Illinois Editorial Roundup:

Here are excerpts of editorials that appeared recently in Illinois newspapers.

August 31, 2020

Chicago Tribune

When `peaceful protests' turn violent

Candid, passionate and even angry debate is an essential feature of a free and democratic society. The First Amendment establishes an inviolable space for Americans to express their views and to 'œpeaceably assemble.'ť Rallies, protests and marches are all protected by those guarantees.

What the Constitution doesn't protect is the right to intimidate or engage in violence against those with different views. Harassment, even if technically not against the law, is wrong and corrosive to discourse. When advocates stop trying to persuade and choose instead to bully, frighten and threaten political opponents, they are at war with the values that underlie their own freedoms. They aren't adding their voices, they're destroying the right of others to speak and act.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot has been the object of voluminous criticism for her handling of the protests and violence that erupted in the wake of George Floyd's killing. Activists have rallied at City Hall shouting demands for change. All that is part of what any mayor signs up for.

But when protesters began showing up in her Logan Square neighborhood, trying to reach her home, the Chicago Police Department had every justification for blocking them out. There's a difference between legitimate expression and targeted personal harassment aimed at the mayor and her family.

In what's becoming too common a scene across the country, militancy is crowding out vigorous advocacy. Many recent protests for racial justice have attracted anarchists eager to throw rocks and bottles, damage property, loot stores and even attack innocent bystanders. In Washington, D.C., Black Lives Matter protesters have encircled and shouted at random people dining outdoors at restaurants, demanding that they make gestures of support. After President Donald Trump's Thursday night convention speech, a hostile crowd surrounded Sen. Rand Paul and his wife as they left the White House, and police had to escort the couple to safety. Paul said he feared for his life.

Is this the 'œtolerance'ť we so often hear about and see on bumper stickers from liberals and progressives?

The right has its own bad actors. In a May rally against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home orders, demonstrators entered the state Capitol building carrying rifles and signs saying, 'œTyrants get the rope,'ť , and death threats against lawmakers were posted on social media.

In Kenosha, a former alderman put up a Facebook post urging fellow gun owners to bring their weapons to the city after it suffered riots, telling them: 'œThis is what the 2nd Amendment was written for. We are at war in Kenosha.'ť A 17-year-old Illinoisan, Kyle Rittenhouse, was charged with shooting three people, two fatally, during the rioting. And Black Lives Matter activists marching from Milwaukee to the nation's capital to protest police abuses encountered gun-wielding opponents and racial slurs; one was shot.

Developments like these raise the specter of even greater and more lethal violence around political demonstrations. Some people seem eager to get in someone's face - or to smash someone's face. The prospect of bloodshed hangs over every demonstration.

'œWe are sort of at the stage of polarization where there are more and more people who are seeking confrontation, where they are not simply satisfied with disagreeing with the other side or yelling at the other side, but they want to confront,'ť Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, told The Washington Post. 'œWe are not just a polarized society - we are increasingly a confrontational society now. 'ť

That trend badly undermines the entire debate over how to deal with racial inequities and other social ills. It deters reasonable people from participating in such events, giving more power to a small minority of bullies and vandals. It makes it harder for people to find areas of agreement and devise remedies that both sides can accept. It encourages people to see each other as irredeemable enemies. It fosters bitterness and despair. As a political weapon, violence and intimidation are nonsensical strategies. How many voters are likely to be persuaded to change their views by being shouted down or threatened?

Our city, state and nation have many problems that are fully deserving of the attention they are getting. But tactics aimed at injuring or scaring people will solve nothing and should be persecuted as much as the law allows. Civil, peaceful disagreement is indispensable to our system of democratic government. Now is the time to protect it.

___

August 29, 2020

The (Bloomington) Pantagraph

We must begin listening

We're helpless against violence, whether locally or in Wisconsin or somewhere else in the nation. Worse, no one has a promising plan or idea to stop us from showing our worst to one another.

But we can take action. We can listen to one another. The default reactions to violence lead to us yelling past one another. Only by listening -- however difficult that may be -- can we come to an agreement on potential solutions.

When history recalls this period of history, it will remember a time of immense change during which society was too shell-shocked to be willing or able to take a step back and see the full picture.

All confrontations fit into a simple routine. Circumstances end up similar to a morbid Mobius strip of incrimination, recrimination and despair. Who knows how it begins? Someone breaks a law, appears to have broken a law or just gives off something disliked by a person in authority. Sometimes the authority oversteps its bounds, sometimes the person in custody does something to get away or to harm someone. Reactions turn into overreactions and, this being the United States, there are plenty of guns to go along with the aggrieved party. Matters escalate.

By that time, no one's in the mood to step back and listen to anyone else.

Notice how in this example we've made no judgment of the innocence or guilt. That puts us in the middle of a situation where sides have definitely been chosen.

Who is correct? Law enforcement authorities have been dealing for months with complaints about some cities' uses of unnecessary force and public calls for their departments being 'œdefunded'ť along with the traditional stressful and dangerous parts of their jobs. This summer has seen a spike in brazen gun attacks. Including 'œgang-like'ť activities, if we're going to insist there are no gangs.

Then there's COVID-19. It is affecting all of us, leading to mental and physical health issues as well as employment, food and housing concerns.

When you feel like the future will only get worse, you're not going to be in the mood to listen.

So we break off into sides and protest in different colors, waving signs and hoping to both have our own voices heard and drown out those opposed to us.

Which is the exact definition of talking past one another.

No one wants to be the first to step back. Either they've been stepping back too long or they know if they step back, they'll be surrendering ground they feel they've earned.

This is the base of so many of our societal issues this summer, from bullets shot at innocent people to confrontations between law enforcement and citizens. We're so certain we're correct we can't imagine anyone would have reason to disagree.

When it comes to violence closer to home, we must cooperate. Too many news stories include information about a lack of cooperation from victims and witnesses in shootings. We're nothing without one another's help.

There's no easy answer, and we won't be welcoming a solution anytime soon. We can't even get to the point where we all agree on what the problems are.

___

August 28, 2020

The (Champaign) News-Gazette

One more thing

There are big problems and little ones - this is a little one.

But little irritants can seem bigger than they are when the sword of Damocles is hanging over one's head.

That's why this week's announcement from the Illinois Commerce Commission about 10-digit dialing stands out as another burr under the saddle of the beleaguered people of Illinois.

Here's the news straight from the horse's mouth.

'œThe Illinois Commerce Commission ... remind(s) residential and business customers served by the 217 area code to prepare for the introduction of the new 447 area code. The 447 area code will be added as an overlay to the region currently served by area code 217 to ensure a continuing supply of telephone numbers for the area. An overlay is the addition of another area code (447) to the same geographic region served by an existing area code (217). The ICC ordered an area-code overlay for the 217 area code on Aug. 15, 2006, to be implemented upon the exhaust of available unassigned 217 prefixes. An overlay does not require customers to change their existing area code or telephone number.'ť

Mandatory 10-digit dialing will begin on Feb. 27, 2021 - roughly six months from today - for all local calls made within the 217 area code.

In the interim, what's called a 'œpermissive dialing period'ť begins today - a transition period designed 'œto give consumers an adequate time to adjust to the changes.'ť

The idea, apparently, is that practice makes perfect, so it's time to start practicing dialing 10 digits, even if your number and the one you're calling have the same area code.

On March 27, 2021, 'œnew telephone lines or services may be assigned numbers using the new 447 area code.'ť

Who needs this? Well, everyone - if they wish to be able to remain in touch.

What matters most, however, is that it's unavoidable. There's no opting out.

People's numbers and area codes won't change. People will need to dial the area code to make a local call. People won't like it, but they'll get used to it.