lost a friend to cancer, and he didn’t smoke. She said she regretted that all bars don’t follow the law. “I wished it was passed sooner,” she said, saying the law may have saved her friend’s life.
But some smokers say they’ll support any tavern that gives them sanctuary. Laura Pugh said she contributes $5 a month to Crowbar’s smoking fund, considering it akin to membership fees at a private club. If she couldn’t smoke there, Pugh said she’d probably go to a bar in Indiana.
“I respect Illinois law,” she said. “However, I feel that if an Illinois bar wants to allow smoking, there should never be a problem if it’s willing to abide by the fine.”
Angie Leventis Lourgos is a Tribune reporter; Jackie Bange is a reporter for WGN-TV. eleventis@tribune.com
By Angie Leventis Lourgos and Jackie Bange
November 25, 2009
"The air was hazy and the ashtrays were full on a recent night at the Crowbar Inc. tavern on the Southeast Side, despite Illinois’ nearly 2-year-old indoor smoking ban.
Patrons say they like it that way. They’re even willing to pay a little extra to light up.
Owner Pat Carroll said his customers – smokers and nonsmokers alike – contribute to a “smoking fund” canister that often sits on the bar, to subsidize the fines he’s incurred for flouting the law.
Carroll said he’s been ticketed twice and paid at least $680. He fears that if he forbids smoking, his cigar-and-cigarette crowd would switch to bars that permit smoking just a few blocks away in Indiana.
“So guess what, everybody can smoke in here,” he said, fingering a lit cigarette balanced on an ashtray. “I’m not losing my customers.”
The Tribune and WGN-TV found patrons smoking at several Chicagoland bars, defying the Smoke-free Illinois Act that has prohibited smoking inside public places since Jan. 1, 2008.
Bar patrons and owners seen smoking indoors had varying explanations for ignoring the law. At Boem Restaurant in Albany Park, where one visit found the room filled with smoke, the bar’s owner said the place was booked for a private party, which exempted it from the law. But it doesn’t, officials say.
The public can lodge complaints against establishments that skirt the law, triggering a site inspection. Violators face fines that can grow steeper with each infraction, starting at $250 for a business and $100 for an individual smoker.
“We think it would become very expensive to continue to rack up fines,” said Kelly Jakubek, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Public Health. “That would become very burdensome.”
Health officials say smoking-ban scofflaws are the exception and that indoor smoking in public has drastically decreased over the last two years. Jakubek added that she hopes Indiana and other states that allow indoor smoking in public places pass a ban similar to the one in Illinois, evening the field for competitive business owners such as Carroll.
“There are always some bad apples out there who will try to get around the law,” said Tim Hadac, spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health. “If you look at the big picture, compliance is widespread.”
For example, in Chicago, which has its own smoking ban similar to the state law, an accused violator gets several warning letters, then an inspection. Last year, there were 603 complaints and 24 inspections, which led to nine tickets. So far this year, those numbers were down to 286 complaints and 18 inspections, resulting in four tickets, Hadac said.
He said data showed warning letters generally spurred compliance.
Soon “it will be as socially unacceptable and even unthinkable to smoke in a bar or restaurant as it currently is in a movie theater,” he said in an e-mail.
Katie Lorenz of the American Lung Association in Greater Chicago said she was disappointed that some bars weren’t complying; she added that the secondhand smoke harms employees and non-smoking patrons. “This is a health issue, and it affects every single person who happens to be in the bar,” she said. “What’s in the best interest of everyone is to not inhale those toxic fumes.”
Sabrina Lockett, a veteran restaurant worker with asthma, said she lost a friend to cancer, and he didn’t smoke. She said she regretted that all bars don’t follow the law. “I wished it was passed sooner,” she said, saying the law may have saved her friend’s life.
But some smokers say they’ll support any tavern that gives them sanctuary. Laura Pugh said she contributes $5 a month to Crowbar’s smoking fund, considering it akin to membership fees at a private club. If she couldn’t smoke there, Pugh said she’d probably go to a bar in Indiana.
“I respect Illinois law,” she said. “However, I feel that if an Illinois bar wants to allow smoking, there should never be a problem if it’s willing to abide by the fine.”
Angie Leventis Lourgos is a Tribune reporter; Jackie Bange is a reporter for WGN-TV. eleventis@tribune.com
Family Research Council Spokesman on Hardball: Gay behavior should be outlawed
From The Advocate:
Appearing on Hardball With Chris Matthews Tuesday to discuss the "don't ask, don't tell" debate, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that gay behavior should be outlawed.
By Julie Bolcer
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said on Hardball With Chris Matthews Tuesday that the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision that struck down antisodomy laws was wrong and that gay behavior should be outlawed.
Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the antigay FRC, appeared on the program to debate the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy with Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
As Sprigg mounted an increasingly illogical defense of the policy based on discrimination, Matthews pressed him on the question: "Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?"
"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided," said Sprigg. "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."
"So we should outlaw gay behavior?" asked Matthews again.
Yes,” said Sprigg.
Appearing on Hardball With Chris Matthews Tuesday to discuss the "don't ask, don't tell" debate, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that gay behavior should be outlawed.
By Julie Bolcer
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said on Hardball With Chris Matthews Tuesday that the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision that struck down antisodomy laws was wrong and that gay behavior should be outlawed.
Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the antigay FRC, appeared on the program to debate the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy with Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
As Sprigg mounted an increasingly illogical defense of the policy based on discrimination, Matthews pressed him on the question: "Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?"
"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided," said Sprigg. "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."
"So we should outlaw gay behavior?" asked Matthews again.
Yes,” said Sprigg.
McCain Flip-Flops on Repeal of DADT: He's pissed that no one asked his permission
From the Washington Post By Michael D. Shear:
Wednesday, February 3, 2010; A09
"Three years ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was pretty clear about his stand on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
A former war hero, McCain said he would support ending the ban once the military's top brass told him that they agreed with the change.
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," McCain said in October 2006 to an audience of Iowa State University students.
That day arrived Tuesday, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen testifying to senators after President Obama's announcement that he would seek a congressional repeal of the 15-year-old policy.
Mullen called repealing the policy, which bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving, "the right thing to do" and said he was personally troubled by effectively forcing service members to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
Gates told the Armed Services Committee, "I fully support the president's decision."
In response, McCain declared himself "disappointed" in the testimony. "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," he said bluntly, before describing it as "imperfect but effective."
Since losing to Obama in the 2008 election, McCain has become a consistent critic of the president. He also has, for the first time in years, a serious primary fight on his hands.
McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said her boss has not shifted his position.
She noted that Mullen said repeatedly that he was speaking for himself and not for the military, and she dismissed Gates's testimony because he was expressing the Obama administration's line.
"There has to be a determination from our military leaders that they think it is a good idea to change the policy; then, of course, Senator McCain will listen to them."
Wednesday, February 3, 2010; A09
"Three years ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was pretty clear about his stand on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
A former war hero, McCain said he would support ending the ban once the military's top brass told him that they agreed with the change.
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," McCain said in October 2006 to an audience of Iowa State University students.
That day arrived Tuesday, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen testifying to senators after President Obama's announcement that he would seek a congressional repeal of the 15-year-old policy.
Mullen called repealing the policy, which bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving, "the right thing to do" and said he was personally troubled by effectively forcing service members to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
Gates told the Armed Services Committee, "I fully support the president's decision."
In response, McCain declared himself "disappointed" in the testimony. "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," he said bluntly, before describing it as "imperfect but effective."
Since losing to Obama in the 2008 election, McCain has become a consistent critic of the president. He also has, for the first time in years, a serious primary fight on his hands.
McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said her boss has not shifted his position.
She noted that Mullen said repeatedly that he was speaking for himself and not for the military, and she dismissed Gates's testimony because he was expressing the Obama administration's line.
"There has to be a determination from our military leaders that they think it is a good idea to change the policy; then, of course, Senator McCain will listen to them."
Colin Powell: Repeal DADT
From The Caucus in the NYT By PETER BAKER:
"Gen. Colin L. Powell, who as the nation’s top military officer in the 1990s opposed allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military, switched gears today and threw his support behind efforts to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law he helped shepherd in.
Gen. Colin L. Powell in December.“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”
Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Tuesday that they supported President Obama’s proposal to repeal the 1993 law forbidding gay men and lesbians to be open about their sexuality while serving in uniform.
Admiral Mullen was the first Joint Chiefs chairman ever to take that position, signaling the evolution in attitudes both inside the military and in the broader society since the debate under President Bill Clinton.
When Mr. Clinton tried to end the ban on gay soldiers, General Powell was the Joint Chiefs chairman and opposed the move on the grounds that it would undermine discipline and order in the military but he supported the “don’t ask” compromise. In his statement on Wednesday, General Powell said “the principal issue has always been the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and order and discipline in the ranks.”
He noted that he had said for the past two years that it was “time for the law to be reviewed,” but his new statement of unequivocal support for the effort by Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen could be an important factor as the debate moves forward this year.
After retiring from the military, General Powell went on to become an active Republican and joined the cabinet of President George W. Bush as secretary of state. But he bolted from the party and endorsed Mr. Obama in 2008."
"Gen. Colin L. Powell, who as the nation’s top military officer in the 1990s opposed allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military, switched gears today and threw his support behind efforts to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law he helped shepherd in.
Gen. Colin L. Powell in December.“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”
Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Tuesday that they supported President Obama’s proposal to repeal the 1993 law forbidding gay men and lesbians to be open about their sexuality while serving in uniform.
Admiral Mullen was the first Joint Chiefs chairman ever to take that position, signaling the evolution in attitudes both inside the military and in the broader society since the debate under President Bill Clinton.
When Mr. Clinton tried to end the ban on gay soldiers, General Powell was the Joint Chiefs chairman and opposed the move on the grounds that it would undermine discipline and order in the military but he supported the “don’t ask” compromise. In his statement on Wednesday, General Powell said “the principal issue has always been the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and order and discipline in the ranks.”
He noted that he had said for the past two years that it was “time for the law to be reviewed,” but his new statement of unequivocal support for the effort by Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen could be an important factor as the debate moves forward this year.
After retiring from the military, General Powell went on to become an active Republican and joined the cabinet of President George W. Bush as secretary of state. But he bolted from the party and endorsed Mr. Obama in 2008."
Chairman of Joint Chiefs & Sec. of Defense Say Repeal DADT
From Washington Post By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, February 3, 2010; A02:
"Mike Mullen's 42 years in the military earned him a chest full of ribbons, but never did he do something braver than what he did on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
In a packed committee room, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked hostile Republican senators in the eye and told them unwelcome news: He thinks gays should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces he commands.
"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," the nation's top military officer told the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
People in the audience looked at one another. At the press tables, computer keys started clicking. Reporters consulted the time on their digital recorders.
If opponents prevail in their effort to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military, they will doubtless point to those strong words -- until now heresy for a top military officer -- as a turning point. Supporters of the policy evidently grasped that, too, for they turned against the admiral with caustic words.
On the dais, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the Republican Party's 2008 presidential standard-bearer, accused Mullen and the other witness, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, of trying to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law "by fiat." Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) accused the admiral of obeying "directives" from President Obama. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) accused Mullen of "undue command influence."
As the challenges to his integrity continued, Mullen pursed his lips, then put his forearms on the table, displaying the admiral stripes on his sleeves. After Sessions's provocation, the Joint Chiefs chairman glared at the diminutive Alabamian. "This is not about command influence," Mullen said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."
It made little sense to accuse Mullen of currying favor with the president. Nominated for a first term by George W. Bush, Mullen was renominated by Obama and began his second two-year term in October. Joint Chiefs chairmen traditionally serve only two terms, so the lame-duck Mullen is freer than ever to speak his mind.
That made the admiral's words all the more striking. Just three years ago, Mullen's predecessor as chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, gave a very different view on gays in the military, saying, "We should not condone immoral acts." Challenging that view, held by many top brass, couldn't have been easy. "Admiral Mullen, I want to salute you for the courage of what you said," offered Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Navy secretary and a classmate of Mullen's at the U.S. Naval Academy.
McCain, who once said he would support repeal of the law if top military brass did, instead challenged the candor of Mullen and Gates before they spoke. He held up a letter from retired officers who favor the current law and said they "can speak more frankly" than those still serving. McCain then protested when the committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), announced that senators would have three minutes each to ask questions.
"We need more than three minutes," McCain growled. He turned to Sessions and gave a derisive laugh.
"This schedule was shared with everybody here," Levin pointed out.
"Not with me," McCain retorted.
"It was indeed," Levin maintained.
"You're the chairman," McCain said bitterly.
In the end, three minutes proved more than sufficient. McCain and four Republican colleagues left before the hearing ended, and the other six GOP members of the panel didn't show up at all.
After McCain's performance, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) reminded him, and the rest of the room, about the different view on the topic held by McCain's late political mentor from Arizona. "Barry Goldwater once said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.' "
The next three Republicans were all Southern white men, and all opposed to Mullen's view. After Sessions and Wicker took their shots at the admiral, it was time for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). "In my opinion, the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk," he said, putting homosexuality in a category with "adultery, fraternization and body art."
Mullen did not bend. He said he knew of no studies indicating that repealing the law would undermine morale. He said he knew of no harm to the British and Canadian militaries from the decision to allow openly gay troops to serve.
"Sort of a fundamental principle with me . . . is everybody counts," he told the senators. "Putting individuals in a position that every single day they wonder whether today's going to be the day" -- that they are kicked out for being gay -- "and devaluing them in that regard is inconsistent with us as an institution."
If they awarded decorations for congressional testimony, Mullen would have himself a Medal of Honor."
Wednesday, February 3, 2010; A02:
"Mike Mullen's 42 years in the military earned him a chest full of ribbons, but never did he do something braver than what he did on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
In a packed committee room, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked hostile Republican senators in the eye and told them unwelcome news: He thinks gays should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces he commands.
"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," the nation's top military officer told the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
People in the audience looked at one another. At the press tables, computer keys started clicking. Reporters consulted the time on their digital recorders.
If opponents prevail in their effort to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military, they will doubtless point to those strong words -- until now heresy for a top military officer -- as a turning point. Supporters of the policy evidently grasped that, too, for they turned against the admiral with caustic words.
On the dais, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the Republican Party's 2008 presidential standard-bearer, accused Mullen and the other witness, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, of trying to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law "by fiat." Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) accused the admiral of obeying "directives" from President Obama. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) accused Mullen of "undue command influence."
As the challenges to his integrity continued, Mullen pursed his lips, then put his forearms on the table, displaying the admiral stripes on his sleeves. After Sessions's provocation, the Joint Chiefs chairman glared at the diminutive Alabamian. "This is not about command influence," Mullen said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."
It made little sense to accuse Mullen of currying favor with the president. Nominated for a first term by George W. Bush, Mullen was renominated by Obama and began his second two-year term in October. Joint Chiefs chairmen traditionally serve only two terms, so the lame-duck Mullen is freer than ever to speak his mind.
That made the admiral's words all the more striking. Just three years ago, Mullen's predecessor as chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, gave a very different view on gays in the military, saying, "We should not condone immoral acts." Challenging that view, held by many top brass, couldn't have been easy. "Admiral Mullen, I want to salute you for the courage of what you said," offered Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Navy secretary and a classmate of Mullen's at the U.S. Naval Academy.
McCain, who once said he would support repeal of the law if top military brass did, instead challenged the candor of Mullen and Gates before they spoke. He held up a letter from retired officers who favor the current law and said they "can speak more frankly" than those still serving. McCain then protested when the committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), announced that senators would have three minutes each to ask questions.
"We need more than three minutes," McCain growled. He turned to Sessions and gave a derisive laugh.
"This schedule was shared with everybody here," Levin pointed out.
"Not with me," McCain retorted.
"It was indeed," Levin maintained.
"You're the chairman," McCain said bitterly.
In the end, three minutes proved more than sufficient. McCain and four Republican colleagues left before the hearing ended, and the other six GOP members of the panel didn't show up at all.
After McCain's performance, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) reminded him, and the rest of the room, about the different view on the topic held by McCain's late political mentor from Arizona. "Barry Goldwater once said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.' "
The next three Republicans were all Southern white men, and all opposed to Mullen's view. After Sessions and Wicker took their shots at the admiral, it was time for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). "In my opinion, the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk," he said, putting homosexuality in a category with "adultery, fraternization and body art."
Mullen did not bend. He said he knew of no studies indicating that repealing the law would undermine morale. He said he knew of no harm to the British and Canadian militaries from the decision to allow openly gay troops to serve.
"Sort of a fundamental principle with me . . . is everybody counts," he told the senators. "Putting individuals in a position that every single day they wonder whether today's going to be the day" -- that they are kicked out for being gay -- "and devaluing them in that regard is inconsistent with us as an institution."
If they awarded decorations for congressional testimony, Mullen would have himself a Medal of Honor."
Americans drank more in 2009 but drank cheaper liquor
From the State Journal-Register:
"By EMILY FREDRIX
The Associated Press
Posted Feb 02, 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Last update Feb 03, 2010 @ 12:41 AM
Americans’ love affair with top-shelf booze cooled last year as the recession took a toll on high-priced tipples.
A new report by an industry group shows people drank more but turned to cheaper brands. They also drank more at home and less in pricier bars and restaurants.
Industry growth slowed in 2009, with the amount of liquor sold by suppliers up 1.4 percent. That’s the smallest increase since 2001 and below the 10-year average of 2.6 percent.
Last year, the lowest-priced segment, with brands such as Popov vodka that can go for less than $10 for a fifth, grew the fastest, with volume rising 5.5 percent, after edging up 0.6 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, the most expensive price range, roughly $30 or more for a 750 ml bottle (think Grey Goose, owned by Bacardi), fell the most, tumbling 5.1 percent.
Daniel Clausner, executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association in Springfield, said he’s been getting the same kind of feedback from his membership.
The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States said in its report Tuesday that liquor suppliers reported flat total revenue of $18.7 billion last year.
Kenneth Jolly of Milwaukee has been swapping his favorite, pricier liquors such Patron tequila, for cheaper brands such as Jose Cuervo to stay on top of his budget. For him, it’s simple math.
“If you consume a lot on a regular basis and you have people come to your house, you have to adjust,” said Jolly, a 27-year-old network technician in Milwaukee who buys liquor every other week. “If your body can take it, you might as well buy the cheaper liquor.”
Vodka still No. 1
“Absolutely, they’re trading down,” said a corporate spokesman for the five Friar Tuck beverage stores in central Illinois and suburban St. Louis. He also cited the economy as the likely reason.
Sales in stores — which make up three-quarters of liquor sales — rose about 2.1 percent, while sales in restaurants fell 3 percent.
“People still want to entertain themselves, they still want to get together with family and friends, so a lot of people will move from a restaurant to their living room,” council president Peter Cressy said.
Clausner also links the economy with what’s selling and what’s not.
“With the current state of the economy, folks have less disposable income, therefore the popular-priced brands are seeing more activity,” he said.
The Illinois Licensed Beverage Association represents more than 2,500 retail businesses — mainly independents — selling or serving beverage alcohol. Members include taverns, nightclubs, restaurants, bowling centers, fraternal organizations, hotel and motel lounges, gas stations, convenience stores and package liquor stores.
Clausner thinks top-shelf brands will come back in tandem with improvement in the economy.
“With any upturn in the economy, people tend to treat themselves to some of the nicer things, whether that’s an upgrade on a vehicle, on clothing or to premium brands,” he said.
Vodka remained Americans’ favorite liquor, accounting for almost a third of all spirits sold and sales of $4.56 billion.
Sales volume for the cheapest versions of tequila rose 21 percent, the fastest of any type of spirit. That’s most likely because entertainers are using pre-made margarita mixes to serve at home, said David Ozgo, the council’s chief economist. Plus you can mix it before guests arrive, so they don’t know what brand you use, said Joan Holleran, director of research at research firm Mintel.
‘You want to go out’
Cressy said the fact that people were still drinking more spirits bodes well for the industry, still recovering from a long decline from the 1980s through the mid-’90s, when liquor sales fell by a third as drinkers turned to beer. Since then, an ever-increasing array of expensive liquors have fueled rapid growth.
The industry’s goal is to keep people drinking spirits — no matter the price — and it can then get them to pay for higher-priced drinks when the economy recovers. Most major liquor manufacturers make brands in a variety of price ranges. For example, industry giant Diageo plc, based in London, makes vodka brands ranging from cheap Popov to midpriced Smirnoff to expensive Ketel One and Ciroc.
Mintel’s Holleran expects people to start going out more this year, as they get bored staying home and want to treat themselves to little luxuries — like a night out. “You want to go out and have someone do all the work for you,” Holleran said.
Of course, switching brands isn’t the only way to economize.
Matt McCluskey, a 28-year-old researcher in Santa Monica, Calif., started buying most of his alcohol at Costco, trying to save money by buying bigger bottles. Now he spends $36 for 1.75 liters of Maker’s Mark bourbon, rather than $25 for less than half that at his local liquor store.
“It’s a lot harder to pour. That’s the only drawback,” he said.
Staff writer Chris Dettro contributed to this report.:
"By EMILY FREDRIX
The Associated Press
Posted Feb 02, 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Last update Feb 03, 2010 @ 12:41 AM
Americans’ love affair with top-shelf booze cooled last year as the recession took a toll on high-priced tipples.
A new report by an industry group shows people drank more but turned to cheaper brands. They also drank more at home and less in pricier bars and restaurants.
Industry growth slowed in 2009, with the amount of liquor sold by suppliers up 1.4 percent. That’s the smallest increase since 2001 and below the 10-year average of 2.6 percent.
Last year, the lowest-priced segment, with brands such as Popov vodka that can go for less than $10 for a fifth, grew the fastest, with volume rising 5.5 percent, after edging up 0.6 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, the most expensive price range, roughly $30 or more for a 750 ml bottle (think Grey Goose, owned by Bacardi), fell the most, tumbling 5.1 percent.
Daniel Clausner, executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association in Springfield, said he’s been getting the same kind of feedback from his membership.
The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States said in its report Tuesday that liquor suppliers reported flat total revenue of $18.7 billion last year.
Kenneth Jolly of Milwaukee has been swapping his favorite, pricier liquors such Patron tequila, for cheaper brands such as Jose Cuervo to stay on top of his budget. For him, it’s simple math.
“If you consume a lot on a regular basis and you have people come to your house, you have to adjust,” said Jolly, a 27-year-old network technician in Milwaukee who buys liquor every other week. “If your body can take it, you might as well buy the cheaper liquor.”
Vodka still No. 1
“Absolutely, they’re trading down,” said a corporate spokesman for the five Friar Tuck beverage stores in central Illinois and suburban St. Louis. He also cited the economy as the likely reason.
Sales in stores — which make up three-quarters of liquor sales — rose about 2.1 percent, while sales in restaurants fell 3 percent.
“People still want to entertain themselves, they still want to get together with family and friends, so a lot of people will move from a restaurant to their living room,” council president Peter Cressy said.
Clausner also links the economy with what’s selling and what’s not.
“With the current state of the economy, folks have less disposable income, therefore the popular-priced brands are seeing more activity,” he said.
The Illinois Licensed Beverage Association represents more than 2,500 retail businesses — mainly independents — selling or serving beverage alcohol. Members include taverns, nightclubs, restaurants, bowling centers, fraternal organizations, hotel and motel lounges, gas stations, convenience stores and package liquor stores.
Clausner thinks top-shelf brands will come back in tandem with improvement in the economy.
“With any upturn in the economy, people tend to treat themselves to some of the nicer things, whether that’s an upgrade on a vehicle, on clothing or to premium brands,” he said.
Vodka remained Americans’ favorite liquor, accounting for almost a third of all spirits sold and sales of $4.56 billion.
Sales volume for the cheapest versions of tequila rose 21 percent, the fastest of any type of spirit. That’s most likely because entertainers are using pre-made margarita mixes to serve at home, said David Ozgo, the council’s chief economist. Plus you can mix it before guests arrive, so they don’t know what brand you use, said Joan Holleran, director of research at research firm Mintel.
‘You want to go out’
Cressy said the fact that people were still drinking more spirits bodes well for the industry, still recovering from a long decline from the 1980s through the mid-’90s, when liquor sales fell by a third as drinkers turned to beer. Since then, an ever-increasing array of expensive liquors have fueled rapid growth.
The industry’s goal is to keep people drinking spirits — no matter the price — and it can then get them to pay for higher-priced drinks when the economy recovers. Most major liquor manufacturers make brands in a variety of price ranges. For example, industry giant Diageo plc, based in London, makes vodka brands ranging from cheap Popov to midpriced Smirnoff to expensive Ketel One and Ciroc.
Mintel’s Holleran expects people to start going out more this year, as they get bored staying home and want to treat themselves to little luxuries — like a night out. “You want to go out and have someone do all the work for you,” Holleran said.
Of course, switching brands isn’t the only way to economize.
Matt McCluskey, a 28-year-old researcher in Santa Monica, Calif., started buying most of his alcohol at Costco, trying to save money by buying bigger bottles. Now he spends $36 for 1.75 liters of Maker’s Mark bourbon, rather than $25 for less than half that at his local liquor store.
“It’s a lot harder to pour. That’s the only drawback,” he said.
Staff writer Chris Dettro contributed to this report.:
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
A Personal Note & An Apology
Our closure in 2007 left many of our friends in shock. Up until the day we closed, we were struggling to try to keep the doors open. It all happened so fast that we never had the opportunity to thank all of our friends or to say goodbye. After we closed, we continued our efforts to raise cash and develop a plan to reopen while feeling the shame and embarassment that goes with coming to terms with our failures. Being the man who closed Faces was not a burden I would wish on anyone. While we continued to recieve emails of encouragement, the hate mail made more of a lasting impression. I don't think anyone can really understand how hard it is to lose a business until you have actually experienced it yourself. We weren't the first gay bar to close and many more famous clubs have followed us but we never thought it would happen to Faces.
Many of our friends and loyal customers attempted to contact us to offer their support. Whether because of humiliation or despair, we didn't keep in touch with those friends and loyal customers and for that, we would like to apologize. We let you down and it was hard to face you again.
Again, to those of you that I let down, I apologize. To those who have been supportive, I want to say thank you.
Many of our friends and loyal customers attempted to contact us to offer their support. Whether because of humiliation or despair, we didn't keep in touch with those friends and loyal customers and for that, we would like to apologize. We let you down and it was hard to face you again.
Again, to those of you that I let down, I apologize. To those who have been supportive, I want to say thank you.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Remembering...Chris Thompson, Petrina Marie, Travis, Harry, & Jim
Four years ago in January 2006, the Faces on Fourth Street family lost bartender Chris Thompson, then in February 2006, we lost Petrina Marie. In May 2006 we lost Travis. Chris started as a regular customer, then joined us first as a cabaret waiter, then as a bartender with a big following of great customers. Chris was always there to pitch in...the night before he passed away, he helped decorate the bar for a theme party. Travis was an adorable go-go boy, dear friend and behind the scenes assistant to our cabaret showcast.
Petrina Marie was one of the funniest, most talented female impersonators that I have ever seen. Behind the scenes, he was a talented seamstress, responsible for creating dozens of show stopping dresses for St. Louis's drag community. He collected music, accumulating an extensive collection of "drag music" long before the Internet made collecting easy. Petrina was one of the few people I know who could always make me laugh.
Shortly after we were forced to close in 2007, former Faces owner and afternoon basement bartender Harry Davis passed away. Harry's partner Jim followed him and passed away in 2008. Harry and Jim put their hearts and souls (and their life savings) into Faces...they helped original owner Jerry Edwards create Faces, then took over day to day operations. Jerry assumed control of the business 17 years ago and we purchased the business from Jerry a few months later. Jerry Edwards passed away several years ago. After we purchased the business, Harry came back to help.
We miss Chris, Petrina, Travis, Harry, Jim, and Jerry. They will always be in our heart.
Petrina Marie was one of the funniest, most talented female impersonators that I have ever seen. Behind the scenes, he was a talented seamstress, responsible for creating dozens of show stopping dresses for St. Louis's drag community. He collected music, accumulating an extensive collection of "drag music" long before the Internet made collecting easy. Petrina was one of the few people I know who could always make me laugh.
Shortly after we were forced to close in 2007, former Faces owner and afternoon basement bartender Harry Davis passed away. Harry's partner Jim followed him and passed away in 2008. Harry and Jim put their hearts and souls (and their life savings) into Faces...they helped original owner Jerry Edwards create Faces, then took over day to day operations. Jerry assumed control of the business 17 years ago and we purchased the business from Jerry a few months later. Jerry Edwards passed away several years ago. After we purchased the business, Harry came back to help.
We miss Chris, Petrina, Travis, Harry, Jim, and Jerry. They will always be in our heart.
Former Faces Tenant Sentenced Following Guilty Plea
We finally closed an unfortunate and sad chapter in Faces history last week. Following our closure, we worked on a plan to get the bar reopened. We were approached by a nightclub operator in St. Louis with an offer that turned out to be too good to be true. This club operator, Robert Williams, offered to put in the sweat equity and money necessary to get the bar reopened, then he would lease the space from us. We hoped to host private seasonal Faces parties in the space while Williams hosted his Club TV One party concept. We knew nothing about his past nor could we afford to hire anyone to do background checks. We were broke, we went with our gut, and we were wrong. After months of promises and some but not a lot of improvements to the building, Williams was arrested, the bar was raided, and adding insult to injury, our equipment was taken by the US Attorney. Our tenant's former landlord claimed that his equipment was in our building. The judge and US Attorney (a Republican appointment) actually allowed this person, named Bradley, to enter our building under the supervision of federal law enforcement, and basically go shopping. Bradley was allowed to take the equipment from our building that we owned. We attempted to communicate with the US Attorney and he did not seem to either understand or care that he had stolen our equipment. He advised our attorney that we needed to work that out with Bradley's attorney, that he (the US Attorney) was "washing his hands of the whole thing". Bradley's attorney claimed that all the equipment that he took was actually his, even though we had inventories, serial numbers, and in some cases video and photo proof that the equipment was ours. This was how it stayed for nearly 9 months, until October when Williams plead guilty to the charges filed against him. This made no sense to us...Williams was charged with stealing the equipment that actually belonged to us, we had proof that the equipment was not stolen and actually belonged to us, yet the US Attorney went ahead with charges and obtained a guilty plea. From what we can figure out, the US Attorney had enough evidence concerning drugs and Williams parole violations that he used this to force a guilty plea to save his own reputation...it would have looked pretty stupid and unprofessional if the media learned that this big case was based on false testimony (claims that the property was stolen were false, thus the search warrant that was issued to raid the bar was illegal, thus the evidence obtained in the raid was tainted).
The story made for great television...apparently the US Attorney or the FBI alerted the media as we all saw the news video of men with guns and bullet proof vests going in and out of the bar and men carrying our equipment out...it went along with the stories about alleged corruption in East St. Louis..but it wasn't true.
We are left without our equipment and more legal bills. It appears that in general, attorneys are afraid to call attention to themselves by challenging the actions of the US Attorney and Federal law enforcement even when those actions can be proven wrong and unjust. The media got the story wrong and never bothered to contact us or even William's attorney, and furthered the whole "East St. Louis is full of criminals" storyline that they like to push.
Williams is in jail, as many of you may know from the short little stories in the RFT, the Post, and the Belleville News-Democrat last week. We don't have our equipment nor is the building ready to reopen. More damage was done while our tenant occupied the building, including damage to our main floor AC unit from copper thieves....the main floor unit, the largest (and most expensive) was the only one not damaged from our first copper thieves...now that one is inoperable too.
We may have someone new to do the work and invest the money necessary to save the building. We're sorry we don't have something more positive to report about a possible future for Faces and we thank you for continuing to follow our story.
The story made for great television...apparently the US Attorney or the FBI alerted the media as we all saw the news video of men with guns and bullet proof vests going in and out of the bar and men carrying our equipment out...it went along with the stories about alleged corruption in East St. Louis..but it wasn't true.
We are left without our equipment and more legal bills. It appears that in general, attorneys are afraid to call attention to themselves by challenging the actions of the US Attorney and Federal law enforcement even when those actions can be proven wrong and unjust. The media got the story wrong and never bothered to contact us or even William's attorney, and furthered the whole "East St. Louis is full of criminals" storyline that they like to push.
Williams is in jail, as many of you may know from the short little stories in the RFT, the Post, and the Belleville News-Democrat last week. We don't have our equipment nor is the building ready to reopen. More damage was done while our tenant occupied the building, including damage to our main floor AC unit from copper thieves....the main floor unit, the largest (and most expensive) was the only one not damaged from our first copper thieves...now that one is inoperable too.
We may have someone new to do the work and invest the money necessary to save the building. We're sorry we don't have something more positive to report about a possible future for Faces and we thank you for continuing to follow our story.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
ThinkProgress.org - Majority of Americans Support Repeal of DADT
From thinkprogress.org on January 15, 2009 -"Today, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon is “stepping up internal discussions on how gay men and lesbians might be able to serve openly in the armed services” in anticipation that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) will be repealed. A small group — put together by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen to prepare for congressional hearings — recently met on the issue:
A one-page memorandum drafted by staff members as a discussion point for the meeting said that the chiefs could adopt the view that “now is not the time” because of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the military would be better off delaying the start of the repeal process until 2011.
The same memorandum, according to a military official who has seen it, also said that “every indicator of opinion over the past 16 years shows movement toward nondiscrimination based on orientation” and that “in time the law will change.”
Indeed, recent polling confirms this indicator. ThinkProgress obtained results from a November poll on DADT conducted by Democracy Corps that shows likely voters support ending the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military by a 55 to 35 percent margin:
Pollsters Stan Greenberg and David Walker note that they “intentionally phrased this question using the most conservative language possible to avoid any suggestion of bias”; other surveys have shown even higher levels of support for repealing DADT. More from the results of likely voters:
– 53 percent of self-ascribed Republicans oppose lifting the ban. 71 percent of Democrats favor repeal, as do 58 percent of Independents.
– Only 11 percent believe that DADT makes the military stronger. 61 percent believe it makes no difference either way.
– 63 percent believe that a repeal of DADT should be implemented across the military all at the same time, rather than branch by branch.
– Catholic voters approve of repealing the ban in even higher numbers than the general public, with 64 percent in support and 29 percent in opposition.
In today’s White House press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to today’s New York Times story, saying, “[T]here have been discussions in the Pentagon — they will continue. We don’t have — I don’t yet have a time line out of those discussions. But I know they do continue.” In November, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said that a DADT repeal would “likely be included as part of next year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in both chambers of Congress.” However, in a C-SPAN interview set to air Sunday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), who played a “major role” in crafting DADT, said that he opposes repealing the law."
A one-page memorandum drafted by staff members as a discussion point for the meeting said that the chiefs could adopt the view that “now is not the time” because of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the military would be better off delaying the start of the repeal process until 2011.
The same memorandum, according to a military official who has seen it, also said that “every indicator of opinion over the past 16 years shows movement toward nondiscrimination based on orientation” and that “in time the law will change.”
Indeed, recent polling confirms this indicator. ThinkProgress obtained results from a November poll on DADT conducted by Democracy Corps that shows likely voters support ending the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military by a 55 to 35 percent margin:
Pollsters Stan Greenberg and David Walker note that they “intentionally phrased this question using the most conservative language possible to avoid any suggestion of bias”; other surveys have shown even higher levels of support for repealing DADT. More from the results of likely voters:
– 53 percent of self-ascribed Republicans oppose lifting the ban. 71 percent of Democrats favor repeal, as do 58 percent of Independents.
– Only 11 percent believe that DADT makes the military stronger. 61 percent believe it makes no difference either way.
– 63 percent believe that a repeal of DADT should be implemented across the military all at the same time, rather than branch by branch.
– Catholic voters approve of repealing the ban in even higher numbers than the general public, with 64 percent in support and 29 percent in opposition.
In today’s White House press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to today’s New York Times story, saying, “[T]here have been discussions in the Pentagon — they will continue. We don’t have — I don’t yet have a time line out of those discussions. But I know they do continue.” In November, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said that a DADT repeal would “likely be included as part of next year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in both chambers of Congress.” However, in a C-SPAN interview set to air Sunday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), who played a “major role” in crafting DADT, said that he opposes repealing the law."
ThinkProgress.org - DOJ Intervenes in Gay Teen Discrimination Case
From thinkprogress.org on January 15, 2010: " Yesterday, for the first time in a decade, the Justice Department intervened in a gay rights suit. In August, an openly gay 14-year-old student named Jacob — with the help of the ACLU — sued the Mohawk Central School District in upstate New York because officials “did not appropriately respond to relentless harassment, physical abuse and threats of violence” that Jacob received because of his sexual orientation. NPR reported on some of the harassment to which Jacob alleges he was subjected:
Long before Jacob came out of the closet at age 14, he was harassed for being effeminate. According to court papers, kids threw food at him and told him to get a sex change. One student pulled out a knife and threatened to string Jacob up the flagpole. A teacher allegedly told Jacob to “hate himself every day until he changed.”
One day, Jacob came home from school limping. That evening, he called his father from a party and said he had sprained his ankle at the party.
Sullivan described taking his son to the hospital: “It was a really bad sprain. They put a cast on it, gave him crutches. And shortly after that, I found out that it didn’t happen at the party. It happened at the school, because somebody had pushed him down the stairs.”
Over two years, Sullivan went to his son’s school three or four times a week to talk with the principal. According to court papers, officials did nothing.
The Justice Department is citing Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which protects people against gender discrimination — in its Motion to Intervene. However, the Obama administration is relying on a “broad reading” of Title IX, arguing that “the law also covers discrimination based on gender stereotypes.” In the Motion, the Justice Department argues that the Mohawk District officials also violated the Equal Protection Clause. On Jan. 7, the Assistant Attorney General authorized the federal government’s invention “by certifying that this is a case of general public importance.” Conservative lawyers are arguing against the Obama administration’s approach, saying that it is “making up a legal violation where there hasn’t been one.”
Under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department has had a dramatically different focus than it did during President Bush’s terms. While the Bush Justice Department was focused on installing political cronies, going after mythical voter fraud cases, and the suppression of minority voters while looking out for the voter disenfranchisement of whites. The Obama Justice Department, by contrast, recently announced that it would also start aggressively going after “banks and mortgage brokers suspected of discriminating against minority applicants in lending.”
Long before Jacob came out of the closet at age 14, he was harassed for being effeminate. According to court papers, kids threw food at him and told him to get a sex change. One student pulled out a knife and threatened to string Jacob up the flagpole. A teacher allegedly told Jacob to “hate himself every day until he changed.”
One day, Jacob came home from school limping. That evening, he called his father from a party and said he had sprained his ankle at the party.
Sullivan described taking his son to the hospital: “It was a really bad sprain. They put a cast on it, gave him crutches. And shortly after that, I found out that it didn’t happen at the party. It happened at the school, because somebody had pushed him down the stairs.”
Over two years, Sullivan went to his son’s school three or four times a week to talk with the principal. According to court papers, officials did nothing.
The Justice Department is citing Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which protects people against gender discrimination — in its Motion to Intervene. However, the Obama administration is relying on a “broad reading” of Title IX, arguing that “the law also covers discrimination based on gender stereotypes.” In the Motion, the Justice Department argues that the Mohawk District officials also violated the Equal Protection Clause. On Jan. 7, the Assistant Attorney General authorized the federal government’s invention “by certifying that this is a case of general public importance.” Conservative lawyers are arguing against the Obama administration’s approach, saying that it is “making up a legal violation where there hasn’t been one.”
Under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department has had a dramatically different focus than it did during President Bush’s terms. While the Bush Justice Department was focused on installing political cronies, going after mythical voter fraud cases, and the suppression of minority voters while looking out for the voter disenfranchisement of whites. The Obama Justice Department, by contrast, recently announced that it would also start aggressively going after “banks and mortgage brokers suspected of discriminating against minority applicants in lending.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)