The latest push to strengthen Internet security is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, which passed the House of Representatives April 18 and now awaits a vote in the Senate. The Senate does not have to vote, however, and might allow the bill to die. The act would make it possible for website moderators to report online activity they deem potentially threatening to the federal government, thus giving investigators free reign of the poster’s Internet history and personal information without considering antitrust or privacy laws.

According to a statement from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet watchdog group, CISPA “is written so broadly it allows companies to hand over large swaths of personal information to the government with no judicial oversight—effectively creating a ‘cybersecurity’ loophole in all existing privacy laws.”

Although Internet safety falls under the umbrella of public safety, giving the feds unlimited access to anyone with a computer does not ensure protection. The idea of monitoring the Internet to promote public safety is comforting, but making everyone a suspect is an ineffective method of catching the few who pose an actual threat.

CISPA fosters the idea that Big Brother is watching while stripping the public of their most basic rights to privacy. More disturbing, however, is that people don’t seem to know or care nearly enough about the bill’s implications, and few have spoken against it.

CISPA comes on the heels of the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, bills introduced in 2011 that aimed to limit person-to-person file sharing. More than 10 million people signed an online petition on SOPAStrike.com and hundreds of websites, including Google, Wikipedia and Reddit, “blacked out” their web pages Jan. 18, 2012 in protest. Two days later, Congress shelved the bill, perhaps as a result of these efforts.

The controversy surrounding SOPA proves that protesting aggressive measures can be fruitful, making it even more disheartening that so few have taken a stand against CISPA, which is much more invasive because it targets all Internet users, not just those who use copyrighted material.

In protest of CISPA, hacktivist group Anonymous attempted to organize an April 22 blackout similar to the SOPA protest, but only about 800 websites participated, most of which were very small organizations that went unnoticed, according to an April 22 PCWorld.com article. Unlike the last blackout, web giants like Google and Wikipedia steered clear of the effort, and Reddit has left the decision to blackout up to each subreddit moderator. Support for tabling CISPA is tepid, to say the least, especially considering several notable corporations and consumer groups have pushed for the bill’s advancement.

Backed by $84 million in corporate sponsorship and the support of tech giants like Verizon Wireless, Comcast and Intel, according to an April 22 post on TechDirt.com, CISPA has the support of enough big-name companies to shadow the act’s obtrusive stipulations.

As long as there is no unified effort to stop CISPA, it will continue to move through Congress uncontested. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the act should it pass the Senate, but whether that will actually happen is unforeseeable. Regardless of White House actions, the public must vocalize opposition to CISPA in order to protect everyone’s right to privacy.

Although the Internet is not inherently conducive to personal privacy, it still warrants some level of respect for users’ personal identities. People perpetrate the idea that the Internet is an outlet to share anything and everything, but they must not allow that mentality to bite them, and taking a stand against these invasive laws is the best way to avoid doing so.

According to an April 5 article on RawStory.com, Hendren has been bombarded with murder and rape threats from people implicated in her reports. While Facebook determined that many instances Rapebook reported were actually just crude jokes and not serious threats, the campaign’s presence has still drawn attention to the sick, sexist comments that are all too common on social media.

Women have been historically oppressed, but the brave actions of women’s rights advocates have paved the way for near-equal treatment of men and women. To bridge the gap between the current norm and total equality, it is crucial for women to continue standing up for themselves and demanding equal treatment. Unfortunately, their efforts are too frequently halted by men, and even other women, who take it upon themselves to ensure women continue to be treated as second-class citizens, like those threatening Hendren.

Women still have a long way to go in terms of being treated equally. Double standards exist, and women generally aren’t allowed to openly defend themselves against violent acts, offensive comments and sexual harassment.

Hendren told ABC News on April 5 that she deleted her personal Facebook profile after a man messaged her and threatened to trace her IP address back to her home and show up in the middle of the night to rape her. Hendren, as well as other website administrators, also received several death threats, and the group is rumored to be closing down as a result of the harassment Hendren and her associates have endured.
Vigilante campaigns like Rapebook are meant to offer female social media users a sense of security by attempting to clean up the Internet, but Facebook rarely does anything with the group’s reports, meaning that the efforts are a nice gesture but not very effective. If people are bent out of shape by Hendren’s group, then it’s not simply because she’s getting their posts stricken from Facebook but because she is drawing attention to their flawed senses of humor.

Posting vulgar remarks about rape and violence against women is nothing less than heinous, and groups like Rapebook should absolutely single out people who find humor in plastering incredibly inappropriate “jokes” and images on the Internet. But the Internet isn’t the only environment that women must police for their own safety.

At a recent technology conference hosted by tech giant PyCon in Santa Clara, Calif., Adria Richards, a blogger in the audience, overheard two male audience members making sexual innuendos about “forking” the speakers and referencing their large “dongles,” which are devices that plug into a computer. Richards, offended by their remarks, tweeted a photo of the men along with the comments they made and asked fellow attendees and PyCon authorities to call them out on their comments. PyCon officials approached the men and asked them to stop, but Richards’ action caused backlash from people who believe she reacted too rashly.
“Have you ever had a group of men sitting right behind you making a joke that caused you to feel uncomfortable? Well, that just happened this week, but instead of shrinking down in my seat, I did something about it,” Richards wrote in a March 18 post on her blog ButYoureAGirl.com.

Although Richards could have stopped the situation in a less public way by simply turning around and trying to reason with the men in question, she was just trying to stand up for herself and other women in the same room. The controversy surrounding Richards’ tweet demonstrates that a woman should not be complacent in a situation she feels poses a threat to her well-being. Richards lost her job following the debacle, proving that even women who try to stand up for themselves get shot down.

The outcome of Richards’ situation is discouraging for women who have found themselves in similar predicaments, but the end result should not detract from the importance of her message. Open dialogue about equality and fair treatment of women should be encouraged to promote the idea that women and men are on an equal playing field. When women speak out against their oppressors, backlash should be expected, but the fear of repercussion should not deter women from defending the fair treatment they deserve.

It’s time for women everywhere to take an active stance against the misogynistic ideas that flood society and make men think it’s OK to objectify, abuse and harass women just because they are female. Women must be brave enough to stand up for themselves, even when it’s easier to keep quiet. If history has proved anything, it’s that if women don’t speak up on their own behalf, no one will.

Cappleman strongly encouraged the sale of the Chateau Hotel, 3838 N. Broadway, to a land trust that will transform the run-down SRO into upscale apartments, according to a March 11 Chronicle article. Although renovating the outdated eyesore will beautify the neighborhood, the low-income residents will be unfairly marginalized by higher wage-earners who can afford the renovated units.

Because they offer low rates and short-term leases, SRO hotels cater to a rough crowd, but it is unfair for the alderman to orchestrate a mass eviction in a classist attempt to upgrade his ward’s residents.

The Chateau—which does not turn away tenants with poor credit or criminal records—offers 138 notoriously dilapidated rooms starting at $575 per month and currently houses approximately 100 tenants. According to a March 11 Chronicle article, the new building owner plans to increase the monthly rent to $800. Cappleman maintains that the transition is not a scheme to remove the current residents, but they will certainly not be able to return to their homes after the spike in rent. Terminating affordable housing options to make room for more affluent tenants is a severe blow to a demographic that needs assistance—and this isn’t the first instance of such classist behavior on the North Side.

According to a Dec. 5, 2012 SkylineNewspaper.com article, BJB Partners, a building management company, bought and rehabbed three other SRO units in the past year: the Sheffield House, 3834 N. Sheffield Ave.; the Belair Hotel, 424 W. Diversey Ave.; and the Abbott Hotel, 721 W. Belmont Ave. Nearly all residents of the three hotels were displaced as a result of the buyouts.

In addition to the current push to close the Chateau Hotel, Alderman Brendan Reilly (42nd Ward) is advocating the closing of the city’s two remaining cubicle hotels, which allot residents a small sleeping area and little privacy. The Chicago Sun-Times reported Feb. 25 that Reilly is pushing to close the Wilson Men’s Club, 1124 W. Wilson Ave., and the Ewing Annex Hotel, 426 S. Clark St.

Such hotels take in some of the city’s most at-risk residents, many of whom grapple with unemployment, disabilities and other limiting circumstances that put them at risk for homelessness. Abruptly pulling the safety net out from under them is an irresponsible non-solution to the inconveniences they impose on a neighborhood, and it is unfair to force them out.

Although the number of SRO hotels in Chicago is shrinking, the facilities provide a vital community service, filling the void left by homeless shelters that cannot accommodate the city’s entire at-risk population. These hotels should not be eliminated, but that’s not to say the market isn’t in need of a serious makeover.

The Feb. 25 Chicago Sun-Times article reports that men in the Ewing Annex Hotel are confined to individual sleeping stalls shrouded by chicken wire, and, according to a Jan. 29 Cook County court filing, city inspectors identified 137 health and building code violations during an Aug. 28, 2012 visit to the Chateau Hotel.

“Average Chicagoans wouldn’t want to house their dogs in this type of facility. We need to ensure living conditions are fit for human beings,” Reilly told the Chicago Sun-Times in response to the inspectors’ report.
And he’s right. Regardless of the population being served or how little the rent, building owners must be charged with maintaining basic health and living standards.

Rather than closing SRO facilities’ doors, aldermen should work with building owners to bring the establishments up to par with health and building codes. Instead of being re-marketed to wealthier renters, cleaned-up units should be returned to existing residents but with stricter rules and living standards to ensure the hotels do not fall back into disarray.

By phasing out SRO hotels, some of the city’s most impoverished residents are losing out on a critical housing resource, further alienating an already exiled demographic that does not deserve to be shafted by the officials who should have their best interests in mind.

However, in recent history, society is too eager to forgive and forget such transgressions, allowing those who have committed the ultimate sins against industries built on trust, like journalism, to bounce back and lead a normal career in spite of their crimes.

The latest example is Jonah Lehrer, who left his job at the New Yorker in July 2012 after it came to light that he fabricated, plagiarized and/or recycled quotes in 22 articles and a book. Rather than making an example of him, he was welcomed with open arms—and a $20,000 check—to speak about the scandal at a Feb. 12 luncheon hosted by the Knight Foundation, an organization that prides itself in promoting journalistic values.

The glaring hypocrisy of the situation is enough to spark anger in anyone, especially members of the journalism community who hold themselves to strict standards of honesty and integrity. While the Knight Foundation contends that Lehrer’s speech was meant to serve as a lesson about the importance of being truthful, he should not have been compensated in such a way that allows him to profit from his iniquity.

“It is my hope that, some day, my transgressions might be forgiven,” Lehrer said in his opening remarks. “I am convinced that unless I talk openly about what I’ve learned so far, unless I hold myself accountable in public, then the lessons will not last.”

Although Lehrer’s acknowledgment of his serial plagiarism and the ensuing apology are heartwarming, the Knight Foundation should not have been the one to provide him with a platform to deliver the message given its supposed values.

After being bruised by the backlash from people angered by the Knight Foundation’s decision to commission Lehrer, the organization issued an apology Feb. 13 on its website.

“In retrospect, as a foundation that has long stood for quality journalism, paying a speaker’s fee was inappropriate,” the foundation said. “Controversial speakers should have platforms, but Knight Foundation should not have put itself into a position tantamount to rewarding people who have violated the basic tenets of journalism. We regret our mistake.”

The apology is welcome, but it does nothing to distract from the Knight Foundation’s blatant lack of foresight. Inviting a known liar to address its audience was totally out of line, and issuing an apology after the fact does nothing to lessen the blow.

While Lehrer serves as the latest example of a failed journalist inappropriately welcomed back into the club, he is certainly not the only one of his kind to go undeterred.

Mark Hornung resigned as the Chicago Sun-Times editorial page editor in 1995 after admitting to plagiarizing a Washington Post editorial, but only one year later, he became the newspaper’s vice president of circulation.

Mike Barnicle left his post at the Boston Globe in 1998 after he was accused of lifting jokes from George Carlin’s book “Brain Droppings” and fabricating a story about two child cancer patients. However, Barnicle went on to land bylines at several reputable newspapers like the Boston Herald and the New York Daily News, and he currently serves as a contributor on several MSNBC programs.

Currently, the infamous Stephen Glass, who was exposed in 1998 for spending three years fabricating magazine articles for The New Republic, is awaiting approval from the California Supreme Court to be admitted as a lawyer by the State Bar of California.

Although it is unfair to punish people who have demonstrated remorse for their offenses, it is inappropriate to simply forgive and forget offenses of this caliber. There is no excuse for intentionally misrepresenting the facts, and those who attempt to recover from doing so must be met with stern repercussions. Allowing these perpetrators to continue working in the public eye without consequence is disgraceful, as they must serve as a warning of the consequences of falsehood for fellow journalists.

Truth is the cornerstone of journalism, and there should be no mercy for those who contravene the values of the press.

“With Aaron’s death, we can wait no longer,” states a computerized voice in an Anonymous video posted to the Sentencing Commission website soon after the hack took place. “The time has come to show the United States Department of Justice and its affiliates the true meaning of infiltration. The time has come to give this system a taste of its own medicine. The time has come for them to feel the helplessness and fear that comes with being forced into a game where the odds are stacked against them.”

The video details Anonymous’ plan to crack the Department of Justice by employing the FBI’s “infiltration and entrapment practices” that have been used in the past to convict Internet hackers, including several formerly operating as Anonymous members. The video also threatens to release decryption keys for digital packets of sensitive government information, named after the nine Supreme Court justices, if the punishment for online crimes is not lessened.

While Anonymous raises a valid point—Swartz’s sentence did not fairly reflect the nature of his crime—the group does so childishly without regard for the potential implications of releasing sensitive government documents that could be detrimental in the wrong hands. Threatening national security to make a point, about computer hacking, of all things, is not only incredibly shortsighted and reckless, it’s also selfish.

The Sentencing Commission’s website remained down for several days before the Department of Justice regained control of the page. As of press time, the website says it is “currently under construction,” listing only commission contact information. But soon, the group struck again on a different government website. On Feb. 4, Anonymous posted a list to the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center website containing contact information, passwords, IP addresses and other sensitive information regarding 4,000 Federal Reserve bankers, the Guardian reported Feb. 6. The document was removed from the website soon after it was posted.

Although the group has been threatening to release sensitive information since launching Operation Last Resort in January, this is the first time any of the data was released.

There was a time when Anonymous appeared to be working for the greater good. Past hacks, although just as intrusive, have at least drawn light to social injustices, shady practices and corruption.

In 2006, Anonymous commandeered the website of radio host Hal Turner, a white supremacist who made racially-charged marks on air; in 2009, the group launched the Iranian Green Party website to prevent Iran’s leaders from censoring online election news; and in December 2012, Anonymous released contact information for members of Westboro Baptist Church to reprimand them for protesting the funerals of Sandy Hook victims.

Each of those efforts has merit, but the same cannot be said about the Jan. 26 attack against the Department of Justice. If the department were to comply with this most recent threat, members of Anonymous and other hackers would benefit, but no one else stands to gain anything. If Anonymous is going to flaunt federal secrets that could adversely impact the entire nation, more people should benefit from the risk.

In January, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced a bill called Aaron’s Law seeking to change the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, under which Swartz was being prosecuted. It is unknown whether Anonymous’ threats influenced the creation of the bill.

The Operation Last Resort video concludes with a threat that “This time there will be change, or there will be chaos.”

Perhaps Anonymous’ most recent actions are, in fact, sparking change, but the threat of chaos shouldn’t drive legislators to update policies out of fear.

As she gave her acceptance speech for the Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement, Foster, who in 2007 announced she was in a relationship with actress Cydney Bernard without identifying as a lesbian, spoke highly of her former partnership with Bernard and their “modern family,” but she did not use terms like “gay” and “lesbian,” omissions that have triggered some criticism.

Although Foster’s sexual orientation may be one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood, she shouldn’t be expected to broadcast that she’s a lesbian simply for the sake of labeling herself. The decision to come out of the closet is unnecessarily dramatized and often expected to result in some grand production signifying one’s open devotion to the LGBT cause. But that shouldn’t be the point. As Foster emphasized during her speech, coming out is a personal announcement that should be made on one’s own terms before an audience of that person’s choosing.

“I hope you’re not disappointed that there won’t be a big coming-out speech tonight because I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago, back in the Stone Age, in those very quaint days when a fragile, young girl would open up to trusted friends, and family, and coworkers and then, gradually, proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met,” Foster said.

In a Jan. 14 post on Advocate.com, an LGBT news organization, Editor-in-Chief Matthew Breen condemned Foster’s refusal to blatantly announce her lesbianism, arguing that celebrities can only be considered out of the closet once they announce their sexual orientation in a public forum.

Despite having the ability to address the public on national television, the validity of a celebrity’s coming out cannot be measured by the span of his or her audience, contrary to Breen’s assertion. Just because one has the platform to confide an intimate secret to the world, it doesn’t mean sharing is an obligation. While Foster’s celebrity status certainly makes it difficult to keep such details of her personal life private, she shouldn’t be heckled into sharing for the sake of keeping the public’s curiosity at bay.

Karen Ocamb, news editor of Frontiers magazine, an L.A.-based LGBT publication, said in a Jan. 14 post on her news blog, LGBTpov.com, that Foster lacks humanity for not seizing the moment as an opportunity to come out to raise awareness about the gay movement and to inspire confused LGBT youth. Regardless of the potential outcome of her speech, Foster shouldn’t be judged or patronized for not volunteering to be a poster-child for LGBT advocacy.

While Foster serves as the latest example of a celebrity charged with failing to adequately draw positive attention to the LGBT movement by coming out, she is certainly not the only one.

Other public figures, like musician Ricky Martin, American Idol runner-up Clay Aiken and CNN Anchor Anderson Cooper, have outed themselves in recent years after enduring relentless tabloid speculation and fielding rumors about their homosexuality. While all three men eventually confirmed they are gay, they did it on their own terms when they believed the time was right, not because they thought it was their duty to raise awareness.

“This was not supposed to happen 5 or 10 years ago. It is supposed to happen now,” Martin wrote in a March 2010 blog post on his website. “I am proud to say that I am a fortunate homosexual man. I am very blessed to be who I am.”

Ultimately, coming out of the closet is a fragile announcement that shouldn’t be rushed by outside influence, nor should it be unnecessarily emphasized. Heterosexuals aren’t held responsible for publicly announcing their sexual inclinations, and LGBT persons shouldn’t be, either.

As society gradually adopts a policy of equality for all, the expectation of an elaborate coming-out speech should be phased out as well. If people are truly concerned with promoting tolerance, then it’s time for the cultural fascination with who’s gay to become a trend of the past. Though people don’t choose their sexual orientation, they certainly can choose whether or not to share it.

Marcus Nuccio THE CHRONICLE

The report, released Dec. 7 in conjunction with the wireless research firm Validas, shows that the number of cramming charges, or fraudulent third-party fees for services that customers have not solicited, has almost doubled during the last year.

The findings indicate that scam artists are targeting cellphone users who do not closely examine their wireless bills, said CUB Executive Director David Kolata during a Dec. 7 news conference.

“The analysis suggests that wireless cramming is a growing problem in Illinois,” Kolata said. “As they’re driven from landline bills, scam artists may see our cellphones as a new frontier for fraud.”

According to John Breyault, vice president of public policy, telecommunications and fraud for the National Consumers League, three parties facilitate cramming practices: wireless service providers, billing aggregators and third-party service providers.

“Most consumers don’t realize this, but their phone bills can be used almost like a credit card to charge them for different products and services,” Breyault said.

He explained that third-party service providers tack on charges for services such as ringtone downloads and enhanced voicemail without consumers’ consent. The scammers are able to do this because they work with billing aggregators who allow them to sneak miscellaneous fees onto cellphone bills, he said.

Although many customers are charged for services they have not purchased, wireless service providers do not seek to end the practice because they also profit from it, according to Breyault.

“Unfortunately, all three of the players have a financial interest in making sure that the system continues as it is because they all get a cut of what consumers pay,” Breyault said.

The best way for wireless customers to combat cramming charges is to closely watch their cellphone bills, according to Jim Chilsen, director of communications for CUB. The organization is urging cell phone users to monitor their bills and visit its online “Stop Cramming Center” to familiarize themselves with the scam.

“Illinois cellphone bills are vulnerable to fraud right now, and anybody who makes a cellphone call should be reading their bills carefully to detect any potentially fraudulent charges,” Chilsen said, adding consumers should demand increased cramming regulations.

In May, the FCC tightened restrictions on landline cramming by giving customers the option of blocking third-party charges and requiring telephone companies to list them separately from service providers’ fees. However, Chilsen said the law does not apply to cellphones because it is difficult to discern which third-party services are solicited and which are fraudulent.

As consumer advocacy groups call on the FCC to restrict cramming, cellphone users can also help prevent the practice, Chilsen said.

“The No. 1 protection against this scam is the consumer,” Chilsen said. “If you read your bill carefully, you’re going to spot these charges before they do a lot of damage.”

Zach Stemerick THE CHRONICLE

“These changes put the ‘doomsday’ budgets of the past behind us,” said CTA President Forrest Claypool in a written statement. “We’re moving forward and building a modern CTA on a strong
fiscal footing.”

The base cash fare of $2.25 per train and bus ride would remain unchanged in 2013, while the price of multiride passes would increase significantly. A 30-day pass, now $86, would cost $100; a seven-day pass, now $23, would cost $28; a three-day pass, now $14, would cost $20; and a one-day pass, now $5.75, would cost $10.

While the budget calls for an increase in the price of multi-ride passes, it does not mention the U-Pass program. According to Mark Kelly, vice president of Student Affairs, the CTA has not communicated to Columbia any potential changes to the U-Pass program.

“Every year it seems that transit riders in Chicago get less transit service for their money,” said Brenna Conway, coordinator of the organization Riders for Better Transit. “We are regularly seeing things like service cuts and fare increases that hurt riders.”

In addition to raising the price of multiride passes, the budget would increase fares for elderly and disabled customers. Under federal law, the transit agency is required to offer a reduced fare to these demographics, and the reduced fare for elderly and disabled passengers is currently 85 cents. But the budget proposal calls for this rate to be raised to $1.10 for rail and $1 for bus rides.

Conway said increasing prices to alleviate the deficit only hurts customers who rely on public transportation, but some city officials disagree.

“Basic fares stayed the same, which you cannot say about gas prices,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel during a Nov. 26 press conference. “You as a commuter will pick: You can either drive to work, or you can take public transportation.”

Although driving is an alternative to public transportation, it isn’t an accessible option for low-income residents, said Krista Dutt, city director of the Chicago chapter of Discovering Opportunities for Outreach and Reflection, a nationwide faith-based network that provides outreach opportunities in urban communities.

Dutt said many of the low-income residents she works with pay for transportation by the ride and therefore will not be affected by the hikes. However, Dutt said she is worried about her clients who purchase multiride passes to save money.

According to CTA data, multi-ride passes pay for approximately 55 percent of bus and rail rides. Dutt said she thinks this number will decrease if the fare hikes are implemented.

“The passes so far have been a value, but they are no longer a deal,” Dutt said. “This may end up forcing people to take fewer rides to save money.”

The budget announcement comes in the wake of the CTA’s controversial decision to alter several existing bus routes. As reported by The Chronicle Sept. 4, the CTA will alter 48 bus routes and eliminate 12 to save an estimated $16 million. The savings will be used to increase rail service during rush periods as part of a de-crowding initiative that will go into effect Dec. 16.

In light of the upcoming service cuts and looming fare hikes, Riders for Better Transit is urging CTA customers to contact their elected officials to voice opposition to the impending service changes.

“Transit service needs to be improving in the Chicago region, and to make that happen, we need better investment from our elected officials,” Conway said. “Riders need to speak up about their transit needs, and by doing so they can make [those needs] a priority for our elected officials. They have the power to give serious funding to our public transit agencies.”

The CTA will host two public budget meetings in coming weeks to give customers the opportunity to provide input on the budget recommendations. The first meeting will be held Dec. 10 at CTA headquarters, 567 W. Lake St., and the second will take place Dec. 17 at Westinghouse College Prep School, 3223 W. Franklin Blvd.

In conjunction with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, three truck owners filed a lawsuit Nov. 14 against the city seeking to overturn several provisions of the ordinance. Disputed passages include a rule that prevents trucks from parking within 200 feet of a business that sells food, which includes gas stations and convenience stores, and a requirement that all food trucks  be equipped with a GPS tracking device that can be accessed by the city.

James Foster | THE CHRONICLE Robert Frommer, attorney for the Institute of Justice, adresses the press in front of microphones standing behind him is commuications director Bob Ewing of IJ, at a press conference downtown, Nov. 14. The IJ is representing two food truck vendors in a lawsuit against the city.

“The intent of this law is clearly to protect businesses from competition,” said Robert Frommer, the attorney who is representing the owners of two food trucks behind
the lawsuit: Laura Pekarik, owner of Cupcakes for Courage, and Kristen Casper and Greg Burke the co-owners of Schnitzel King.

The owners have said they feel they are being treated differently than entrepreneurs who choose to open brick-and-mortar eateries.

“The American Dream is being jeopardized by the way the current food truck ordinance is written,”Casper said. “With the 200-foot rule and mandatory GPS requirement, food trucks are literally being chased out of the city [and] out of the Loop.”

The 200-foot rule has caused an uproar among food truck owners who say the law prevents them from competing with other restaurants.

“You could go anywhere else in the country and have greater freedom without a doubt,” Burke said. “I don’t know why [other businesses] are afraid of us. Competition is the American way.”

City officials declined to comment on the lawsuit, according to Roderick Drew, director of public affairs for the Law Department. He said city officials believe the current ordinance is in the best interest of drivers, existing businesses and consumers.

“There have been decades of debate, and we finally passed a common sense ordinance that will allow this new industry to flourish and expand Chicago’s great culinary offerings,” Drew stated in an email.

But Pekarik said the laws are stifling the growth of her business.

“These laws are extremely stringent upon [food truck owners], and it’s making it hard for my truck to be a success,” she said. “I just want to live the American Dream and be able to sell my product.”

While the owners hope to get rid of the 200-foot rule and GPS requirement, they do not seek to overturn the ordinance entirely, according to Frommer. He said the ordinance is a step in the right direction, but it should cater to the interests of food truck owners, not other businesses.

“The intent of the law is to protect one class of businesses from competition,” Frommer said. “The government is here to protect our public health and safety, not to decide which businesses should be given special treatment. It is consumers who should make the decision about what businesses they want to support.”

Heidi Unkefer | THE CHRONICLE

The 2,055 patients who left CDPH-operated clinics between the time of the closings and July were transferred to private clinics. However, the 484 who remain unaccounted for have raised concerns.

“We were hearing anecdotally that a lot of people were not getting information about what was happening to the clinics and what was going on with their specific therapist,” said Jo Patton, director of special projects at AFSCME Council 31 and author of the report.

Patton said the CDPH did not give its patients enough notice of the closings nor did it effectively notify them of service changes. The department sent clients letters to communicate changes, which wasn’t the most effective mode of notifying them, she said.

“These are folks who probably have to move around quite a bit, don’t necessarily keep people up to date on their new address and don’t necessarily even track their own mail,” Patton said. “So to have that be the main way you try to reach people about an important issue in their life seems to be a problem.”

Although AFSCME Council 31 claims the CDPH has not adequately communicated with its former patients, CDPH officials say otherwise.

Patients were notified of the clinic closings in February, about three months before the closings began, according to the September CDPH health reform report, which outlines the ongoing transition process implemented in November 2011.

The report states that CDPH therapists met with their clients to devise an individualized transition plan to ensure no one was left without care after the clinics closed. The CDPH claims it also held weekly administrative meetings to discuss the status of the transition process.

“The Department of Public Health has been tracking this data diligently since the transition happened and is pleased with the results they are seeing,” said CDPH spokeswoman Caroline Weisser in an email.

While CDPH officials maintain that six clinics are enough to serve the city’s more than 5,000 mental health patients, several advocacy groups oppose the city’s decision to reduce the number of clinics.

As reported by The Chronicle April 16, the clinics have been closed to cut $2 million—approximately 1 percent—of the city’s 2012 budget, a decision that is still provoking backlash from mental health proponents.

There were once 19 CDPH-operated clinics, but the number was reduced to 12 in the 1990s when former Mayor Richard M. Daley closed seven to reduce costs, according to Michael Snedeker, lead organizer of the Coalition to Save Our Mental Health Services.

These mental health services need to be more widely available because many affected by the closings are unable to travel long distances for alternative treatment options, according to Patton. She said she believes CDPH should re-open the clinics to provide better service and more accessibility to patients.

“Those geographic locations really make a huge difference in terms of the likelihood that people will seek services,” Patton said. “Unfortunately, in the cases of people with mental illness, they often are initially reluctant to pursue any kind of help, so if [they] have to take three buses or fill out a lot of paperwork [to get to the clinic], it means it is less likely they will get the services they need.”

Approximately 40 clergy members marched from the Chicago Temple, 77 W. Washington St., to Sen. Dick Durbin’s office in the Kluczynski Federal Building, 230 S. Dearborn St., on Nov. 8 in observance of a nationwide movement urging lawmakers to prevent cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. | Carolina Sanchez THE CHRONICLE

Demonstrators called on Sen. Dick Durbin to denounce policies that extend tax cuts to the wealthy and asked him to block cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

If Congress doesn’t formulate a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of the year, $600 billion would be cut automatically from the budget Jan. 1. Durbin has not signed a pledge—currently supported by 29 senators—to prevent these budget cuts from affecting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Clergy members, who believe cuts to these programs are unfair to middle-class Americans relying on the services, are dismayed by Durbin’s lack of approval.

“Sen. Richard Durbin, one of the most influential political leaders in this country, has the power to lead us away from growing adversity and toward a new, shared prosperity,” said the Rev. Barbara Morgan of St. Mark United Methodist Church, 8441 S. Saint Lawrence Ave. “But to do that he must make a clear choice to either serve the wealthy and powerful few or to stand with us who are all in this together.”

Carrying a golden calf symbolizing wealth and greed, roughly 40 clergy members from various faiths marched Nov. 8 from the Chicago Temple, 77 W. Washington St., to Durbin’s office in the Federal Building.

The protesters brought an additional golden calf piñata that they smashed at the conclusion of the rally. The piñata exploded with gold coins, which the protesters said represented money hoarded by the wealthy.

“We’re here today because Congress is poised to set spending priorities that could slice the safety net out from under our most vulnerable community members,” said the Rev. Barbara Bolsen of The Night Ministry, 4711 N. Ravenswood Ave.

Religious institutions are often held accountable for helping people in need, but the wealthy should be charged with more responsibility, said Morgan.

“As a church, we are called to support the poor and challenge the rich,” Morgan said. “Over the past 30 years, the opposite has been happening. The working-class and middle-class families have shouldered an increasingly large portion of the burden as tax rates for the wealthy and corporations have fallen dramatically and economic inequalities have grown proportionately.”

The national coalition of clergy members has proposed the Fair Deal Pledge, which would end Bush-era tax cuts, increase the tax rate for the very wealthy and establish a financial transaction tax, or “Robin Hood tax,” on Wall Street trading that would allocate tax funds to social programs.

In conjunction with the clergy members’ movement, hundreds of protesters gathered outside Durbin’s office Nov. 9. The demonstrators represented the group Make Wall Street Pay Illinois, a statewide organization aiming to defeat corporate power.

According to Kristi Sanford, a spokeswoman for the organization, 19 protesters were arrested after they entered the Federal Building and demanded to speak to Durbin. They were denied access to the senator, who was not in his office. Sanford said nine protesters peacefully waited outside his office while 10 set up camp in the lobby of the Federal Building. After an hour of waiting for a chance to speak with Durbin via telephone, police arrived and arrested all 19 of them, Sanford said.

While Durbin has not taken a stance on the protesters’ demands, he maintains that he has the interests of his constituents in mind.

Durbin serves on the bi-partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, commonly known as the Bowles-Simpson Commission, which works to achieve fiscal sustainability and debt reduction.

“I served on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, voted for their recommendations and have worked for the last two years to find a bipartisan and balanced approach to put our fiscal house in order while protecting the most vulnerable in our society,” Durbin said in an email. “It can and must be done, and I’m optimistic we can reach an agreement.”

Although the protesters have called on Durbin to further tax the rich, they do not adhere to the belief that wealth is negative.

“We are absolutely aware that money is not evil,” said Pastor Michael Russell of the Jubilee Faith Community in Country Club Hills. “Organized money is a form of power, and power can accomplish all kinds of good. However, the love of money, the worship of profits, can bring all kinds of evil.”

Supporters of President Barack Obama wave flags Nov. 6 at McCormick Center in celebration of his re-election.

Following an additional hour of music, videos and constant shouts of encouragement from the audience, the Obama family finally stepped on stage. The crowd erupted in screams as the president stood proudly next to his family, waving to his supporters with a broad smile.

“Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward,” he began, elaborating on the idea that America’s spirit is what unifies the country as “one nation and one people.”

Obama then addressed his opponent Republican Mitt Romney, who delivered his concession speech in Boston not long before the president took the stage.

“I just spoke with Gov. Romney, and I congratulated him and Paul Ryan on a hard-fought campaign. We may have battled fiercely, but it’s only because we love this country deeply, and we care so strongly about its future,” he said, adding that he hopes to soon sit down with Romney to discuss how they can work to move the country forward.

Obama offered gratitude to his wife and daughters, his campaign team, which he deemed “the best ever,” and anyone who voted for either candidate.

He discussed the impact government can have on the future, focusing on today’s youth and their roles as tomorrow’s leaders. Obama maintained that more resources should be allocated toward education, developing technology and creating jobs to ensure that the next generation is greeted by a strong nation.

He went on to address his goals of reducing the deficit, reforming the tax code, fixing the immigration system and relieving dependency on foreign oil.

“We’ve got more work to do, but that doesn’t mean your work is done,” he said. “The role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your vote. America’s never been about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us together through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.”

Following several anecdotes and the reinforcement of his faith in the American spirit, Obama’s speech drew to a close with a call for all Americans to continue to believe in the nation.

“We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.”

Screams erupted from the crowd at McCormick Place as several news organizations pegged Obama victorious in Ohio, a key swing state, which gave him enough electoral votes to secure the presidency.

According to network projections, the only swing state Romney won was North Carolina, despite making Election Day stops in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama, however, also secured wins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire.

Shortly after the projected election outcome was announced, the Obama campaign tweeted “Four more years” along with a photo of him hugging first lady Michelle Obama, which became the most popular tweet of all time in a matter of roughly 40 minutes.

The audience at McCormick Place grew increasingly energetic after the announcement, as supporters screamed and danced in support of Obama.

“I’m so proud of that guy for winning again,” said Scott Mosley, whose company provides sign language interpreters for the Obama campaign. “He stands for everything I believe in, and I’m so proud.”

Many who served as campaign volunteers during election season were invited to attend Obama’s campaign event as a way to repay them for their services.

Annie Cappetta, who worked as a phone bank coordinator, said she has been working for the past several weeks to encourage voters to support Obama. She said she worked to the point of exhaustion as part of the campaign’s final push to appeal to voters.

Other volunteers, such as Matthew Johnson, feel a sense of relief following Obama’s re-election.

“I think that [Obama] is taking the country on a really reasonable path and is working for everybody, not just those who already have a lot of wealth and power,” Johnson said. “Had the election gone the other way, I feel Mitt Romney would have allowed more unfair practices on Wall Street and extended the Bush tax cuts. The wealthy already have so much of the power in this country and aren’t paying their share, but thankfully [Romney] didn’t win.”

While the crowd was brimming with excitement, audience members remained conscious of the fact that there is still much work to be done.

“It’s going to be an excellent four years,” said Lynn Kamenitsa, an Obama supporter. “[Obama] is going to have a chance to finish what he started. We still have a tough road ahead toward economic recovery, but he’s the best man for the job.”

Aaron Ramirez, owner of Taquero Fusion, uses his food truck to advertise his catering business. Ramirez said while the ordinance restricting where trucks may park is a step in the right direction, the regulations have made it difficult for him to do business because of the lack of locations throughout the city. James Foster | THE CHRONICLE

Under the new ordinance, food trucks will be restricted to parking in sanctioned spaces for a maximum of two hours, which city officials believe is in the best interest of existing eateries, truck owners and the public.

“These dedicated stands for food trucks will provide additional parking opportunities and expanded operations to foster this growing industry,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in an Oct. 31 written statement. “They will also help to safeguard communities from added congestion and public safety issues while creating economic opportunity throughout the city.”

In early October, the Chicago Department of Transportation compiled a list of 23 proposed locations in Lakeview, the Loop, the Near North Side, the Near West Side, Lincoln Park and West Town. City Council approved most locations but rejected two spaces: 33 N. LaSalle St. and 2934 N. Broadway Ave.

“I was really excited when the mayor’s office first sent out press releases that showed some of the prospective locations,” said Amy Le, founder of the Illinois Food Truck Association and a local food truck owner. “But then to see some of the spots taken off [the proposal] and [to find out] why they were taken off is disappointing to me.”

According to Bennett Lawson, chief of staff for Alderman Tom Tunney (44th Ward), City Council rejected the Broadway location because its crowded sidewalks raised safety concerns. The density of the area and the space’s proximity to existing businesses also contributed to the decision.

The ordinance includes a stipulation that restricts trucks from parking within 200 feet of an existing brick-and-mortar establishment. Trucks violating the rule can be ticketed and fined up to $2,000.

Alex Levine, creator of FoodTruckFreak.com, said the city decided to designate spaces to offset the 200-foot rule, but it has been unsuccessful because the approved locations are not in densely populated areas. She said letting existing businesses influence where trucks are allowed to park is unfair.

“The way [the city is] going about [choosing locations] seems like the least democratic process it could possibly be,” Levine said. “It’s the equivalent of letting your competitors dictate your business model.”

The locations are also disheartening for many drivers, according to Le. She said that in July, the Illinois Food Truck Association asked the Committee on License and Consumer Protection to offer drivers more parking options in the Loop, but that request was not represented in the ordinance that now features only three Loop locations.

“[The lack of downtown locations] is extremely problematic,” Le said. “You can give us all these stands in the Wicker Park and Bucktown areas, but realistically the trucks aren’t going to make much money off the lunch business in those areas because there’s not the foot traffic you would get downtown.”

Le said she and other food truck owners were disappointed that city officials did not consult them when making decisions regarding where trucks should park.

“None of the food truck owners were included in deciding where the stands would go,” Le said. “We didn’t even know where they were going until we saw it published in the newspaper.”

Lawson declined to comment on the extent of the food truck owners’ involvement in the process.

Despite her dissatisfaction with the approved locations, Le maintains that the program can still be carried out effectively if the city and truck owners cooperate.

“We have the opportunity right now to develop a system that other urban cities can use as a mirror, if done right,” Le said. “But the city has to be willing to actually [listen to] input from the food truck owners.”

“The way [the city is] going about [choosing locations] seems like the least democratic process it could possibly be,” Levine said. “It’s the equivalent of letting your competitors dictate your business model.”

The locations are also disheartening for many drivers, according to Le. She said that in July, the Illinois Food Truck Association asked the Committee on License and Consumer Protection to offer drivers more parking options in the Loop, but that request was not represented in the ordinance that now features only three Loop locations.

“[The lack of downtown locations] is extremely problematic,” Le said. “You can give us all these stands in the Wicker Park and Bucktown areas, but realistically the trucks aren’t going to make much money off the lunch business in those areas because there’s not the foot traffic you would get downtown.”

Le said she and other food truck owners were disappointed that city officials did not consult them when making decisions about where trucks should park.

“None of the food truck owners were included in deciding where the stands would go,” Le said. “We didn’t even know where they were going until we saw it published in the newspaper.”

Lawson declined to comment on the extent of the food truck owners’ involvement in the process.

Despite Le’s dissatisfaction with the approved locations, she maintains that the program can still be carried out effectively if the city and truck owners cooperate.

“We have the opportunity right now to develop a system that other urban cities can use as a mirror, if done right,” Le said. “But the city has to be willing to actually [listen to] input from the food truck owners.”

Bic apparently lacked foresight when it released its “For Her” line of pens specifically “designed to fit a women’s hand” in August.

The pens, which feature “a diamond engraved barrel for an elegant and unique feminine style,” are marketed exclusively to women, catering to the stereotype that females are biologically inclined to love pink, sparkles and self-indulgence.

While there is nothing wrong with enjoying these things, it is outrageous that a pen company has marketed such a blatantly sexist product.

Although there are still many societal disparities between men and women, women have made significant strides toward closing the gap, and misogynistic marketing tactics detract from this progress. This sentiment prompted hundreds of sarcastic and scathing reviews on Amazon.com’s Bic “For Her” product page.

“So long I have struggled with barely the strength (let alone the brains) to lift those horrible manly pens and here, at last, are some designed with us ladies in mind,” one reviewer posted. “I shall finally be able to write my shopping lists and recipes without damaging my perfectly manicured nails.”

Comment after comment blasted the pens and sarcastically posed the question of whether a man’s supervision is required to use them and claimed that the average woman doesn’t have time to write because she is too busy cooking and cleaning.

Several intrepid men also wrote defamatory reviews on behalf of the women in their lives.

“My girlfriend continually drops my manly pens when she’s writing out shopping lists, which frustratingly leaves her less time to dress in pink, dream of puppies [and] then lick the kitchen floor clean,” posted one commenter.

Though the pens were relentlessly attacked for weeks, the manufacturer did not address reviewers’ concerns. Rather, Bic executives turned to Ellen DeGeneres to sponsor the product.

Asking a women’s rights activist to endorse a gender-specific product was, to say the least, a mistake. As one would expect, DeGeneres turned the offer down, but she also mocked the brand during an October taping of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show.”

“The worst part is they don’t come with any instructions, so how do they expect us to learn how to write with them?” DeGeneres asked. “I had a man read the back of the package to me, and it said it’s designed to fit a woman’s hand … [which] means when we’re taking down dictation from our bosses, we’ll be comfortable and [we] will forget we’re not being paid as much.”

She also asserted that “they’re just like regular pens except they’re pink, so they cost twice as much,” which isn’t a stretch from the way women’s products are typically priced.

According to a January 2010 Consumer Reports study, everyday products marketed to women, such as shaving cream, antiperspirant and pain relievers, cost an average 50 percent more than the same products aimed at men. Markups for labeling singles women out
and reinforces the stereotypes surrounding femininity.

While Bic is the latest company to shamelessly refocus marketing to women, it’s not the only one. Items traditionally thought to be more masculine, such as tool kits, guns and even beer now have pink hues and flowery labels to attract female shoppers.

Pandering to the “girls only” mentality may be an easy way for advertisers to make a quick buck, but it comes at the expense of a decades-long fight for gender equality. Gender-specific products instill in girls’ minds dangerously that they should behave and be treated differently because of their gender.

The pen is, in fact, mightier than the sword, and Bic should keep that in mind.

Fact checkers abound in the 2012 presidential election, and they are casting new light on polls and political statements in an effort to properly inform the public.

Michael Scott Fischer | THE CHRONICLE

According to Bill Adair, editor of the fact-checking website PolitiFact.org, verifying facts has become crucial in this year’s election because of the vast amount of available information.

“People are getting more information from different sources more than ever,” Adair said. “[Fact checkers] play an important role in telling [voters] what is true and what’s not.”

Adair said it is key that voters hold politicians accountable for their mistakes, which is why fact-checking services have been popular during this campaign season. Websites such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.org and ABCNews.com have emerged as leading fact checkers, he said.

“I think it’s good [that] people [not only] review the work of politicians, but review the work of fact checkers and hold us accountable as well,” Adair said.

Real-time fact checking has also gained popularity, especially during the presidential debates. As the candidates speak, fact checkers research their points and reveal the inaccuracies online minutes later.

Poll interpreters, who examine electoral polls to determine if they unfairly favor a certain candidate, have also gained prominence in this year’s election.

According to Dean Chambers, creator of UnskewedPolls.com, a website that examines polls from multiple sources to accurately predict election results, many polls are unfairly biased toward a specific political party.

“Media outlets simply use skewed polls to create an illusion that one candidate is doing much better than he really is,” said Chambers, who is a well-known Conservative Republican blogger. “The pollsters do the skewing by [selecting] what kind of sample they gather or how they weigh the sample they gather.”

The polls in this election are more distorted than in previous elections, according to Brooks Jackson, director of FactCheck.org. He explained that fact checkers counteract such baises by including links to their sources in their reporting, making them more reliable than typical news outlets that do not always provide explicit source information.

“You don’t have to take our word for it,” Jackson said. “You can look at our footnotes and our links. It’s clear where we get our information from.”

Jackson explained that it is customary for voters to frequent one news outlet that favors their preferred candidate. However, he said it is necessary to look to multiple sources for accurate election information.

Chambers agreed that viewers should look beyond the scope of news outlets that appear to highlight only one candidate. He said some networks, such as CNN and MSNBC, are becoming better about being less biased, but more transparency and objectivity is needed across the board.

He said numerous outlets have pegged President Barack Obama as having a clear advantage over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney throughout campaign season, but he believes slanted polls may have contributed to Obama’s overwhelming lead.

“By using skewed polls to show Obama leading by more than he was, [news organizations] deliberately created an illusion that he has more support among voters than he does, and that his re-election [is] inevitable,” Chambers said.

While fact checkers do their best to provide the public with accurate information, polls regarding the election should still be taken with a grain of salt, according to Jackson.

“Treat polls for what they are: an imperfect and sometimes inaccurate measure of how a vote might come out today, but not necessarily on Election Day,” Jackson said.