Adopt a Highway plan goes off track

[southsider2k5]

As Illinois politicians wheedle for an income tax increase to help grow the government payroll, a reader of this column, Scott Broehl, wrote me a letter.

 

His was a fascinating story about how government works, or doesn't.

 

It involves the Illinois Adopt A Highway program, one of the million--or is that 10 million?--government programs. This involves a road in Arlington Heights and a group that should be barred from adopting anything, even a chunk of asphalt.

 

"I couldn't believe it," Broehl, a retired homicide detective, told me Wednesday. "All these politicians are grandstanding. They grandstand on everything. But then this happens.

 

"So the other day I'm out there on Golf Road and I see the Adopt A Highway sign. It's a state sign. And I see the name of the group that adopted the highway. They let these people adopt highways? It's sick. So I took a photograph and sent it to you."

 

Until we started asking questions about the Adopt A Highway program, this is how it worked: You applied to the Illinois Department of Transportation, it gave you a stretch of highway to clean up as a highway volunteer and provided plastic litter bags for cleanup and safety vests.

 

In exchange, the adopters received recognition in the form of a state highway sign, planted right there on their adopted 2-mile chunk of highway, for all drivers to see. There were more than 10,200 individuals in about 1,700 various groups having adopted around 3,400 miles of highway.

 

"That's all changed now. We're suspending the program and we're going to have to study this," said Tim Martin, the director of IDOT. "I can't believe it either. I'm sick about it. I can tell you I lost my cool. I have a temper. And I don't think the governor will be pleased, either."

 

Here's what was on the sign photographed by Scott Broehl.

 

First, there was the IDOT logo, and "ADOPT A HIGHWAY" in big letters. Then the name of a fellow named Kevin. I'm withholding the last name because we couldn't reach him. Given what the organization under his name stands for, I think you'll understand.

 

The name of the organization that adopted the highway was also in big letters. Here it is.

 

"NAMBLA INC."

 

Then it said, "KEEP ILLINOIS CLEAN."

 

Seeing the NAMBLA name up there irritated Broehl. He served on police departments in the northwest suburbs until he left to become a homicide detective in Atlanta. Cops know what it stands for.

 

NAMBLA stands for the North American Man-Boy Love Association. According to news articles and the group's Web site, it advocates changing those old-fashioned laws about sex with minors, including very young kids. It advocates pedophilia.

 

The only time pedophiles should be cleaning highways is when they are accompanied by prison guards and wearing leg-irons and bright orange uniforms. Pedophiles should never be released from prison. They can't be rehabilitated. There's something inside them beyond repair.

 

But there they were on the highway--NAMBLA and KEEP ILLINOIS CLEAN.

 

"Our politicians all jumped to get publicity on that registered sex-offender law," Broehl said, "even if the list includes some kid who was 17 and had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend after school, he's a sex offender. The politicians were all over it. But NAMBLA gets to adopt a highway. Fantastic."

 

A call to IDOT had the usual effect, involving suspicion, paranoia and general agita. There's a reason for that. Some of the IDOT guys know me from their City Hall days, when they worked for Anthony Pucillo, the boss of the city's Department of Transportation.

 

Department officials said that Martin erupted with much anger and yelling in a meeting on Wednesday, in which he ordered the sign removed, and for it never to be put up again upon severe penalty, which may include a left hook to the head, but definitely would include firing.

 

At an IDOT meeting, Martin said, one official told him that legally, NAMBLA might have the right to the sign, given a recent court case in Missouri in which the Ku Klux Klan retained its name on a similar adopt-a-highway sign on 1st Amendment grounds.

 

Martin called the official a lunatic and demanded a full review of the program. He also spoke in French to make himself perfectly clear.

 

"I've heard about the KKK in Missouri, but let me tell you, we won't have NAMBLA signs on Illinois highways," Martin told me. "They can sue. But there won't be any NAMBLA signs."

 

The state is investigating who exactly applied for the sign, whether it was NAMBLA or whether it was a prankster.

 

In its review, IDOT is going over all the signs and applications to determine if other offensive groups or names beautify the state highways, and to decide whether to kill the program outright. Martin promised to tell me if he finds any more offensive signs. But just in case he doesn't, and you see one, let me know

[Controlled Chaos]

SWOOSH...

 

Here comes the ACLU to NAMBLA's defense!!!!!!

[mreye]

They were talking about this yesterday on the radio. Morons! :headshake

[TheBigHurt35]

SWOOSH...

 

Here comes the ACLU to NAMBLA's defense!!!!!!

 

They're already defending them... pro bono, as well. :headshake

 

I like that we have an ACLU, but they do a horrible job of picking their fights.

[Controlled Chaos]

They're already defending them... pro bono, as well. :headshake

 

I like that we have an ACLU, but they do a horrible job of picking their fights.

yes...kinda why I made the comment

[FlaSoxxJim]

Like the KKK/Missouri scenario, I suspect NAMBLA would have a constitutional right to adopting the highway, although the individual who adopted the sign might not be able to do it in NAMBLA's name. I don't know.

 

But it is a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater and demonize the First Amendment and/or the UCLU if they took up the case. Protecting our constitutional freedoms is a good, right, and necessary thing, even if it means that it opens up loopholes for despicable entities like NAMBLA, the KKK, and the Christian Coalition to hide behind.

 

Edit: I made sure to green that last jab so you knew I was joking (mostly), PA.

Edited April 15, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[Controlled Chaos]

Like the KKK/Missouri scenario, I suspect NAMBLA would have a constitutional right to adopting the highway, although the individual who adopted the sign might not be able to do it in NAMBLA's name.  I don't know.

 

But it is a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater and demonize the First Amendment and/or the UCLU if they took up the case.  Protecting our constitutional freedoms is a good, right, and necessary thing, even if it means that it opens up loopholes for despicable entities like NAMBLA, the KKK, and the Christian Coalition to hide behind.

 

Edit:  I made sure to green that last jab so you knew I was joking (mostly), PA. 

 

Who's throwing the baby out with the bath water....I just think we should hide the baby so NAMBLA keeps their focking hands off!!!!!!

[FlaSoxxJim]

Who's throwing the baby out with the bath water....I just think we should hide the baby so NAMBLA keeps their focking hands off!!!!!!

Touche'

 

When these cases come up, it's very easy for the average person to see that an unsavory group is exploiting their constitutional protection in a way that most find disgusting. It is then equally easy to look scornfully on a group like the ACLU because of the 'battles they choose.' But if the issue comes down to defending constitutional protection, then I don't think the ACLU has much choice in how they would side in a case - even when they find a group as repulsive as the rest of us.

[TheBigHurt35]

But it is a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater and demonize the First Amendment and/or the UCLU if they took up the case.  Protecting our constitutional freedoms is a good, right, and necessary thing, even if it means that it opens up loopholes for despicable entities like NAMBLA, the KKK, and the Christian Coalition to hide behind.

 

Good point, Jim, but nobody's trying to demonize the First Ammendment. I agree that having an organization who defends our First Ammendment rights is a good thing, although I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers had the protection of organizations like NAMBLA in mind.

 

The problem that many people have with the ACLU is that they exercise absolutely zero discretion when it comes to choosing who to defend. Not only are they willing to defend NAMBLA, they're doing it for free. Do they think that our right to free speech that absolute? I'd be willing to argue "no," as I'd be seeing porn on my TV 24/7 if that were the case.

 

As an aside, I find it interesting that a "more liberal" government like Germany's flat-out banned the Nazi party. Yet, our government still allows the Klan (another oragnization that has not only committed numerous hate crimes, but also has a general philosophy based heavily on racial/religious hatred) to exist. Given our government's general hyper-sensitivity to the African-American constituency, I find this almost baffling.

 

I don't necessarily advocate a government ban on the Klan or NAMBLA, but just thought I'd bring up these points.

[Controlled Chaos]

Touche' 

 

When these cases come up, it's very easy for the average person to see that an unsavory group is exploiting their constitutional protection in a way that most find disgusting.  It is then equally easy to look scornfully on a group like the ACLU because of the 'battles they choose.'  But if the issue comes down to defending constitutional protection, then I don't think the ACLU has much choice in how they would side in a case - even when they find a group as repulsive as the rest of us.

 

 

Will the ACLU be there for the boys who have been molested by NAMBLA members? What about their rights?

 

If NAMBLA exists to advance the cause of adults having sex with minors, ESPECIALLY children under the age of sixteen, then I believe that their 1st Amendment right to the freedom of speech SHOULD be superceded by a child's ultimate right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....but I know thats not law and just a sensical opinion.

 

If I only I ruled the world!!

 

[Rex Kickass]

The problem is that the law here is pretty clear. It's an all or nothing thing if the state does it. As much as I don't want NAMBLA, NORML or the KKK or for that matter the 700 Club adopting highways in my town, if my state wants a program, I have to let them as long as the group meets the state guidelines for the program.

 

Equal rights and protections under the law do not disappear because you belong to an organization that 99+% of the public finds distasteful.

[TheBigHurt35]

The problem is that the law here is pretty clear. It's an all or nothing thing if the state does it. As much as I don't want NAMBLA, NORML or the KKK or for that matter the 700 Club adopting highways in my town, if my state wants a program, I have to let them as long as the group meets the state guidelines for the program.

 

Equal rights and protections under the law do not disappear because you belong to an organization that 99+% of the public finds distasteful.

 

Well, if that's the law, they have the right to do it until it's changed (which may happen as the result of this).

[Rex Kickass]

Anyone remember the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer adopted a highway? Instead of four narrow lanes, two luxurious wide lanes!

[Soxbadger]

The whole point of the ACLU is that they pick battles that most lawyers wont touch with a 10 foot poll. People have rights, no matter how disturbing their preferences are, they have rights that the govt can not infringe upon. The ACLU stands up for these people who may not be able to find representation. If this case was about a the Red Cross adopting a highway and some one saying that the Red Cross should not be able to, there would be lawyers lined up to take the case.

 

Its not the ACLU's fault, in fact it is their job to take these cases and to argue them to the best of their ability. They do not take cases that they know they can not win because they would be subject to censure or other punishment from the ARDC.

 

And Kramer's luxury lanes ruled.

 

SB

Edited April 15, 2005 by Soxbadger

[TheBigHurt35]

The whole point of the ACLU is that they pick battles that most lawyers wont touch with a 10 foot poll. People have rights, no matter how disturbing their preferences are, they have rights that the govt can not infringe upon.

 

The ACLU originally became involved with NAMBLA over their "right" to advocate child molestation on their web site. The First Ammendment doesn't specifically give NAMBLA the "right" to do this... it's a blanket statement that's open to interpretation in the courts. For example, you'll never find pornography on network television, despite what "rights" the First Ammendment guarantee.

 

Its not the ACLU's fault, in fact it is their job to take these cases and to argue them to the best of their ability.

 

Hell yeah, it's their fault. Nobody held a gun to the ACLU's collective head and forced them to defend NAMBLA. They chose to defend them.

[Texsox]

They're already defending them... pro bono, as well. :headshake

 

I like that we have an ACLU, but they do a horrible job of picking their fights.

 

Agreed.

 

When groups like the KKK, NAMBLA, and the John Birch society are allowed their constitutionally guaranteed rights, I know that we have not discriminated against anyone. By defending the least worthy among us, it guarantees everyone's rights. As despicable and wrong as this seems, it is part of our free society.

 

It is the gift we are trying to give the rest of the world, and wondering why they do not want it.

[Soxbadger]

Bighurt,

 

Rights are for everyone, not for those who we agree with. If I started a group advocating that 18 should be the legal age for drinking (Eighteen Say Yes to Drinking, ESYD) would IDOT prevent me from buying a sign that said "This road was adopted by ESYD" would that be illegal and should the govt say that I can not buy the sign.

 

People should be able to believe what they want, regardless of how sick the majority may view it. As long as they do not break the law, then the government should stay out of their lives.

 

SB