buratello

The House on Thursday passed a bill that would prevent advertisers from abruptly raising the volume to catch the attention of viewers wandering off when regular programming is interrupted.

The bill's House sponsor, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said it was her own "earsplitting experiences" that got her involved, recalling how the ads "blew us out of the house" when she watched television, already set at a high volume, with her late parents.

But she said her office also has gotten many messages of support and that at home people come up to her in restaurants and supermarkets to ask how the bill is doing.

"We can protect people from needlessly loud noise spikes that can actually harm their hearing," she said.

Under the legislation, now heading to President Barack Obama for his signature, the Federal Communications Commission would be required within one year to adopt industry standards that coordinate ad decibel levels to those of the regular program. The new regulations, applying to all broadcast providers, including cable and satellite, would go into effect a year after that.

"Every American has likely experienced the frustration of abrasively loud television commercials," the Senate sponsor of the bill, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said when the Senate approved it in September. "While this may be an effective way for ads to grab attention, it also adds unnecessary stress to the daily lives of many Americans."

"It's not like the consumer has any choices," said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America. "It's a case where it's very difficult for consumers to express their sovereignty."

The FCC has been receiving complaints from consumers since the 1960s about jarring sound bursts when commercials come on, but the commission currently does not regulate program or commercial volume. Instead, it reminds viewers that newer TVs come equipped with circuits designed to stabilize volume differences or advises people that one solution is still to make aggressive use of the mute button on the remote.

The legislation would force the industry to abide by its own recommendations for audio standards as devised a year ago by the Advanced Television Systems Committee, an organization of broadcasters.

Dick O'Brien, director of government relations at the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said his group supports the bill because "we fully understand that advertising works best when it engages consumers, not alienates them."

He said enforcing volume control guidelines already proposed by the industry "in itself should make the viewing experience of the American public a much more user-friendly one."

Eshoo said there will be a "noticeable difference" in noise levels once the law goes into effect. It's a small bill in the greater scheme of things, she said, but "it will bring relief to millions of television viewers."

Managing the transition poses some technical challenges because the shows and ads come from a variety of sources, and may require TV broadcasters to purchase new equipment.

The legislation does give the FCC authority to issue waivers to broadcasters for hardship or other reasons.

One reason commercials may sound louder is a sound compression technique in which the difference between loud and soft sounds is compressed. The result is that while the peak sound levels of commercials and programs may not differ, the average levels of commercials are higher.

The title of the bill is the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, or CALM Act.

Backers of California's ban on same-sex marriage moved Wednesday to disqualify the most liberal appeals court judge on the panel hearing the legal challenge to Proposition 8.

In court papers, sponsors of Proposition 8 asked 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt to disqualify himself because his wife, Ramona Ripston, is a former executive director of the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has been actively involved in trying to invalidate the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

"The facts of this case would plainly lead a reasonable person to conclude that Judge Reinhardt's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," wrote Charles Cooper, the lead attorney defending Proposition 8.

"His wife and the organization she leads have not only been active in seeking to redefine marriage in California and active in opposition to Proposition 8, but they have been active participants in this very lawsuit," Cooper said.

Reinhardt is part of a three-judge panel scheduled to hear arguments Monday in an appeal of a federal judge's ruling this summer striking down the ban on same-sex marriage because it violates the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian couples. Sponsors of Proposition 8 pressed the appeal without support from state officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, who have refused to defend the law.

The other two members of the panel are Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Judge N. Randy Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

The 79-year-old Reinhardt is by far the most high-profile and controversial member of the panel, and the move to disqualify him suggests that Proposition 8 backers are pushing to remove the influence of his liberal leanings from the legal equation.

A 1980 appointee of President Jimmy Carter, Reinhardt is known as the "lion of the left" for a long career marked by liberal rulings on everything from civil rights to the death penalty. Reinhardt has been unapologetic about his reputation, bemoaning in interviews what he considers a shift to the right in the judiciary under recent presidents.

But Proposition 8 backers did not use Reinhardt's background to argue for his disqualification. Instead, they cited the appearance of bias from his wife's affiliation with the ACLU and its staunch support for securing the right of same-sex couples to marry. In court papers, they cited other cases through the years in which Reinhardt has recused himself from cases involving the ACLU.

As of Wednesday night, lawyers for same-sex couples had not yet responded to the motion to remove Reinhardt from the case. The ACLU is not the lead legal group in the challenge to the law.

A bus burst into flames as it raced to an Israeli prison during a massive forest fire Thursday, killing dozens of prison guards participating in the rescue mission, officials said.

It was one of the deadliest accidents in the nation's history.

Fire officials said the blaze, which torched some 325 hectares, remained out of control as nightfall arrived.

"This is a disaster of unprecedented proportions," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. He said the government was using all means at its disposal to contain the blaze, and he appealed to Cyprus, Italy, Russia and Greece to provide backup.

Fire commissioner Shimon Romach told Israel Radio that the country didn't have enough planes or helicopters, and that the available aircraft had trouble working at night.

The fire in the northern Carmel region broke out around midday, prompting authorities to clear the area of hundreds of residents, as well as Palestinian inmates from the Damun prison.

A bus headed to the prison went up in flames. TV footage showed the charred skeleton of the bus, with several bodies lying on the ground. No inmates were reported injured.

Yaron Zamir, a spokesman for the national prison service, said the men were guards but did not work at the prison. Instead, they had raced from central Israel to assist in the rescue.

He called it a "difficult, sad and incomprehensible day."

Yoram Levy of the national fire service said the death toll from the fire was about 40, most of whom died in the bus accident. He said officials suspected the fire was caused by people burning garbage. Israel Radio reported that two firefighters were missing in a nearby farming community.

Eli Bin, a spokesman for the Mada rescue service, said just three people survived the bus crash, and all suffered severe burns.

Israel has experienced an exceptionally hot summer and has had little rain this autumn, allowing the blaze to quickly spread.

"There is a fire burning, and we are not in control of these areas," said Yona Yahav, mayor of the northern city of Haifa. "It's a sad day for the country."

The Illinois House has approved a measure to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

Tuesday evening, the House voted 61-52 to approve a proposal that offers legal recognition to same-sex couples in Illinois. The measure now goes to the state Senate. A Senate committee approved a separate civil union measure earlier Tuesday.

The bill is co-sponsored by openly gay state Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago).

Harris praised both sides of the debate for keeping the discussion on the House floor civil.

“I think we’ve seen the better part of ourselves today while discussing this issue,” Harris said.

Backers say civil unions are a simple matter of fairness. They would grant gay couples some of the same legal rights that come with marriage.

Opponents argue civil unions are just same-sex marriage by a different name. They say Illinois shouldn’t take any step in that direction.

Civil unions would provide legal recognition of gay couples and give them some of the same benefits automatically available to married couples – the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital and make decisions about their medical care, for instance. Backers consider it a matter of fundamental fairness.

Supporters say they’re close to having the 60 votes needed to pass the measure in the House. If it passes there, backers think the Senate quickly would follow suit and Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn would sign it into law.

“I do think this is the time for Illinois to do this,” Quinn said Monday. “This is a good way to show employers – big businesses all across the country – that Illinois treats everyone with tolerance.”

On Monday evening, the gay rights group Equality Illinois put out a bulletin asking for help in phone banking at its offices at 3318 N. Halsted St. Rick Garcia, the public policy director for the group, told ChicagoPride.com that supporters are “just a few votes away in the House for victory.”

Jacob Meister, the board chairman at The Civil Rights Agenda and a former U.S. Senate candidate, told ChicagoPride.com he is “feeling very good” about the odds the bill will pass. The group contacted more than 16,000 GLBT voters and allies, and Meister said they have made inroads in “swing and persuadable districts,” ChicagoPride.com reported.

Mayoral candidate Gery Chico also got involved, contacting state legislators to support the bill. Candidates Rahm Emanuel and Carol Moseley Braun have also spoken in favor of civil unions.

But critics argue that civil unions would amount to gay marriage under another name, and they are fighting hard to defeat the bill.

“They have a full-court press on, and we have a full-court press, too,” said David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute.

Smith said the Family Institute has made hundreds of thousands of automated calls to voters in recent months, urging them to contact their legislators. The group has sent bulletins on the subject to hundreds of Illinois churches, and Smith said he is lobbying lawmakers directly. Along with other conservative organizations, the institute is sending e-mails to everyone on its lists to call for action against civil unions.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Conference of Illinois is fighting the legislation, too. It’s urging Catholic churches across Illinois to speak out, said Executive Director Robert Gilligan, and bishops are contacting lawmakers to speak against the measure.

“Marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a legislature decides to do,” Francis Cardinal George said in a statement last week.

Even though the civil unions bill would not legalize same-sex marriage, George said in a news release that “the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage.”

The National Organization for Marriage has also been campaigning against the bill.

Opponents make several arguments against civil unions.

Some say it’s simply wrong. “It’s not legitimate for the government to recognize the relationship of homosexual partners or polygamous partners or incestuous partners,” Smith said.

They also warn the legislation could hurt religious institutions, even though its official name is the “Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.” The measure wouldn’t require churches to recognize civil unions or perform any kind of ceremony, opponents acknowledge, but they fear it would lead to other requirements, such as including same-sex couples in adoption programs run by religious groups or granting benefits to employees’ partners.

Opponents also see the measure as an attempt to change the definition of marriage. They note it says civil partners will have the same rights and responsibilities that Illinois grants to spouses, and that civil partners will be included in the legal definition of “spouse.”

But Garcia rejects the argument that civil unions are simply a form of gay marriage. He’s also trying to make sure the public knows that religious leaders aren’t uniformly against the measure. He says 25 ministers, nuns and rabbis who support civil unions will appear at a news conference Tuesday and will discuss a letter of support signed by some 300 other religious leaders.

In a notice on its website, the leaders at Equality Illinois said they are also “deeply disturbed” at claims by George that the bill will infringe on “religious liberty” by forcing religious organizations to recognize civil unions.

“The bill explicitly states that: ‘Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union,’” the notice said.

George said in his comments that the bill could force faith-based institutions to place adoptive children with same-sex couples, force Catholic parishes or social service agencies to provide services to couples in civil unions, or refuse to protect small employers that will not extend family benefits to employees with same-sex partners.

Garcia and Harris labeled all the opponents’ arguments scare tactics.

“I think it’s easier to instill fear in people than it is to instill hope,” Harris said.

They said even if civil unions are approved, Illinois law still would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Illinois civil unions would not be recognized in some states or by the federal government for tax purposes. Noting five states and the District of Columbia already offer civil unions, they dismissed fears it would interfere with religious institutions or affect marriage in any way.

“This is the right time to pass the civil unions bill,” Equality Illinois said. “Every single day, loving, committed same-sex couples across the entire State of Illinois are being denied nearly 650 protections that are otherwise available to married heterosexual couples….These are not protections that we take for granted.”