eggs ackley's blog

Despite budget cuts, ‘Air Blagojevich' gets spruced up

Bloomington Pantagraph

By Kurt Erickson

Friday, August 31, 2007
 

SPRINGFIELD — One of the airplanes frequently used by Gov. Rod Blagojevich is in line for a $133,900 makeover. Included in the taxpayer-funded upgrades to the state-owned Beechcraft King Air 350 are new leather seat covers, new carpeting and new leather interior sidewalls with blue and maroon accent stripes. The contract also calls for a new sheepskin cover for the pilot’s seat and various other cosmetic interior and exterior upgrades. State lawmakers, who watched last week as Blagojevich slashed money for projects and programs in their home districts, questioned the expense.

“Meals on Wheels could feed a lot of people for what it would cost to paint that airplane,” said state Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, whose district lost about $650,000 in funding for social service programs because of Blagojevich’s cuts. Among them was $20,000 to help deliver meals to seniors in Williamson County. 

Mike Claffey, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Transportation, said Thursday the agency believes the makeover would be a wise investment for a plane that is more than a decade old. “That’s the kind of preventive maintenance that extends the life of the aircraft. It will save money in the long run,” said Claffey. The nine-seat turboprop is the oldest in the state’s fleet of four King Airs. It is used primarily to shuttle top state officials between the state Capitol and Chicago. Claffey said the carpet and upholstery in the plane is “a little frayed around the edges.”

An Associated Press analysis found the governor has used the airplane at least 98 times since taking office in 2003. The state’s planes have been in the news this year because of questions about the cost of Blagojevich’s frequent trips between Chicago and Springfield. During a short span in late May and early June, records show his flights cost taxpayers more than $51,000. This week, he has used the state plane to travel between Chicago and Southern Illinois, where he is attending the Du Quoin State Fair. After spending the early part of the week at the fair, Blagojevich returned to Chicago on a state plane for a press conference Thursday. He is expected to fly back south today for a party on the fairgrounds.

State Rep. Bill Mitchell, R-Forsyth, is opposed to spending money on the makeover. “We just need to be a little more frugal,” Mitchell said, adding that the cost of the governor’s flights have made his constituents angry. “It certainly strikes a chord with people in central Illinois,” Mitchell said.

IDOT had hoped to have the makeover completed by the end of August. But, because of the budget impasse, the work didn’t get under way because the state couldn’t pay for the job. Documents released earlier this month show that transportation officials have now given the Arkansas-based contractor until November to complete the upgrades. Claffey said there is no timetable for making a decision on whether to go forward with the work.

“It needs to be done. Whether we are going to be able to afford to do it in the near term, we don’t know. Money is tight,” said Claffey. In addition to the airplanes, the state also operates two Sikorsky S-76 six-seat helicopters and several single-engine Cessna airplanes.

From Senate Republican Leader Frank Watson's email newsletter, Capitol Connection - 8-28-07:

Governor Blagojevich, known for avoiding Springfield whenever possible, apparently decided to spend some time at the Du Quoin State Fair.

But, aside from venturing out to sign utility rate legislation on Tuesday, fairgoers might have had a hard time knowing the Governor was in town.

According to the Southern Illinoisan , Blagojevich was at the Fair on Sunday but “spent the day out of public view, poolside early in the afternoon and then indoors at the state-owned Hayes mansion, which is gated off from the public at the center of the fairground.

“The Governor's Day inside the mansion came a day after a party held at a neighboring mansion inside the same compound attended by about 200 local government leaders from across the state,” the newspaper reported.

“Access to the compound was blocked by State Police while members of the governor's security team from Chicago and Springfield occasionally circled the perimeter on golf carts.

“One woman who identified herself only as a state employee said on her way out of the compound that she was instructed not to talk to the press. Another person inside the gates wearing serving attire said she could not say what she was doing there and was also told not to speak to any media.”

London, Aug. 23: 'The Rolling Stones' duo, Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood, escaped penalty for smoking cigarettes on stage during the band's gig in London on Tuesday, for none of the fans complained against them.

The guitarists repeatedly lit up cigarettes during the show at O2 arena, their first on the home soil ever since the law banning smoking in public places came into effect. Greenwich Borough Council said that it was powerless to take any action against the rock stars in the lack of a complaint against them.

"We have received no complaints from members of the public," British tabloid The Sun quoted an official as saying.

It was one of the three concerts marking the finale of the band's Bigger Bang world tour. A member of the audience revealed that Richards, 63, and Wood, 60, played most of the set with trademark cigs dangling from their lips.

"Ronnie played with a fag hanging out of his mouth as usual. Meanwhile Keith lit up time after time. They may be older but I guess their sense of rebellion is still there," said Fan Tony Harrison, who travelled to the gig from his home in Southampton.

RIGHT ON.

Quite well put.

The New Temperance

By Tom Robotham
Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2007

Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs

Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind

Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign

- Arthur Thomas

In his book The New Temperance, published in 1997, author David Wagner observed that "the last decades of the 20th century may well be remembered as a time when personal behavior and character flaws dominated the American mind." News reports on the deaths of Jerry Garcia and Mickey Mantle, he noted, were "exercises in moral diagnosis," while a steady stream of public service announcements urged us to "just say no to drugs, cigarette smoking, fatty foods," and other "vices."

I see no indication that this new temperance movement has abated. You can see examples of it, locally, in Virginia Beach’s no-cursing signs and in Norfolk’s revived effort to ban smoking citywide in bars and restaurants.

When I brought this up with a friend last week, he immediately challenged me, arguing that the smoking ban is different. It’s a public health issue, pure and simple, he said.

I can see his point. One indication that banning smoking in bars and restaurants is not primarily an expression of the moralistic impulse of our own Puritan heritage is that the same ban has already taken hold in Ireland, among other places. The official rationale for this ban is that non-smokers—especially bartenders, waitstaff and musicians, who can’t easily pick up and go to another bar—need to be protected from secondhand smoke.

And yet, as I observe the growing disdain toward smokers, I can’t help thinking about a book I read in graduate school called Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance, by Kai T. Erikson. The main argument of the book is that societies need to identify certain behaviors as unacceptable, not simply because those behaviors are intrinsically bad but because doing so makes the mainstream society more cohesive and make us feel better about ourselves. If we somehow managed to wipe out all behavior that is currently considered dangerous, whether physically or to our moral fiber, Erikson suggests, we would have to create a whole new set of unacceptable activities.

It’s important to bear this in mind as we talk about a citywide smoking ban in bars and restaurants, not only because it’s a good idea to take all motives into account when considering public policies and private actions alike, but because laws have long-term consequences beyond their immediate impact.

The long-term consequences of the smoking ban, supporters argue, will be a reduction in lung disease and the creation of more pleasant social environments. Indeed, my friend, who is a musician, said he objects to playing in smoky bars not only because of the potential threat to his health but because such places are simply obnoxious. "When I go home," he told me, "I have to shower before going to bed because I can’t sleep with the smell, and I have to air out my guitar cases outdoors."

Fair enough. But another potential long-term consequence of any law is that it may someday be used as a precedent for more restrictions. When we’re talking about restrictions on personal behavior, such precedent setting can be alarming. Is it not possible, for example, that we might see a day when cigarette and cigar smoking would be outlawed in private homes where children are present, on the grounds that smoking around kids constitutes child abuse?

That would never happen, my friend argued.

But I’m not so sure. I reminded him that in the early 1960s—after the dangers of smoking had already been clearly identified and warning labels on packs had become mandatory—anyone would have been laughed out of the room if they worried aloud that smoking might someday be banned in pubs—in places like Dublin, no less. You’re just being paranoid, would have been the response.

My friend argued that if he had his way, tobacco would be outlawed in the same way that other recreational drugs are. But if you ask me, we have too many laws regulating personal behavior already. We should have learned our lesson from Prohibition, but we didn’t. Raising the drinking age to 21 did nothing to minimize the problem of binge drinking among teenagers and college students. If anything, it aggravated the problem, by heightening its appeal as a forbidden activity and by forcing teens to learn to drink in parked cars, wooded areas, alleys and basements when the parents are away.

I’m also ambivalent about helmet and seatbelt laws. I’ve been routinely buckling my seatbelt ever since I learned to drive, not because it was the law (it wasn’t, back then) but simply because someone told me it was a good idea. It was common sense. But if I choose not to do so, shouldn’t that be my prerogative?

Ditto, when it comes to riding a motorcycle without a helmet. And certainly a bicycle. Which brings me back full circle to the moralistic impulse associated with the regulation of personal behavior, whether that regulation comes through laws or just social pressure. When I ride my bike to work, I rarely wear a helmet. There’s risk, I know. But having grown up in an era when bicycle helmets didn’t even exist, I view the risk as minimal.

That this should be my personal decision seems to have been lost on many people. On at least a dozen occasions, I’ve been lectured by acquaintances about the danger of not wearing a bicycle helmet.

The trouble with their argument is not that they are wrong, per se. It’s that all of these efforts aimed at public health and safety are somewhat arbitrary. Indeed, if we were really concerned about minimizing deaths and injuries in car accidents, for example, we wouldn’t focus on seatbelt laws. We’d tear down highways and build massive new rail networks for passengers and freight.

Likewise, if we’re talking about child safety, why stop at helmets for bicyclists and skateboards? Why not start a campaign to encourage surfers, for example, to wear helmets, neck braces and other protective gear?

I know, I know: This is probably coming off like a hysterical, paranoid rant. But again, if you look at these questions in the context of history, they’re not that far-fetched. The fact that a cigarette ban in Irish pubs would have sounded utterly absurd if floated in conversation in 1965 underscores my point. So does the fact that a child clad in all the latest safety gear would look like some diminutive space alien if he somehow managed to travel back in time to the 1960s or ‘70s. Undoubtedly, he would be safer than my friends and I if he joined us for a spin around the neighborhood. But where’s the tradeoff? Where’s the sense of childhood freedom when you’re layered with helmets and knee pads and all manner of other things?

Where, for that matter, does our adult sense of freedom go when we’re denied a succession of things that were once considered small pleasures but are now considered unacceptable vices? I don’t smoke cigarettes, as a rule. I enjoy a couple of cigars a week. But this is not about my habits. It’s about my ability, and yours, to decide that certain pleasures are worth the risks associated with them. The proposed smoking ban won’t take that right away. But it seems to me that if this trend toward regulation continues, we may one day live in a society that is exceedingly safe and healthy but is so joyless it’ll make the Puritans look like the case of Animal House by comparison. •

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Think you'd get more signatures in Champaign or Urbana?

(AP) HARRISBURG, Pa. Senators have carved loopholes into legislation to ban smoking in many public and work places in Pennsylvania. After two hours of debate, they voted 29-to-21 to insert partial or complete exemptions for slot-machine parlors, private clubs, bars and cigar bars. That vote sets up the newly changed bill for a final vote as early as Tuesday. Debate on the bill revolved around protecting public health versus preserving individual liberties. Opponents of the exemptions criticized them as watering down the legislation. It would also upend the smoking ban put in place last year in Philadelphia, which banned smoking in casinos, restaurants and most bars.

Maybe they noticed how well Champaign's system is working. Hopefully it's a trend.

Smoking ban leads to environmental row over pub heaters

Wednesday June 20 2007

If environmental campaigners have their way, smokers may not simply be banished from bars and pubs once the government's anti-smoking legislation kicks in on July 1; they'll be freezing cold too.

by Nick Morgan

The problem - as demonstrated by the Scots who already have a smoking ban in place - is that pubs naturally want to retain their smoking customers. So they've bought up patio heaters in abundance to keep the smokers warm while they get their nicotine fix.

But new research by British Gas found that the heaters could end up damaging the environment more than gas-guzzling 4x4s. According to their figures, a commercial gas-fired patio heater can emit almost 4 tonnes of CO2 a year. That's two-thirds of the six tonnes of CO2 emitted by the average household.

Furthermore British Gas reckons that patio heaters in Scottish pubs emit up to 10,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, with the average heater emitting more CO2 in a year than a Range Rover. They calculate that the figure could rocket to 160,000 tonnes of CO2 once English pubs follow suit. That's almost 10% of the annual reduction the UK needs to meet its Kyoto commitments by 2012.

“We're working hard to help homeowners reduce their carbon footprint by cutting down on wasted energy,” said British Gas Energy Efficiency manager, Jon Kimber. “There has been a real step change in people's concerns about reducing their impact on the environment and it's worrying to see these efforts cancelled out by a sudden boom in patio heater sales.”

British Gas surveyed 250 pubs in Scotland, where the ban on smoking has been in place for nearly a year, and found that half had purchased a patio heater for customers, with many others also considering buying one. This concern has led to Friends of the Earth calling for an all out ban on the sale of patio heaters.

"Patio heaters waste energy and inflict unnecessary damage on the environment,” said Friends of the Earth Director, Tony Juniper. “UK carbon dioxide emissions are rising, despite Government promises of substantial cuts. Ministers must do more to get their climate strategy back on track. It's time to ban the sale of these metal monstrosities."

A smattering of retailers has heeded the call. Leading garden chain Wyevale has announced it is to stop selling patio heaters, while garden centre chain Notcutts said they will follow suit and "have now elected to sell through current stocks of Gas and Electric Patio heaters and not to stock in the future".

Does this mean smokers will freeze? Perhaps not. British Gas has some solutions for pubs who want to remain environmentally friendly without risking frostbite for their smoking customers. It recommends wood-burning chimeneas or braziers, which offer a carbon neutral way to keep warm outdoors; or electric heaters, which emit less CO2 but give off more focused heat.

Ben Tuxworth, Communications Director at Forum for the Future, offered a rather different solution.

“It's pretty sad that keeping warm while you have a cigarette is more important than tackling climate change, especially in a country familiar with simpler remedies to chilly evenings, such as the woolly jumper!” he said. “Surely these pubs could save money by scrapping the patio heaters and offering free pints to people who give up smoking.”

RALEIGH, NC—The ever-embattled tobacco industry suffered another blow Monday, as citizens' groups challenged the major smokeless-tobacco companies to confront the quality-of-life issues associated with secondhand spit.

From the Bloomington Pantagraph

SPRINGFIELD -- Supporters of a statewide smoking ban say it will save taxpayers money by reducing health care costs in Illinois. But at least one economist says that notion holds as much weight as a flicked ash. Patrick Fleenor, chief economist at the Tax Foundation, a Washington-based educational group, said the state won’t save money and will most certainly lose it if fewer people buy cigarettes. "That’s nonsense," he said of the supposed health care savings. ’’And the reason that it’s nonsense is that smokers more than pay their way.’’

Fleenor said the state will undoubtedly lose money because of the ban and a recent study by the Illinois Department of Revenue appears to back that up. The state tax on cigarettes is 98-cents per pack and, according to state officials, Illinois collected $636 million in cigarette taxes last year. If signed into law, the department estimated that the state can expect the ban to take a $30 million bite out of that.

The total vote in both houses for SB500, Smoke Free Illinois was 107 Yes, 65 No.

North of I-80 the vote was 99 Yes, 23 No.

South of I-80 the vote was 8 Yes, 42 No.

The controversial decision, the first of its kind in the 210-year history of U.S. representative government, was, according to Justice David Souter, "a response to the clear, demonstrable incompetence and indifference of the current U.S. citizenry in matters concerning the operation of this nation's government."

As a result of the ruling, the American people will no longer retain the power to choose their own federal, state and local officials or vote on matters of concern to the public.

The lone dissenting vote came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, in his minority opinion wrote, "Although the American people are clearly unable to make responsible decisions at this time, it is not their fault that they are so uninformed. Rather, the blame lies with the media interests and corporate powers that intentionally keep them in the dark on crucial issues."

There's a poll on WHMS right now, "Following the recent election, should the Champaign City Council re-consider exempting bars from a smoking ban?"

Looks like the antis are voting in droves.

Whereas, it has been determined as law in this state that it is a crime to knowingly emit any airborne carcinogens in any private business establishment that invites the public to enter, we have established these mandatory procedures to comply with required health standards, and no exceptions will be made.

No Smoking will be allowed within 500 feet of this establishment!

Upon entering, guests will be required to completely disrobe and check all clothing articles, shoes and personal effects which will be retained in our "clean room" holding area during their dining experience. Items will be returned to our guests upon departure. (All clothing emits carcinogens from new textile chemicals, dry cleaning and fabric softeners.)

Guests will also be required to pass though our disinfectant showers to remove any carcinogenic traces of perfume, after shave lotion, skin cream, hairspray or other chemicals.

Guests will find that we have now removed all carpeting and upholstery in our dining and bar areas to eliminate dust mite threats. You will now be dining in plastic protected splendor. Note: We will no longer be decorating your table with candles.

Whereas, it has been determined by law that coffee, butter, salad dressing and desserts are unhealthy and unnecessary for a balanced diet; these items will no longer be available on our menu. (Guests will also be required to sign a waiver before they will be served any water, to protect this establishment from any future prosecution, as it has also been determined that water contains a vast number of carcinogens. We cannot be responsible for the health of those guests still desiring to consume water.)

Any and all alcoholic beverages will be pre-mixed in our special clean room before serving and hermetically sealed to eliminate any evaporation of ethyl alcohol into our sterile environment. Imbibing alcoholic beverages will only be allowed by using the special self sealing straws we provide with our sealed containers.

Whereas, the serving of undercooked meat is now illegal and current laws have abolished any open cooking or flame-required preparation (including grilling, frying or broiling), our entrees will now all be prepared by boiling or slow cooking and will be only served well done.

Whereas, the only form of credit or payment currently allowed by law is your National Identification Card, our guests will have their dinner checks charged to their twenty-four (24) digit National Debit Card. upon leaving. Please note: A disinfectant service charge of forty percent (40%) and a service tip of twenty percent (20%) will be added to your check before the final total is determined.

We hope you will enjoy your new dining experience and return soon. - The Management

Tom Kacich has a column in the 03-28-2007 News-Gazette with the above title. I can't do a direct link, because the N-G doesn't print his column online. Go read it. Here are a few excerpts:

Rocky Ryan last week used the sign outside his bar and restaurant to deliver a not-so-subtle reminder to the non-smokers in Champaign-Urbana, the ones who pledged to come out often once the smoking ban went into effect: "Nonsmokers/You promised/Get in here" "I haven't seen them," said Ryan, who owns Rock's on Springfield Avenue in Champaign. "OK, I have seen a couple of them, ones who said they'd be here. But as for the rest, I absolutely have not seen it. They are not coming out."

"I'm getting some," said Paul Wirth, owner of the Iron Post in downtown Urbana. "But as far as a huge flood, nope." He remembers the promises he heard before the city council enacted the smoking ban."People would stick their head in and say, 'I sure wish you were non­smoking. We'd come in if you were." Wirth has had to make some signifi­cant changes to the Iron Post, includ­ing booking more bands for more shows and instituting a drink mini­mum ($5, which includes a cover charge plus a $2 coupon good toward the first drink) for some shows. But what he really misses are "the regulars," those customers who would come in almost every day, have a drink or two, have a few smokes and then head home."That's our bread and butter," Wirth said. "Everything I've read about no-smoking ordinances said the venues will do OK, the young and trendy clubs do OK, but it's the mom-and-pop places, the backbone of our society, who get hurt."

He's discovered that there is a mar­ket for no-smoking shows, and said he'd be happy to put some on. "But on weeknights, I need those regulars. Last Tuesday night, I did three dollars over three hours." Wirth said he wishes the city gov­ernments would leave the bar owners free to run their businesses as they please. "My catch phrase is that I didn't create this world where smoking and bars go hand in hand, but I'm sure liv­ing it," he said.

"What I hope is the people of Cham­paign give us a chance, because Urbana may or may not decide to go along with it," said Steve Campbell, owner of the Rose Bowl in downtown Urbana. "If they have a pro-business council after April and decide to mod­ify the ordinance and to exempt bars and service clubs, that ought to trick­le over to Urbana. If it doesn't, you can just close the bars in Urbana." Campbell said revenue at his 61-year-old business, which features live country and western music six nights a week, is off 40.3 percent so far this year. "We'll make it until the license renewal comes up on June 30, and then we'll re-examine the business and see what is the best course to take," he said. "They said, 'Your business will improve because all of the people who don't like smoke will come out and visit,"' Campbell said. "Well, those people were only on a crusade, and the Rose Bowl is not one of the places they would have come to, nor is it a place they will come to."

by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. The poem is paraphrased on the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, Massachusetts.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Vote for your rights on April 17.

Usually when a customer is unhappy with a business or it's employees, it doesn't make the local news unless something more serious is involved.

So now we have this situation last Saturday night which involved an anti-rights person (who obviously knew that as a high profile personality she would be walking into a hostile environment), and a pro-rights activist and it makes the front page of the News-Gazette. No matter which party is correct, this is a "he said" "she said" situation which cannot be judged or reported on objectively. I really have to side with Tom Sellers...you can't pay for a Class A liquor license and the associated expenses of operating a bar by running it as if it were a fast food place. It takes a lot of Sprite sales to make your daily nut. And again, this is private property, and the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone (but he didn't). And if someone doesn't like the service or environment they have every right not to patronize the business.

The CPPFT people still can't quite grasp that private property concept.

(EDITED by IP: Full text of article removed and replaced by link.)

Does this bother anyone else?

News-Gazette - 2/17/07

CHAMPAIGN – The C-U Smokefree Alliance intends to make retaining the local indoor smoking ban a key issue in Champaign's city council elections. The alliance sent a letter via certified mail on Feb. 9 to the nine primary candidates for the three at-large city council seats in Champaign, asking them to sign a statement of support for Champaign's Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. The statement indicates that the signer "will not weaken, reverse or repeal this ordinance" and would only support amendments that would strengthen the ban. Those who don't sign or return the pledge will be presumed to favor a total or partial repeal of the smoking ban, Hays said.

=========================================================

This reminds me of something I read in the history books, and I believe it involved late night knocks on doors and gulags.

Coalition to Protect People From Themselves busibody Scott Hays states,  "My take on this is, it's about toxic environments in public places," Hays said. "It's a public health issue."

But Ken Pirok, the swing vote on the council, differs with Hays. "We didn't want to be forced to inhale smoke while we were eating.  We didn't want to go home smelling like a chimney after visiting local bars. (Notice that I'm not mentioning anything about the health effects of smoking.  Any who considered the health factor was only primarily worried about the effect on non-smokers.)

So what is it? A health issue, or a stink issue? In any case, the CPPFT's requirement of a pledge on the part of council candidates does stink. I would encourage all city council candidates to sign the pledge. Then after they are elected, say they changed their mind. Sort of like Ken Pirok.

• "Dwarf-tossing," the strange practice of hurling dwarfs in padded suits, is outlawed in the bars of Springfield, Ill., because it's dangerous and exploitative. The practice is apparently allowed elsewhere in town, with a special permit.
• An Illinois state law requires that a man's female companion shall call him "master" while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples.
• Champaign: One may not pee in his neighbor's mouth.
• Chicago: Law forbids eating in a place that is on fire; It is illegal to give a dog whiskey; Kites may not be flown within the city limits; Spitting is forbidden
• Cicero: Humming on public streets is prohibited on Sundays.
• Crete: It is considered an offense to attempt to have sex with one's dog; Cars may not be driven through the town.
• Evanston: Bowling is forbidden; It is illegal to go trick-or-treating on Halloween; It is unlawful to change clothes in an automobile with the curtains drawn, except in case of fire.
• Freeport: It is illegal to expectorate from any second-story window.
• Galesburg: There is a $1,000 dollar fine for beating rats with baseball bats.
• If the Rushville, Ill., city council doesn't have a quorum, those sent can have the cops go out and arrest absent members and bring them to the meeting.
• In Chicago it is also illegal to take a French poodle to the opera, and for women over 200 pounds (90 kilos) to ride horses in shorts.
• In Chicago, Illinois, it is illegal to fish in pajamas.
• In Chicago, people who are diseased, maimed, mutilated, or "otherwise an unsightly or disgusting object" are banned from going out in public.
• In Minoola, Ill., it's illegal to take your clothes off and "expose the naked
• In Oblong, Illinois, it's punishable by law to make love while hunting or fishing on your wedding day.
• In Zion, Ill., it is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals kept as pets.
• It is against the law for a monster to enter the corporate limits of Urbana, Illinois.
• It is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animal kept as pets.
• It is illegal to give a dog whiskey.
• It is legal to protest naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits.
• It's not clear what this has done to the bar business, but a law in Chicago, Ill., makes it illegal to serve liquor to the feeble-minded.
• Kenilworth: A rooster must step back three hundred feet from any residence if he wishes to crow; Hens that wish to cackle must step two hundred feet back from any residence.
• Kirkland: Bees are not allowed to fly over the village or through any of Kirkland's streets.
• Law forbids eating in a place that is on fire.
• Moline: Ice skating at the Riverside pond during the months of June and August is prohibited; There is a ban on unnecessary repetitive driving on 23rd Avenue.
• Morton Grove: You may not own a handgun
• Normal: It is against the law to make faces at dogs.
• Orland Park: No pool tables are allowed in a public establishment, because it supports gambling.
• Ottawa: Spitting on the sidewalk is a criminal offense.
• Park Ridge: Trucks may only park inside closed garages.
• Peoria: Basketball hoops may not be installed on a driveway.
• Pullman: It is illegal to drink beer out of a bucket while sitting on the curb; It is forbidden to fish while sitting on a giraffe's neck; It is legal to protest naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits.
• The people in Manteno, Ill., do not want used facial tissue, period. Hence, you cannot "throw, drop or place" a used hankie "upon any public way or public place or upon the floor of any convenience or upon the floor of any theater, hall or assembly or public building or upon the surface or any lot or parcel of ground or on the roof on any building or in any light or air shaft, court or areaway."• Under a 1872 law still on the books, an alderman in Chicago can carry a gun. Some do.
• You may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.
• You may be convicted of a Class 4 felony offense, punishable by up to three years in state prison, for the crime of "eavesdropping" on your own conversation. -720 ILCS 5/14-2.

Someone was posting about this on the Pirok thread, so have at it.