3/31/07
The next time someone on the Right (FULL DISCLOSURE: I USED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF “THE RIGHT” BEFORE THE LITMUS TEST FOR BEING SO CHANGED FROM A DEVOTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF FREE PEOPLE AND FREE MARKETS AND AN ATTENDANT SUSPICION OF GOVERNMENT TO BLIND DEVOTION TO THE “BIG GOVERNMENT ON A GLOBAL SCALE” APPROACH OF THE BUSHMEN.) launches into one of his “We’re all for women’s rights, but…” dodges, consider these words of British conservative Theodore Dalrymple, commenting on the plight of British hostage in Iran Faye Turney on the editorial page of the 3/31-4/1/07 edition of The Wall Street Journal :
“Either she’s a soldier, or she isn’t. Being a soldier, at least one of the combatant variety, entails the danger of capture, death, mutilation; it isn’t just a matter of posing stylishly in (sic) camouflage uniform with an automatic weapon for a photo that one sends to one’s friends, in order to fulfill some dream of what is now known as gender equality.”
It’s not Mr. Dalrymple’s opposition to women in combat, which I share, that grates here. It is his smarmy, unctuous, condescending tone and cocksureness that women join the military to make a fashionable statement on gender equality.
Yes, sir, the Right really likes the gals!
The Pontificator
Saturday, March 31, 2007
The "Walter Reed Strategy"
3/31/07
President Bush visited Walter Reed hospital this week and apologized to wounded soldiers for the shoddy conditions they were facing at that once (i.e., before Bush became president) world-renowned health care facility. He also promised to ameliorate those conditions quickly.
Hmm…
A cynic might discern a strategy, and perhaps a pattern, here:
1. Create deplorable conditions, in this case by neglect, but, in other cases, by sheer incompetence or malevolence.
2. Promise to improve the horrendous conditions, which you have created, pronto.
3. Claiming that there is no time to competitive bidding and this is no situation to consider the costs (Why, anyone who would want to scrimp when it comes to helping our troops would clearly be pro-terrorist and anti-American), award lucrative no-bid contracts to favored contractors who have close ties to administration officials.
Now, I’m not saying that is what is going on here. I’m only saying a cynic might somehow think that this is what is going on here.
The Pontificator
President Bush visited Walter Reed hospital this week and apologized to wounded soldiers for the shoddy conditions they were facing at that once (i.e., before Bush became president) world-renowned health care facility. He also promised to ameliorate those conditions quickly.
Hmm…
A cynic might discern a strategy, and perhaps a pattern, here:
1. Create deplorable conditions, in this case by neglect, but, in other cases, by sheer incompetence or malevolence.
2. Promise to improve the horrendous conditions, which you have created, pronto.
3. Claiming that there is no time to competitive bidding and this is no situation to consider the costs (Why, anyone who would want to scrimp when it comes to helping our troops would clearly be pro-terrorist and anti-American), award lucrative no-bid contracts to favored contractors who have close ties to administration officials.
Now, I’m not saying that is what is going on here. I’m only saying a cynic might somehow think that this is what is going on here.
The Pontificator
GM's bid (?) for Chrysler
3/31/07
FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM SHORT DCX AND LONG PUTS ON DCX.
FURTHER FULL DISCLOSURE: I HAVE BEEN SO FOR THE LAST TWENTY POINTS OF UPSIDE ON THE COMPANY, SO TAKE WHAT I SAY CUM GRANO SALIS.
I knew I shouldn’t have started writing about cars and the car business on the blog!
GM made a “throw-away” bid for Chrysler weeks ago, offering Daimler 10% of its outstanding stock for Chrysler. The General also asked for a $1 billion cash payment from Daimler to help defray the health care costs it would be assuming by buying Chrysler.
Let’s look at this bid. GM’s market cap is $17.3 billion. 10% of that is, in round numbers, $1.7 b. So GM’s net bid for Chrysler was…$700 million.
Meanwhile, the talk on the Street is that Cerberus or Centerbridge/Blackstone will bid $6b to $7b for Chrysler. Talk is that Magna, possibly along with Ripplewood, will bid less than $5b for Chrysler.
In my last comment on cars, I said that it didn’t surprise me that Magna, which is in a better position to evaluate Chrysler than is any private equity firm, would probably be bidding less than the private equity firms. I also stated that I have a hard time believing that Chrysler is worth anything, laying out some of my reasons, which centered mainly around a combination of an insipid (perhaps too laudatory a word in this case) product line with few signs of revitalization combined the usual gargantuan Detroit PORB liabilities.
My point is reinforced by GM’s, which clearly is in a better position to evaluate its cross-town rival than are the financial Harry Potters of the private equity world, or even than Magna, bidding relative pocket change for Chrysler. Yes, this was a throwaway bid. Yes, Chrysler is worth less, perhaps far less, to GM than it would be to a private equity firm eager to build a vertically integrated car industry colossus, or even to Magna. But the spread from $700m to $5-$7 billion is very telling.
The Pontificator
FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM SHORT DCX AND LONG PUTS ON DCX.
FURTHER FULL DISCLOSURE: I HAVE BEEN SO FOR THE LAST TWENTY POINTS OF UPSIDE ON THE COMPANY, SO TAKE WHAT I SAY CUM GRANO SALIS.
I knew I shouldn’t have started writing about cars and the car business on the blog!
GM made a “throw-away” bid for Chrysler weeks ago, offering Daimler 10% of its outstanding stock for Chrysler. The General also asked for a $1 billion cash payment from Daimler to help defray the health care costs it would be assuming by buying Chrysler.
Let’s look at this bid. GM’s market cap is $17.3 billion. 10% of that is, in round numbers, $1.7 b. So GM’s net bid for Chrysler was…$700 million.
Meanwhile, the talk on the Street is that Cerberus or Centerbridge/Blackstone will bid $6b to $7b for Chrysler. Talk is that Magna, possibly along with Ripplewood, will bid less than $5b for Chrysler.
In my last comment on cars, I said that it didn’t surprise me that Magna, which is in a better position to evaluate Chrysler than is any private equity firm, would probably be bidding less than the private equity firms. I also stated that I have a hard time believing that Chrysler is worth anything, laying out some of my reasons, which centered mainly around a combination of an insipid (perhaps too laudatory a word in this case) product line with few signs of revitalization combined the usual gargantuan Detroit PORB liabilities.
My point is reinforced by GM’s, which clearly is in a better position to evaluate its cross-town rival than are the financial Harry Potters of the private equity world, or even than Magna, bidding relative pocket change for Chrysler. Yes, this was a throwaway bid. Yes, Chrysler is worth less, perhaps far less, to GM than it would be to a private equity firm eager to build a vertically integrated car industry colossus, or even to Magna. But the spread from $700m to $5-$7 billion is very telling.
The Pontificator
Saturday, March 24, 2007
GM bonuses and bids for Chrysler
3/24/07
A friend of mine is a GM retiree. He periodically forwards me the GM Retiree newsletter, which I find very informative and enjoyable both as an investor in the car stocks and as a car buff.
I always try to make a few comments in the “Thank You” reply I send to him. After I sent him these latest comments, it occurred to me that I have not yet commented on cars or the car stocks, which is one of my major areas of interest and provided much of the source material for the Insightful Irregular Commentary, my former means of pontificating to a broad audience, at all so far, other than a short piece on car safety, in the Insightful Pontificator. So, due to the absence of car commentary, or ANY commentary at all of late, in the IP, here are a few very brief comments on the car business. (Notes added to the response to my friend have been placed in parentheses.) The first comment, of course, has nothing to do with cars, but, rather, with Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, which are currently my largest investment.
Our TIPs are having a pretty good year, up 2.5% YTD and we're only a quarter into the year. I bought some more the other day.
GM's paying those stock bonuses to the Wagoner, Lutz, and crew might come back to bite them. The UAW is very understandably restive and negotiations are coming up.
(I find the comments of Rich Vargesko, head of UAW local 544 in West Mifflin, PA, very representative, enlightening, and certainly VERY justified:
“Why do they deem it necessary to reward these executives with exorbitant bonuses? I thought we were in this together. Are we saving the company or not?”
Note that negotiations on a new contract, a contract in which GM will ask for big concessions, especially on the JOBS bank, are imminent. The timing of corporate America is, once again, as graceful as Smokey Burgess. This is rather surprising, given that the execs at the car companies have not been as egregious on the pay package front as have their corporate brethren. Perhaps the “Investors and workers be damned, this company is run for the exclusive benefit of the executives in charge” mentality is spreading to Detroit. I hope not. )
Who in his right mind would pay $4.8 billion, let alone $6 billion, for Chrysler? I don't think it's worth anything, given its huge PORB liabilities and its woeful, out of date, exciting as tapioca line. DCX (or maybe Magna, if they end up owning Chrysler) has to be the greatest short in the world right now. Unfortunately, I thought that 20 points ago...and I still think I'm going to be proven right.
(Jeep is completely out of sync with the industry, making truck based SUVs when consumers are abandoning them en masse for car based and crossover SUVs. I had high, or at least not dire, hopes for the Compass, Jeep’s first attempt at a crossover (perhaps out of a desire to give Jeep at least some credit), and it has bombed. The Patriot, a brand new crossover built on the same frame at the Compass, might do better, but there is no compelling reason to think so. The third platform mate, the Dodge Caliber, started with a bang, but sales are starting to cool as competition heats up and, perhaps, because consumers are opening their eyes and taking a good look at this homely beast. (“My God, what have I bought?”)
The Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum, and Dodge Charger have seen their day and are getting long in the tooth, though the 300 seems to still sell well. The Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger are adequate cars when adequate doesn’t cut it in the marketplace and Chrysler badly needed a home run. And has anyone noticed that a fully optioned out Sebring stickers out at about the same price as a fully optioned Accord? Unless one is a die-hard Big 3 customer, one would have to be crazy to buy a Sebring over an Accord or a Camry, given the resale bath buying a Sebring will inevitably entails. And even if one insists on buying a US nameplate, the Aura and the Fusion are fabulous, if not spectacular, products that put the Sebring to shame in every imaginable category. The Sebring commercials, which point out that the Sebring comes standard with STAIN RESISTANT FABRIC interiors while the Camry does not, are pathetic. How far down did Chrysler have to reach to come up with stain resistant fabric? Look for big incentives on the Sebring and the Avenger, which will make them good buys but will have their predictable impact on Chrysler’s profitability.
The Dodge and Chrysler minivans still sell well—with heavy incentives. They are a generation behind the Toyota and Honda offerings. The new vans, planned for 2008, offer little new besides a trick picnic table set up in the back two rows. Big deal.
Perhaps the hedgies that are bidding for Chrysler, being of the type who would sooner be caught shopping at WalMart than driving a Chrysler, think product is unimportant. But I am of the quaint notion that a company is more than a collection of numbers (which, in Chrysler’s case are not that good anyway) and one should take the time to learn something about product. Chrysler’s is abysmal.
It is instructive that one of the bidders for Chrysler, Magna International, which is in the car business and thus is in a position to know more about it than the hedgies that are bidding on it, looks like it will bid low, about $4.6b vs. the $6b bandied about on the Street. $4.6b is too high, but note that the lowest bid is coming from the bidder in the best position to evaluate the company.
NOTE THAT I AM SHORT DCX AND LONG THE PUTS—FULL DISCLOSURE. BUT I HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST 20 POINTS ON THE UPSIDE—THE HONESTY THAT PERVADES MY APPROACH TO LIFE.)
A friend of mine is a GM retiree. He periodically forwards me the GM Retiree newsletter, which I find very informative and enjoyable both as an investor in the car stocks and as a car buff.
I always try to make a few comments in the “Thank You” reply I send to him. After I sent him these latest comments, it occurred to me that I have not yet commented on cars or the car stocks, which is one of my major areas of interest and provided much of the source material for the Insightful Irregular Commentary, my former means of pontificating to a broad audience, at all so far, other than a short piece on car safety, in the Insightful Pontificator. So, due to the absence of car commentary, or ANY commentary at all of late, in the IP, here are a few very brief comments on the car business. (Notes added to the response to my friend have been placed in parentheses.) The first comment, of course, has nothing to do with cars, but, rather, with Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, which are currently my largest investment.
Our TIPs are having a pretty good year, up 2.5% YTD and we're only a quarter into the year. I bought some more the other day.
GM's paying those stock bonuses to the Wagoner, Lutz, and crew might come back to bite them. The UAW is very understandably restive and negotiations are coming up.
(I find the comments of Rich Vargesko, head of UAW local 544 in West Mifflin, PA, very representative, enlightening, and certainly VERY justified:
“Why do they deem it necessary to reward these executives with exorbitant bonuses? I thought we were in this together. Are we saving the company or not?”
Note that negotiations on a new contract, a contract in which GM will ask for big concessions, especially on the JOBS bank, are imminent. The timing of corporate America is, once again, as graceful as Smokey Burgess. This is rather surprising, given that the execs at the car companies have not been as egregious on the pay package front as have their corporate brethren. Perhaps the “Investors and workers be damned, this company is run for the exclusive benefit of the executives in charge” mentality is spreading to Detroit. I hope not. )
Who in his right mind would pay $4.8 billion, let alone $6 billion, for Chrysler? I don't think it's worth anything, given its huge PORB liabilities and its woeful, out of date, exciting as tapioca line. DCX (or maybe Magna, if they end up owning Chrysler) has to be the greatest short in the world right now. Unfortunately, I thought that 20 points ago...and I still think I'm going to be proven right.
(Jeep is completely out of sync with the industry, making truck based SUVs when consumers are abandoning them en masse for car based and crossover SUVs. I had high, or at least not dire, hopes for the Compass, Jeep’s first attempt at a crossover (perhaps out of a desire to give Jeep at least some credit), and it has bombed. The Patriot, a brand new crossover built on the same frame at the Compass, might do better, but there is no compelling reason to think so. The third platform mate, the Dodge Caliber, started with a bang, but sales are starting to cool as competition heats up and, perhaps, because consumers are opening their eyes and taking a good look at this homely beast. (“My God, what have I bought?”)
The Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum, and Dodge Charger have seen their day and are getting long in the tooth, though the 300 seems to still sell well. The Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger are adequate cars when adequate doesn’t cut it in the marketplace and Chrysler badly needed a home run. And has anyone noticed that a fully optioned out Sebring stickers out at about the same price as a fully optioned Accord? Unless one is a die-hard Big 3 customer, one would have to be crazy to buy a Sebring over an Accord or a Camry, given the resale bath buying a Sebring will inevitably entails. And even if one insists on buying a US nameplate, the Aura and the Fusion are fabulous, if not spectacular, products that put the Sebring to shame in every imaginable category. The Sebring commercials, which point out that the Sebring comes standard with STAIN RESISTANT FABRIC interiors while the Camry does not, are pathetic. How far down did Chrysler have to reach to come up with stain resistant fabric? Look for big incentives on the Sebring and the Avenger, which will make them good buys but will have their predictable impact on Chrysler’s profitability.
The Dodge and Chrysler minivans still sell well—with heavy incentives. They are a generation behind the Toyota and Honda offerings. The new vans, planned for 2008, offer little new besides a trick picnic table set up in the back two rows. Big deal.
Perhaps the hedgies that are bidding for Chrysler, being of the type who would sooner be caught shopping at WalMart than driving a Chrysler, think product is unimportant. But I am of the quaint notion that a company is more than a collection of numbers (which, in Chrysler’s case are not that good anyway) and one should take the time to learn something about product. Chrysler’s is abysmal.
It is instructive that one of the bidders for Chrysler, Magna International, which is in the car business and thus is in a position to know more about it than the hedgies that are bidding on it, looks like it will bid low, about $4.6b vs. the $6b bandied about on the Street. $4.6b is too high, but note that the lowest bid is coming from the bidder in the best position to evaluate the company.
NOTE THAT I AM SHORT DCX AND LONG THE PUTS—FULL DISCLOSURE. BUT I HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST 20 POINTS ON THE UPSIDE—THE HONESTY THAT PERVADES MY APPROACH TO LIFE.)
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
A few financial comments--We ain't seen nothin' yet
3/14/07
I wrote the following note today to my brother-in-law, whom I advise on his investments, in the wake of his sending me a copy of a financial newsletter he receives. The gist of this issue of the newsletter is that the writer’s model portfolios are outperforming the market so far this year, along with a reiteration that everything is just fine and dandy. The markets will turn up again after this much needed pullback because, after all, the fundamentals are so strong. So stay close to fully invested; how can one lose in the long run? (As Lord Keynes said, “In the long run, we are all dead.” But that is yet another piece of the wisdom of our forbearers that today’s financial Harry Potters seem to have tossed aside like, well, yesterday’s newspaper.)
As you might guess, I don’t share the writer’s sanguinity. As I say in the body of this letter, wait until the market discovers (It will, of course, be shocked to learn this because “nobody” could have foreseen such a development.) that the problems in our nation’s mortgage portfolio are not limited to SUB-PRIME mortgages.
We have only begun to see the difficulties that permeate our “don’t worry, be happy” financial system.
3/14/07
Yeah, the model portfolios outperformed a lousy market, which is cold consolation. I understand relative performance; I made my living on it back when I almost was somebody and even now use it as an excuse when people with whom I work don't do as well as they expected, but it makes little sense to the average person. I had a great day yesterday, owing to my put positions, my short positions, and my TIPs positions. Making money, and not losing money, is what matters to most people.
I'll be interested to see how this guy contorts himself as the crap REALLY hits the fan with this market. Wait 'til the market finds out (I can predict what the "experts" will say: "No one could have seen this coming." Well, someone did, and now you know who.) that it is not only sub-prime mortgages that are a problem, but that the "high quality" paper isn't as high quality as the deep thinkers supposed. Meanwhile, it looks like we MIGHT get a day's reprieve today.
I wrote the following note today to my brother-in-law, whom I advise on his investments, in the wake of his sending me a copy of a financial newsletter he receives. The gist of this issue of the newsletter is that the writer’s model portfolios are outperforming the market so far this year, along with a reiteration that everything is just fine and dandy. The markets will turn up again after this much needed pullback because, after all, the fundamentals are so strong. So stay close to fully invested; how can one lose in the long run? (As Lord Keynes said, “In the long run, we are all dead.” But that is yet another piece of the wisdom of our forbearers that today’s financial Harry Potters seem to have tossed aside like, well, yesterday’s newspaper.)
As you might guess, I don’t share the writer’s sanguinity. As I say in the body of this letter, wait until the market discovers (It will, of course, be shocked to learn this because “nobody” could have foreseen such a development.) that the problems in our nation’s mortgage portfolio are not limited to SUB-PRIME mortgages.
We have only begun to see the difficulties that permeate our “don’t worry, be happy” financial system.
3/14/07
Yeah, the model portfolios outperformed a lousy market, which is cold consolation. I understand relative performance; I made my living on it back when I almost was somebody and even now use it as an excuse when people with whom I work don't do as well as they expected, but it makes little sense to the average person. I had a great day yesterday, owing to my put positions, my short positions, and my TIPs positions. Making money, and not losing money, is what matters to most people.
I'll be interested to see how this guy contorts himself as the crap REALLY hits the fan with this market. Wait 'til the market finds out (I can predict what the "experts" will say: "No one could have seen this coming." Well, someone did, and now you know who.) that it is not only sub-prime mortgages that are a problem, but that the "high quality" paper isn't as high quality as the deep thinkers supposed. Meanwhile, it looks like we MIGHT get a day's reprieve today.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Bush turns world on its head!
3/12/07
In today’s Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Neil Steinberg wrote a column contrasting the virtues of capitalism with the failures of socialism and giving President Bush credit for ignoring Hugo Chavez on Bush’s tour of Latin America. This is not the type of column one would normally expect from Neil Steinberg, who is quite liberal and very much opposed to Bush. Steinberg’s column gave me grist for a reply, most of which I have posted below, in which I outlined the ironic attitudes of those who, like me, still consider themselves conservative but who, judging by today’s litmus test for conservatism, apparently aren’t: We believe in free men, free markets, and limited government, and believe that these virtues do not stop at the U.S. border, so that makes us somehow anti-conservative, if not downright unpatriotic. I’ll say one thing for Bush: he really has the power to turn the world on its head:
(I address Mr. Steinberg as “Brother Neil” because, despite our many points of disagreement on politics and religion (He is, by his own admission, skeptical of, almost hostile toward, religion.), we share a generally curmudgeonly and pessimistic view of today’s society.)
Brother Neil,
You are a stronger man than I. Even though I completely agree with your analysis of the merits of capitalism vs. socialism (I used to be called a “conservative,” which I, and most people, once defined as a strong belief in free men and free markets until this George Bush came along. Since then, the test of one’s conservatism is blind, undying, unquestioning loyalty to George II. By that measure, I am about as far from being a “conservative” as one can be. But that is a topic for another discussion.), I can’t “give Bush credit where credit is due” on anything, even something as advisable as ignoring Hugo Chavez. Of course, it would be easier to give credit to Bush for ignoring Chavez, or for anything, if Bush himself actually believed in capitalism, rather than the system of mutually reinforcing big government and big business that is properly labeled as fascism, but that, too, is grist for another mill.
It’s gotten to the point at which it is difficult for me to find fault with people like Chavez and Castro, who are diametrically opposed to everything in which I believe and who I thus would normally find repugnant in every way, because they, too, so ardently oppose our president. Anyone who despises Bush as much as these two guys do can’t be all that bad, right?
In today’s Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Neil Steinberg wrote a column contrasting the virtues of capitalism with the failures of socialism and giving President Bush credit for ignoring Hugo Chavez on Bush’s tour of Latin America. This is not the type of column one would normally expect from Neil Steinberg, who is quite liberal and very much opposed to Bush. Steinberg’s column gave me grist for a reply, most of which I have posted below, in which I outlined the ironic attitudes of those who, like me, still consider themselves conservative but who, judging by today’s litmus test for conservatism, apparently aren’t: We believe in free men, free markets, and limited government, and believe that these virtues do not stop at the U.S. border, so that makes us somehow anti-conservative, if not downright unpatriotic. I’ll say one thing for Bush: he really has the power to turn the world on its head:
(I address Mr. Steinberg as “Brother Neil” because, despite our many points of disagreement on politics and religion (He is, by his own admission, skeptical of, almost hostile toward, religion.), we share a generally curmudgeonly and pessimistic view of today’s society.)
Brother Neil,
You are a stronger man than I. Even though I completely agree with your analysis of the merits of capitalism vs. socialism (I used to be called a “conservative,” which I, and most people, once defined as a strong belief in free men and free markets until this George Bush came along. Since then, the test of one’s conservatism is blind, undying, unquestioning loyalty to George II. By that measure, I am about as far from being a “conservative” as one can be. But that is a topic for another discussion.), I can’t “give Bush credit where credit is due” on anything, even something as advisable as ignoring Hugo Chavez. Of course, it would be easier to give credit to Bush for ignoring Chavez, or for anything, if Bush himself actually believed in capitalism, rather than the system of mutually reinforcing big government and big business that is properly labeled as fascism, but that, too, is grist for another mill.
It’s gotten to the point at which it is difficult for me to find fault with people like Chavez and Castro, who are diametrically opposed to everything in which I believe and who I thus would normally find repugnant in every way, because they, too, so ardently oppose our president. Anyone who despises Bush as much as these two guys do can’t be all that bad, right?
Thursday, March 1, 2007
The 43rd Ward a vassal of the 19th Ward?
3/1/07
John Kass, the Tribune’s successor to Mike Royko, wrote a column in the wake of Richard II’s landslide reelection as Mayor of Chicago. Almost as an aside, Mr. Kass contended that the 43rd Ward, consisting largely of the trendy and upscale Lincoln Park, had become a political satellite of the 19th ward, consisting of largely blue collar Mt. Greenwood and slightly more upscale Beverly, West Beverly, and Morgan Park.
As one who was born in the 19th Ward and who spent much of his life there, I felt compelled to respond to Mr. Kass’s column:
3/1/07
Hi John,
I enjoyed your 2/28 column written in the wake of the election.
Politics aside, your contention that the 43rd ward has become a political satellite of the 19th ward made the day of this ex 19th warder whose heart largely remains on Campbell Avenue. I take great satisfaction, indeed delight, that the yuppies and other upscale, frou-frouy types of Lincoln Park have to pay obeisance to the blue collar residents of Mount Greenwood and points east. Formerly, until the need for a police officer, firefighter, or streets and san snow plow operator arose, the salt-of-the-earth 111th Streeters completely escaped the notice of the ex-North Shore residents who now fancy themselves hard core urbanites because they live among the fern bars of the 43rd. Now, I suppose, the brie and chardonnay masters of the universe will have to do a little genuflecting to the Old Style drinkers on Western Avenue.
Admittedly, I don’t know how much time Jerry Joyce, Dan Hynes, and Jim Houlihan spend in the old neighborhood, but I won’t let perhaps disappointing reality spoil the wonderful picture I have drawn in my head.
Thanks, John!
Mark Quinn
John Kass, the Tribune’s successor to Mike Royko, wrote a column in the wake of Richard II’s landslide reelection as Mayor of Chicago. Almost as an aside, Mr. Kass contended that the 43rd Ward, consisting largely of the trendy and upscale Lincoln Park, had become a political satellite of the 19th ward, consisting of largely blue collar Mt. Greenwood and slightly more upscale Beverly, West Beverly, and Morgan Park.
As one who was born in the 19th Ward and who spent much of his life there, I felt compelled to respond to Mr. Kass’s column:
3/1/07
Hi John,
I enjoyed your 2/28 column written in the wake of the election.
Politics aside, your contention that the 43rd ward has become a political satellite of the 19th ward made the day of this ex 19th warder whose heart largely remains on Campbell Avenue. I take great satisfaction, indeed delight, that the yuppies and other upscale, frou-frouy types of Lincoln Park have to pay obeisance to the blue collar residents of Mount Greenwood and points east. Formerly, until the need for a police officer, firefighter, or streets and san snow plow operator arose, the salt-of-the-earth 111th Streeters completely escaped the notice of the ex-North Shore residents who now fancy themselves hard core urbanites because they live among the fern bars of the 43rd. Now, I suppose, the brie and chardonnay masters of the universe will have to do a little genuflecting to the Old Style drinkers on Western Avenue.
Admittedly, I don’t know how much time Jerry Joyce, Dan Hynes, and Jim Houlihan spend in the old neighborhood, but I won’t let perhaps disappointing reality spoil the wonderful picture I have drawn in my head.
Thanks, John!
Mark Quinn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
