2/25/07
This morning my wife and daughter were relating how clever the latest commercial for something called the “Wii” is. In the commercial, a couple of Japanese engineers personally deliver the Wii to an American home, much to the delight of a couple of old codgers who discover the delight of this latest video contraption which enables them to fritter away endless hours doing absolutely nothing of redeeming value. At the end of the commercial, the two “i”s in Wii bow to the “W,” or something like that, so the commercial manages to insult not only the few tatters that remain of American culture but also a venerable practice of Japanese culture.
Being the get along, go along guy that I am, I almost restrained myself from saying what I really felt about this latest video piffle. However, I could not hold it in any longer.
“Ah,” I said, “another shot of Novocain into the American mind!”
I did, however restrain myself from elaborating on my thoughts about the Wii. Fortunately, I have the Insightful Pontificator.
That’s just what America needs—another mind-numbing video game that turns our kids into zombies for hours, destroys their social skills, turning them into electronic hermits, and cripples any hope that they will somehow develop an appreciation for the written word. Why, who needs books? We have video games! Who needs other people, who needs to interact with the world? We have a virtual world of our own, in which we are the commanders, the lords of the manor, if you will!
This is yet another sign that our society, the America we knew, is going down the drain, and quickly. The worse (or maybe better, for xenophobes) news is that the rest of the world isn’t far behind us.
I am reminded of the classic 1960 film “The Time Machine” starring Rod Taylor and (very) loosely based on the H.G. Wells classic. In one (for me, the only) memorable scene, the hero of the film (Taylor) visits a future society and asks to see their libraries and their books. His host looks at him quizzically and replies “Books? Oh, yes, we have books.” The host then takes Taylor into a library filled with books. When Taylor goes to pick up a book, it crumbles because it has turned to dust from lack of use, as have all of its companions. If this movie were re-made today, one cast rest assured that there would be an infernal noise box (a television) in the background with a zombie kid playing a video game, perhaps a Wii, featuring his or her wreaking havoc on an entire society because it had somehow incurred his ill will.
The Insightful Pontificator
Sunday, February 25, 2007
"There's just no way to make ends meet!"
2/25/07
The kids asked at Mass this morning if we could stop for donuts on the way home. Why not? We don’t go that often and, unfortunately, our kids aren’t crazy about Mass, especially at our parish, which, one suspects, would be far happier had Vatican II never taken place, and so a little reward, maybe a bribe, might have been in order.
We stopped at Dunkin’ Donuts and got three donuts and two hot chocolates. The bill came to $5.51. My first thought, as a financial guy, was “Wow! This is a profitable business.” But my second thought was far more profound.
There are millions of Americans who stop at Dunkin’ Donuts or its equivalent every day for a donut or two and coffee. Say the typical bill is not $5.51, as ours was, but $3.00. Doubtless many of those millions of Americans are complaining about how they can’t make ends meet, how they have to put in outrageous hours, how both parents in a family simply must work to keep the family going. Why, there is no alternative! These aren’t people who indulge in luxuries! Indeed, they are making a huge sacrifice by forsaking Starbuck’s for Dunkin’ Donuts. Everyone stops for a donut and coffee, right?
The math is obvious to most. $3.00 a day is $66.00 per month (assuming that our financially distraught whiner stops only on work days, not every day). $66 month is $792 per year. Over 20 years, at a conservative 5% per year interest rate, that money would accumulate to $26,188. This is money that is being frittered away on nothing but empty calories.
“Empty calories!” our put upon subject would reply. “Why, I need my coffee in the morning. It is the very fuel behind my work! And who can drink coffee without a donut? I need my nutrition in the morning!” The answer to our subject’s argument about donuts and nutrition is easily answerable: empty calories, negative nutrition. On the coffee, what is wrong, one might ask, with making one’s own coffee? With even the most modest of coffeemakers currently available, it takes a few minutes at most and produces coffee at pennies per cup. The cost of the coffeemaker can be recouped within a week or two of its purchase. But rather than stoop to making his or her own coffees, our modern American hyper-consumer will mindlessly fritter away and whine about how tough it is to keep his or her financial head above water.
The Insightful Pontificator
The kids asked at Mass this morning if we could stop for donuts on the way home. Why not? We don’t go that often and, unfortunately, our kids aren’t crazy about Mass, especially at our parish, which, one suspects, would be far happier had Vatican II never taken place, and so a little reward, maybe a bribe, might have been in order.
We stopped at Dunkin’ Donuts and got three donuts and two hot chocolates. The bill came to $5.51. My first thought, as a financial guy, was “Wow! This is a profitable business.” But my second thought was far more profound.
There are millions of Americans who stop at Dunkin’ Donuts or its equivalent every day for a donut or two and coffee. Say the typical bill is not $5.51, as ours was, but $3.00. Doubtless many of those millions of Americans are complaining about how they can’t make ends meet, how they have to put in outrageous hours, how both parents in a family simply must work to keep the family going. Why, there is no alternative! These aren’t people who indulge in luxuries! Indeed, they are making a huge sacrifice by forsaking Starbuck’s for Dunkin’ Donuts. Everyone stops for a donut and coffee, right?
The math is obvious to most. $3.00 a day is $66.00 per month (assuming that our financially distraught whiner stops only on work days, not every day). $66 month is $792 per year. Over 20 years, at a conservative 5% per year interest rate, that money would accumulate to $26,188. This is money that is being frittered away on nothing but empty calories.
“Empty calories!” our put upon subject would reply. “Why, I need my coffee in the morning. It is the very fuel behind my work! And who can drink coffee without a donut? I need my nutrition in the morning!” The answer to our subject’s argument about donuts and nutrition is easily answerable: empty calories, negative nutrition. On the coffee, what is wrong, one might ask, with making one’s own coffee? With even the most modest of coffeemakers currently available, it takes a few minutes at most and produces coffee at pennies per cup. The cost of the coffeemaker can be recouped within a week or two of its purchase. But rather than stoop to making his or her own coffees, our modern American hyper-consumer will mindlessly fritter away and whine about how tough it is to keep his or her financial head above water.
The Insightful Pontificator
Sunday, February 18, 2007
A well-aimed Public Service Announcement
2/18/07
An interesting commercial aired on the Chicago all-news station this morning after “Face the Nation.” It was one of those public service commercials that one hears at times when no real advertising can be sold. Since I didn’t commit the PSA to memory, I can’t quote it, but it featured a child’s voice and it went something like this:
Don’t worry about me. I can make a peanut butter sandwich. I can scrounge around in the dumpster for dinner. I can watch my little brothers and sisters all weekend. I can sleep with a baseball bat next to the bed just in case there’s trouble.
After the pre-adolescent was done tugging at the listener’s heartstrings, one of the several announcers who do these types of ads came on to ask us listeners (again, not quoting, but I’m close):
If you go to jail, who will take care of your kids?
Perhaps because this is a question I have never contemplated, this question struck me as rather odd. Surely, this was a misplaced ad. The kind of low-lifes that have to consider their children’s accommodations should their parents become guests in maximum security public housing don’t seem like the type who would be listening to news radio, let alone to “Face the Nation.”
Then it hit me: This was perhaps the most ingeniously placed ad in the history of media.
Who, after all, wastes any portion of his Sunday morning on the callow codswallop that constitutes the content of shows like “Face the Nation” and “Meet the Press”? Well, yours truly and, since you are a visitor to this blog, probably you. But who else? Yes, that’s right: politicians. Even those Washington pols who piously proclaim their eternal fealty to church and the Good Book when campaigning in the Bible Belt wouldn’t dream of missing “Face the Nation” for something so ephemeral as a visit with the Lord. And where is this nation’s largest concentrated pool of potential felons? That’s right: in Washington among our public servants.
So the ad that I heard this morning was clearly and efficiently aimed. Yes, it would have been more to the point if, after the pre-pubescent had done his number on our emotions, the stock announcer had said something like:
If you have to do spend some time communing with nature in Oxford, Wisconsin, who will take care of your kids? Do you want your kids scrounging for discarded chocolate hazelnut biscotti (exceedingly chocolatey and nutty) behind Starbuck’s for his breakfast? Do you want your kid to have to watch his younger siblings because you will no longer be able to afford the live-in help and the feds provide no day care at their facilities? Do you want your kid having to sleep with a baseball bat next to his bed to fight off those enraged “business partners” whom you will no longer be able to buy off with yet another sweetheart deal? .
So think before you decide to shake down that defense contractor for a twenty year old Rolls Royce. And if it’s already too late for that, contact your local federal prosecutor and cut the best deal you can. It’s for the children.
Hmm...perhaps sometimes, especially when dealing with politicians and the corporations that support them, subtlety isn’t such a bad thing.
An interesting commercial aired on the Chicago all-news station this morning after “Face the Nation.” It was one of those public service commercials that one hears at times when no real advertising can be sold. Since I didn’t commit the PSA to memory, I can’t quote it, but it featured a child’s voice and it went something like this:
Don’t worry about me. I can make a peanut butter sandwich. I can scrounge around in the dumpster for dinner. I can watch my little brothers and sisters all weekend. I can sleep with a baseball bat next to the bed just in case there’s trouble.
After the pre-adolescent was done tugging at the listener’s heartstrings, one of the several announcers who do these types of ads came on to ask us listeners (again, not quoting, but I’m close):
If you go to jail, who will take care of your kids?
Perhaps because this is a question I have never contemplated, this question struck me as rather odd. Surely, this was a misplaced ad. The kind of low-lifes that have to consider their children’s accommodations should their parents become guests in maximum security public housing don’t seem like the type who would be listening to news radio, let alone to “Face the Nation.”
Then it hit me: This was perhaps the most ingeniously placed ad in the history of media.
Who, after all, wastes any portion of his Sunday morning on the callow codswallop that constitutes the content of shows like “Face the Nation” and “Meet the Press”? Well, yours truly and, since you are a visitor to this blog, probably you. But who else? Yes, that’s right: politicians. Even those Washington pols who piously proclaim their eternal fealty to church and the Good Book when campaigning in the Bible Belt wouldn’t dream of missing “Face the Nation” for something so ephemeral as a visit with the Lord. And where is this nation’s largest concentrated pool of potential felons? That’s right: in Washington among our public servants.
So the ad that I heard this morning was clearly and efficiently aimed. Yes, it would have been more to the point if, after the pre-pubescent had done his number on our emotions, the stock announcer had said something like:
If you have to do spend some time communing with nature in Oxford, Wisconsin, who will take care of your kids? Do you want your kids scrounging for discarded chocolate hazelnut biscotti (exceedingly chocolatey and nutty) behind Starbuck’s for his breakfast? Do you want your kid to have to watch his younger siblings because you will no longer be able to afford the live-in help and the feds provide no day care at their facilities? Do you want your kid having to sleep with a baseball bat next to his bed to fight off those enraged “business partners” whom you will no longer be able to buy off with yet another sweetheart deal? .
So think before you decide to shake down that defense contractor for a twenty year old Rolls Royce. And if it’s already too late for that, contact your local federal prosecutor and cut the best deal you can. It’s for the children.
Hmm...perhaps sometimes, especially when dealing with politicians and the corporations that support them, subtlety isn’t such a bad thing.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Car safety and the decline of our society
2/14/07
My wife and I were watching the idiot box the other evening when we were treated to a commercial touting the safety features of the Toyota Sienna, which is, by the way, a very fine vehicle. While discussing standard airbags, available stability control and the like, the ad showed a young mother who, while driving the car, turned around, taking her eyes COMPLETELY OFF THE ROAD to gaze adoringly at her toddler, supposedly safely ensconced in his (or her) safety seat properly positioned in the middle of the second row.
Do any of the highly paid executives at Toyota or any of its astronomically compensated ad agencies see the irony of featuring a careless, inattentive driver in an ad touting the SAFETY FEATURES of one of its vehicles?
Ads like this serve to reinforce the currently very popular American notion that the safety technology imbedded in our cars enables us to drive like COMPLETE IDIOTS. This is, of course, an alarming trend to old school curmudgeons like me who would counsel less reliance on whiz-bang safety technology and more usage of very basic, old-fashioned safety equipment which I formerly supposed was included with every car sold in this country. I speak specifically of turn signals. If turn signals were used every time the law supposedly requires, one marvels at the reduction in “accidents” that would ensue.
Note that I referred to turn signals as “safety equipment which I formerly supposed was included with every car sold in this country.” I used to labor under the silly notion that such signals were standard equipment on any car available in this country, or the world, for that matter. However, judging from the number of times I have actually seen these apparently mysterious gizmos in action, they must be very expensive options that few drivers choose to purchase. I can also only conclude that they are unavailable at any price on any SUV or crossover from an “upscale” brand.
I am also reminded of perhaps the cleverest bumper sticker I have ever seen. In general, I think bumper stickers are yet one more thing that distracts us from what should be our first priority when behind the wheel. No, I don’t speak of making that phone call or checking out the map on the navigation system. I speak of driving the car. But I digress. This particular bumper sticker is so clever that its use should be encouraged. It said:
“Forget World Peace. Envision Using Your Turn Signal.”
Besides turn signals, we should also apply the quaint faculty of common sense when we are driving our portable communication/dining/personal grooming/otherwise inanely communicating devices. However, counseling Americans to use their common sense is such an outdated notion that even I, out of a sense of courtesy or the unwillingness to be dismissed as a hopeless anachronism, occasionally refuse to buck the seemingly irresistible tide toward self-indulgence and irresponsibility as an inherent right.
The Insightful Pontificator
My wife and I were watching the idiot box the other evening when we were treated to a commercial touting the safety features of the Toyota Sienna, which is, by the way, a very fine vehicle. While discussing standard airbags, available stability control and the like, the ad showed a young mother who, while driving the car, turned around, taking her eyes COMPLETELY OFF THE ROAD to gaze adoringly at her toddler, supposedly safely ensconced in his (or her) safety seat properly positioned in the middle of the second row.
Do any of the highly paid executives at Toyota or any of its astronomically compensated ad agencies see the irony of featuring a careless, inattentive driver in an ad touting the SAFETY FEATURES of one of its vehicles?
Ads like this serve to reinforce the currently very popular American notion that the safety technology imbedded in our cars enables us to drive like COMPLETE IDIOTS. This is, of course, an alarming trend to old school curmudgeons like me who would counsel less reliance on whiz-bang safety technology and more usage of very basic, old-fashioned safety equipment which I formerly supposed was included with every car sold in this country. I speak specifically of turn signals. If turn signals were used every time the law supposedly requires, one marvels at the reduction in “accidents” that would ensue.
Note that I referred to turn signals as “safety equipment which I formerly supposed was included with every car sold in this country.” I used to labor under the silly notion that such signals were standard equipment on any car available in this country, or the world, for that matter. However, judging from the number of times I have actually seen these apparently mysterious gizmos in action, they must be very expensive options that few drivers choose to purchase. I can also only conclude that they are unavailable at any price on any SUV or crossover from an “upscale” brand.
I am also reminded of perhaps the cleverest bumper sticker I have ever seen. In general, I think bumper stickers are yet one more thing that distracts us from what should be our first priority when behind the wheel. No, I don’t speak of making that phone call or checking out the map on the navigation system. I speak of driving the car. But I digress. This particular bumper sticker is so clever that its use should be encouraged. It said:
“Forget World Peace. Envision Using Your Turn Signal.”
Besides turn signals, we should also apply the quaint faculty of common sense when we are driving our portable communication/dining/personal grooming/otherwise inanely communicating devices. However, counseling Americans to use their common sense is such an outdated notion that even I, out of a sense of courtesy or the unwillingness to be dismissed as a hopeless anachronism, occasionally refuse to buck the seemingly irresistible tide toward self-indulgence and irresponsibility as an inherent right.
The Insightful Pontificator
Chicago Mayoral Election in less than Two Weeks!
2/14/07
There will be an election for Mayor of Chicago within two weeks. I would wager that, even if you live in Chicago, you didn’t realize that unless you are a political junkie of the type that reads blogs like this one. So maybe you knew. But the average citizen, even the average citizen of Chicago, is blissfully unaware that Mayor Richard II is facing the voters for the sixth time on February 27.
Why the inattention to the mayor’s race in Chicago, the most political of cities? Simple. The outcome is as certain as snow in February in our fair city, and has been for months, if not years. Yes, there was talk by political neophyte reporters and self-appointed experts armed with political science degrees from dweeby east coast universities that the Mayor might be in trouble due to the endemic corruption that has surrounded his administration. Unlike most of the experts, however, I grew up in a Machine ward and have been following Chicago politics since I could pronounce “Mayor Daley,” which was probably just before Richard I ran for his second term in 1959. I can remember no candidate for any office in the state of Illinois, let alone the city of Chicago, who was denied reelection because of corruption. I defy anyone to name such an officeholder in Chicago or in Illinois. And don’t try Mike Bilandic, Richard I’s handpicked successor. He lost because he couldn’t handle the snow and seemed not to care, as long as his (and Daley’s) native Bridgeport had transit service and plowed streets. It was arrogance and incompetence, not corruption, that felled Bilandic the Bland. Jane Byrne, certainly no candidate for the Statesman of the Year award from the Better Government Association or any of the other goo-goo groups that buzz around our politicians like annoying house flies, did not lose because of the stench of corruption that permeated her administration. She lost because the Daley faction of the local Democratic party, feeling shut out of its share of the spoils, ran Richie Daley against her, splitting the white vote and allowing Harold Washington, a stalwart of the old Dawson Machine, to win by a plurality with overwhelming support from his Black constituency and slightly less enthusiastic support from the independently minded 43rd and 44th (near north side) and 5th (Hyde Park/U of Chicago, and, coincidentally, Washington’s home ward) wards.
No, corruption doesn’t lose elections in Chicago. Why? Because in Chicago we revel in corruption. The expression “the best politicians that money can buy” originated here. We brag about having to support our precinct captains and aldermen in order to receive services that we have already paid for with our tax dollars. We proudly tell the story of our alderman’s or ward committeeman’s fixing our tickets or “doing something” about the tax assessments on our homes. We chortle when we tell people that the motto of our city council should rightly be “Ubi Est Mea?” (“Where is mine?”) The great Mike Royko earned his place in the pantheon of newspaper journalists by using the, er, ethical shortcomings of our pols as grist for his columns in the Daily News, Sun-Times, and Tribune. His two most notable successors, John Kass in the Tribune and Mark Brown in the Sun-Times, do much the same, though they seem to take the taint of corruption much more seriously than did Mr. Royko.
So Daley was never going to lose this election because of a trifle like the corruption that has haunted his administration like some horrifying combination of Resurrection Mary and the Monks of St. James of the Sag. The city looks good. The business environment is healthy. The streets are clean, well-plowed, and at least perceived to be safe. The demographics of the city are “improving” as yuppies and empty nesters from the north shore move into the city for what they consider the “urban experience,” which apparently includes a lot of “upscale experiences” and many of the same chain stores they left behind in Winnetka and Lake Forest. Now that whole portions of the city have been completely stripped of character, the newly arrived dazzling urbanites can walk the streets of the city without cowering in fear of the plebeians who used to occupy their newly gentrified neighborhoods, and they think they have Daley to thank. But I digress.
Back to the election. The Mayor’s most serious opponent is Dorothy Brown, clerk of the (Cook County) Circuit Court. Ms. Brown is an accomplished financial professional, possessing an advanced degree and a resume that includes responsible positions in both the private and public sectors. On paper, she is a great candidate. However, she is a hapless candidate for Mayor of Chicago because, despite all her experience, and her currently occupying one of the truly plum positions in Chicago politics, she appears to be completely naïve about the way things work in Chicago. This point was aptly illustrated by a story in yesterday’s (i.e., 2/13/07’s) Sun-Times.
The article by Sun-Times ace political reporter Fran Spielman, entitled “Gutierrez Joins Daley Bandwagon” told the story of the endorsement of Daley by Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a former potential challenger to the Mayor. Ms. Spielman reported that Ms. Brown “reacted angrily to the Gutierrez endorsement. ‘I find it disconcerting that he can say what he said nine months ago in disparaging the record of Mayor Daley and (now) be siding with him. What has changed in the last nine months?’”
Can Ms. Brown really be that naïve? Doesn’t she know that people change their minds depending on what is in it for them? Doesn’t she realize that politicians, and Mr. Gutierrez is a very good one, are especially susceptible to this malady? Could it be that Ms. Brown does not realize that people, especially politicians, and most especially politicians from the Windy City, lie? Hasn’t she been around Chicago long enough to realize that ideas about how the city is run or should be run or can be run are only so much philosophical mumbo-jumbo? Doesn’t she realize that politics, especially in Chicago, is a business?
C’mon, Ms. Brown. A deal was cut, pure and simple. That is what has changed in the last nine months. What was the nature of the deal? Who knows? But Mayor Daley is the most powerful politician in the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois. He is one of the most influential kingmakers in the country. Luis Gutierrez is one of the most senior and influential members of the Illinois Congressional delegation. He would like to make his mark in the new Democratic Congress, which includes many friends of the Daley family. He remains ambitious locally, and still counts among his options succeeding Mayor Daley on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. He is a Chicago politician, pretty much of the old school. The possibilities for the nature of the Daley/Gutierrez deal are limitless. But the existence of a deal is a certainty.
Is Dorothy Brown being disingenuous or is she really that naïve? If the latter, she has no business becoming mayor of Chicago. If the former, she still has no chance.
The Insightful Pontificator
There will be an election for Mayor of Chicago within two weeks. I would wager that, even if you live in Chicago, you didn’t realize that unless you are a political junkie of the type that reads blogs like this one. So maybe you knew. But the average citizen, even the average citizen of Chicago, is blissfully unaware that Mayor Richard II is facing the voters for the sixth time on February 27.
Why the inattention to the mayor’s race in Chicago, the most political of cities? Simple. The outcome is as certain as snow in February in our fair city, and has been for months, if not years. Yes, there was talk by political neophyte reporters and self-appointed experts armed with political science degrees from dweeby east coast universities that the Mayor might be in trouble due to the endemic corruption that has surrounded his administration. Unlike most of the experts, however, I grew up in a Machine ward and have been following Chicago politics since I could pronounce “Mayor Daley,” which was probably just before Richard I ran for his second term in 1959. I can remember no candidate for any office in the state of Illinois, let alone the city of Chicago, who was denied reelection because of corruption. I defy anyone to name such an officeholder in Chicago or in Illinois. And don’t try Mike Bilandic, Richard I’s handpicked successor. He lost because he couldn’t handle the snow and seemed not to care, as long as his (and Daley’s) native Bridgeport had transit service and plowed streets. It was arrogance and incompetence, not corruption, that felled Bilandic the Bland. Jane Byrne, certainly no candidate for the Statesman of the Year award from the Better Government Association or any of the other goo-goo groups that buzz around our politicians like annoying house flies, did not lose because of the stench of corruption that permeated her administration. She lost because the Daley faction of the local Democratic party, feeling shut out of its share of the spoils, ran Richie Daley against her, splitting the white vote and allowing Harold Washington, a stalwart of the old Dawson Machine, to win by a plurality with overwhelming support from his Black constituency and slightly less enthusiastic support from the independently minded 43rd and 44th (near north side) and 5th (Hyde Park/U of Chicago, and, coincidentally, Washington’s home ward) wards.
No, corruption doesn’t lose elections in Chicago. Why? Because in Chicago we revel in corruption. The expression “the best politicians that money can buy” originated here. We brag about having to support our precinct captains and aldermen in order to receive services that we have already paid for with our tax dollars. We proudly tell the story of our alderman’s or ward committeeman’s fixing our tickets or “doing something” about the tax assessments on our homes. We chortle when we tell people that the motto of our city council should rightly be “Ubi Est Mea?” (“Where is mine?”) The great Mike Royko earned his place in the pantheon of newspaper journalists by using the, er, ethical shortcomings of our pols as grist for his columns in the Daily News, Sun-Times, and Tribune. His two most notable successors, John Kass in the Tribune and Mark Brown in the Sun-Times, do much the same, though they seem to take the taint of corruption much more seriously than did Mr. Royko.
So Daley was never going to lose this election because of a trifle like the corruption that has haunted his administration like some horrifying combination of Resurrection Mary and the Monks of St. James of the Sag. The city looks good. The business environment is healthy. The streets are clean, well-plowed, and at least perceived to be safe. The demographics of the city are “improving” as yuppies and empty nesters from the north shore move into the city for what they consider the “urban experience,” which apparently includes a lot of “upscale experiences” and many of the same chain stores they left behind in Winnetka and Lake Forest. Now that whole portions of the city have been completely stripped of character, the newly arrived dazzling urbanites can walk the streets of the city without cowering in fear of the plebeians who used to occupy their newly gentrified neighborhoods, and they think they have Daley to thank. But I digress.
Back to the election. The Mayor’s most serious opponent is Dorothy Brown, clerk of the (Cook County) Circuit Court. Ms. Brown is an accomplished financial professional, possessing an advanced degree and a resume that includes responsible positions in both the private and public sectors. On paper, she is a great candidate. However, she is a hapless candidate for Mayor of Chicago because, despite all her experience, and her currently occupying one of the truly plum positions in Chicago politics, she appears to be completely naïve about the way things work in Chicago. This point was aptly illustrated by a story in yesterday’s (i.e., 2/13/07’s) Sun-Times.
The article by Sun-Times ace political reporter Fran Spielman, entitled “Gutierrez Joins Daley Bandwagon” told the story of the endorsement of Daley by Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a former potential challenger to the Mayor. Ms. Spielman reported that Ms. Brown “reacted angrily to the Gutierrez endorsement. ‘I find it disconcerting that he can say what he said nine months ago in disparaging the record of Mayor Daley and (now) be siding with him. What has changed in the last nine months?’”
Can Ms. Brown really be that naïve? Doesn’t she know that people change their minds depending on what is in it for them? Doesn’t she realize that politicians, and Mr. Gutierrez is a very good one, are especially susceptible to this malady? Could it be that Ms. Brown does not realize that people, especially politicians, and most especially politicians from the Windy City, lie? Hasn’t she been around Chicago long enough to realize that ideas about how the city is run or should be run or can be run are only so much philosophical mumbo-jumbo? Doesn’t she realize that politics, especially in Chicago, is a business?
C’mon, Ms. Brown. A deal was cut, pure and simple. That is what has changed in the last nine months. What was the nature of the deal? Who knows? But Mayor Daley is the most powerful politician in the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois. He is one of the most influential kingmakers in the country. Luis Gutierrez is one of the most senior and influential members of the Illinois Congressional delegation. He would like to make his mark in the new Democratic Congress, which includes many friends of the Daley family. He remains ambitious locally, and still counts among his options succeeding Mayor Daley on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. He is a Chicago politician, pretty much of the old school. The possibilities for the nature of the Daley/Gutierrez deal are limitless. But the existence of a deal is a certainty.
Is Dorothy Brown being disingenuous or is she really that naïve? If the latter, she has no business becoming mayor of Chicago. If the former, she still has no chance.
The Insightful Pontificator
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
It's big, slow, clumsy...but EXPENSIVE!!! Why, it's the perfect weapon!
Okay, so the first post was supposed to feature a lighter approach to our impending doom. However, this topic is so salient in today's news that I just had to exercise my serious side. Trust me...more lighthearted misanthropy will surely follow!
2/13/07
The Defense Department has determined that all four military helicopters that have crashed in Iraq since January 20 were brought down by enemy fire. This news is disturbing enough, but its broader implications are truly alarming.
Our military has invested much of our nation’s defense in helicopters. By virtue of its gargantuan fleet of helicopters, the Army has more aircraft than does the Air Force. It is not a stretch to say that the defense of our country depends on the effectiveness and survivability of the Army’s, and the Marines’, fleet of helicopters. That survivability is now coming into severe question.
There were those of us who objected years ago when the Army was betting so much of its future on the helicopter. It seemed to make no sense to entrust so much of this nation’s defense to a machine that was large, slow, relatively clumsy, and which hovered within range of even the cheapest rifle, let alone sophisticated artillery or the even modestly sophisticated automatic weapons which are the standard arms of much of the world’s militaries and many of its terrorists. Our objections were met with derision and scoffing. Who were we? Were we politicians? Were we defense contractors? Were we military “experts,” toiling away at ivory tower think tanks funded by the defense industry? These notables assured us that, despite the laws of physics, these wonder weapons were virtual flying tanks, heavily armored and packed with countermeasures, virtually impossible to shoot down. We asked questions like “How does one armor a rotor, the most important, and the most vulnerable, component of a helicopter?” But how could we, as mere taxpaying citizens, think that we were somehow worthy to argue with the deep thinkers of this nation’s defense establishment? Indeed, all we had going for us was common sense not overridden by ulterior, self-serving motives.
What were those ulterior motives? Helicopters are very expensive and thus extremely lucrative for the defense contractors who make them. Those defense contractors contribute heavily to politicians, and they do so in a true spirit of bi-partisanship. The defense industry funds the think tanks where the smirking, over-educated smart-alecks contemptuously dismiss the arguments of those of us who argued for a little common sense before spending billions, and wagering our nation’s defense, on Rube Goldberg contraptions whose main virtue, in the eyes of the people that really matter, is the gravy train they will provide for the contractors, the politicians, the staffers, and the military “experts.” Our soldiers die avoidable deaths and our military’s Achilles heel grows larger and more obvious by the day, but the military-industrial complex grows richer and more influential. It all makes sense to the people in power.
Where is Dwight Eisenhower when we really need him?
2/13/07
The Defense Department has determined that all four military helicopters that have crashed in Iraq since January 20 were brought down by enemy fire. This news is disturbing enough, but its broader implications are truly alarming.
Our military has invested much of our nation’s defense in helicopters. By virtue of its gargantuan fleet of helicopters, the Army has more aircraft than does the Air Force. It is not a stretch to say that the defense of our country depends on the effectiveness and survivability of the Army’s, and the Marines’, fleet of helicopters. That survivability is now coming into severe question.
There were those of us who objected years ago when the Army was betting so much of its future on the helicopter. It seemed to make no sense to entrust so much of this nation’s defense to a machine that was large, slow, relatively clumsy, and which hovered within range of even the cheapest rifle, let alone sophisticated artillery or the even modestly sophisticated automatic weapons which are the standard arms of much of the world’s militaries and many of its terrorists. Our objections were met with derision and scoffing. Who were we? Were we politicians? Were we defense contractors? Were we military “experts,” toiling away at ivory tower think tanks funded by the defense industry? These notables assured us that, despite the laws of physics, these wonder weapons were virtual flying tanks, heavily armored and packed with countermeasures, virtually impossible to shoot down. We asked questions like “How does one armor a rotor, the most important, and the most vulnerable, component of a helicopter?” But how could we, as mere taxpaying citizens, think that we were somehow worthy to argue with the deep thinkers of this nation’s defense establishment? Indeed, all we had going for us was common sense not overridden by ulterior, self-serving motives.
What were those ulterior motives? Helicopters are very expensive and thus extremely lucrative for the defense contractors who make them. Those defense contractors contribute heavily to politicians, and they do so in a true spirit of bi-partisanship. The defense industry funds the think tanks where the smirking, over-educated smart-alecks contemptuously dismiss the arguments of those of us who argued for a little common sense before spending billions, and wagering our nation’s defense, on Rube Goldberg contraptions whose main virtue, in the eyes of the people that really matter, is the gravy train they will provide for the contractors, the politicians, the staffers, and the military “experts.” Our soldiers die avoidable deaths and our military’s Achilles heel grows larger and more obvious by the day, but the military-industrial complex grows richer and more influential. It all makes sense to the people in power.
Where is Dwight Eisenhower when we really need him?
Just what the world needs...another blog!!!
2/13/07
Welcome to the Insightful Pontificator, conceived in the notion that the world needs more blogs as surely as the financial world needs more ETFs.
I am otherwise known as “Professor Manly” of No Brainer University at bayrocket.com/nbu. Given the fun I am having as Professor Manly, and the popularity of my posts on that blog, I thought I’d start yet another repository for my wit and wisdom.
The topics I will cover will include virtually anything that interests, entertains, or infuriates me at any given time. Given my background in investments, political commentary, social commentary, and automobiles, and my general curmudgeonly, misanthropic, and obviously redundant view of the world, virtually no topic, save nuclear physics or the latest trends in gift stores and other pointless retailing, will be left untouched and unexcoriated by this vehicle for exposing the ludicrousness that pervades all aspects of modern life.
If at first nothing strikes your fancy, or stokes your ire, keep coming back. You will be sure to find something sure to pique your interest or stoke your outrage.
The Insightful Pontificator
Welcome to the Insightful Pontificator, conceived in the notion that the world needs more blogs as surely as the financial world needs more ETFs.
I am otherwise known as “Professor Manly” of No Brainer University at bayrocket.com/nbu. Given the fun I am having as Professor Manly, and the popularity of my posts on that blog, I thought I’d start yet another repository for my wit and wisdom.
The topics I will cover will include virtually anything that interests, entertains, or infuriates me at any given time. Given my background in investments, political commentary, social commentary, and automobiles, and my general curmudgeonly, misanthropic, and obviously redundant view of the world, virtually no topic, save nuclear physics or the latest trends in gift stores and other pointless retailing, will be left untouched and unexcoriated by this vehicle for exposing the ludicrousness that pervades all aspects of modern life.
If at first nothing strikes your fancy, or stokes your ire, keep coming back. You will be sure to find something sure to pique your interest or stoke your outrage.
The Insightful Pontificator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
