12/31/09
“Paid cash?
One way ticket?
No baggage?
On a terrorist watch list?
Welcome aboard, sir…have a nice flight.”
The above conversation could have taken place, word for word, with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before he boarded the Amsterdam-New York Northwest Flight that he almost brought down with his literal crotch rocket. Rather than apply common sense, and the guidelines that have already been provided, the government has decided that we law abiding citizens will now have to be subjected to searches that amount to auditions for Penthouse or Playgirl Magazine. Further, the Obama Administration, with the full acquiescence, indeed the encouragement, of the “small government” GOP, is going to get us more involved with money and “advisors” (perhaps sons and grandsons of the “advisors” who JFK and LBJ sent to Vietnam) in the “insurgency” (civil war, really) in Yemen. Great.
It all makes sense, however, from the typical politician’s perspective when you consider that there is very little money in common sense while there is lots and lots of money in gee-whiz, big brother technology and virtually uncountable piles of cash in war. Why miss an opportunity to make campaign contributors, and one’s self, rich? When terrorists send us lemons, our politicians make lemonade.
For my money, give me the machine politicians of yesteryear. (See The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, by yours truly.) Yes, they stole from us, but they made no bones about it; they didn’t trot around piously pontificating about their concern for mankind and their ability to lead us to a new American Valhalla under their wise and prudent leadership. We knew they were making themselves rich at our expense, but at least we got something out of it…a clean street, a garbage can, a contribution to the Little League team, a fixed parking ticket, maybe a job. All we get from the current crop of popinjays and poltroons is hot air, huge bills, and effective theft on a scale that would make the Honorable Alderman Thomas Keane (34th) blush. And, believe me, the Honorable Alderman Vito Marzullo (25th), would have never allowed the likes of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Flight 253.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
“I CAN TELL BY THE WAY YOU DRESS THAT YOU ARE A REAL COWBOY”
12/23/09
The subject of Rahm Emanuel came up in an e-conversation with an old and good friend this morning. I though my comments merited a post, so here it goes:
Rahm Emanuel, by the way, is one of the most overrated people in the world. My theory is that he fancies himself, as does the easily impressed, compensating national media, some kind of two-fisted tough guy because he drops an occasional F-bomb. (How that makes one tough is completely beyond me, but that's grist for another mill.) However, back in his hometown, the city of deals, he is little more than a pissant. Yes, he may have more power in Washington than one could hope to achieve in any position in Chicago (though that is doubtful...two mayors named Daley achieved considerable state and national power in local office. However, little Rahm is no Rich Daley, let alone Dick Daley. To even suggest the latter is laughable.), but I suspect it grates on him that he never hit the big leagues in the city that is synonymous with tough guy deal makers. The attitude among the real powers in this town toward Rahm seems to be "Yeah, sure kid...make like you're tough, act like a big guy, do whatever the hell you want. Just make sure you keep sending federal money our way or we'll find someone who will. Understand, kid?"
Just a theory.
The subject of Rahm Emanuel came up in an e-conversation with an old and good friend this morning. I though my comments merited a post, so here it goes:
Rahm Emanuel, by the way, is one of the most overrated people in the world. My theory is that he fancies himself, as does the easily impressed, compensating national media, some kind of two-fisted tough guy because he drops an occasional F-bomb. (How that makes one tough is completely beyond me, but that's grist for another mill.) However, back in his hometown, the city of deals, he is little more than a pissant. Yes, he may have more power in Washington than one could hope to achieve in any position in Chicago (though that is doubtful...two mayors named Daley achieved considerable state and national power in local office. However, little Rahm is no Rich Daley, let alone Dick Daley. To even suggest the latter is laughable.), but I suspect it grates on him that he never hit the big leagues in the city that is synonymous with tough guy deal makers. The attitude among the real powers in this town toward Rahm seems to be "Yeah, sure kid...make like you're tough, act like a big guy, do whatever the hell you want. Just make sure you keep sending federal money our way or we'll find someone who will. Understand, kid?"
Just a theory.
Monday, December 21, 2009
“I’VE BEEN TO PARIS, PERU, IRAQ, IRAN…I SPEAK VERY, VERY FLUENT SPANISH…”
12/21/09
Judging from the reactions of the oil, gold, and stock markets, I am pretty much alone in my concern, but I am quite worried about Iran at the moment. With the death this weekend of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the seeming confirmation of charges of torture of dissidents at Kahrizak Prison by the returning of indictments against twelve prison officials over the weekend, the earlier shutting down of that prison, and the continuing Muharram Shiite holiday, these are not idle concerns.
Ayatollah Montazeri was one of the architects of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, at one time the clear successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. However, about ten years after the revolution, Montazeri began criticizing Khomeini, accusing, with plenty of justification, the man who nosed him out for supreme leadership, Ayatollah Khamenei, of creating a dictatorship in Iran. Montazeri was incessant in his calls for reform of the Islamic Republic. Eventually, even his stature as a religious scholar, which exceeded that of Khamenei, could no longer protect him, and he was placed under house arrest in 1997, which continued until 2003. That punishment did not silence Montazeri, who called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “illegitimate,” apparently again with plenty of justification. For obvious reasons, Ayatollah Montazeri became a rallying point for the opposition movement in Iran, which has come to be known as the “green movement,” separate and distinct from what the rest of the world understands as the green movement.
Montazeri’s death over the weekend, and his funeral, scheduled for today, when combined with the weekend indictments of officials at Kahrizak, will provide yet another focal point for the green movement, especially when the level of fervor is increased by the ten day Muharram holiday. What might happen? Who knows? But an overthrow of the regime, while still a remote possibility, is not out of the question. Certainly, at the very least, Iran is in for a rough couple of days.
As most readers know, given my approach to U.S. foreign policy, my normal reaction would be to say “Well, it looks like the IRANIANS have a problem,” and leave them to work out their own difficulties as opposed to the current Bush/Obama/conservative/liberal approach so popular in this country of assuming that we know the optimal outcome for everybody in every corner of the world and thus offering our “advice,” at the point of a gun if necessary. That is, of course, my reaction in this case; contrary to modern American belief, the Iranians, even though they don’t speak English as a first language and don’t spend their evenings watching David Letterman, Jay Leno, and “Dancing with the Stars,” are adults and can think for themselves. We should let them do so and stay as far away from them as possible. Our attempts at intervention, as enlightened as the politicians in Washington, who, of course, have figured everything out, assume they are, usually result in disaster.
This does not mean, however, that unrest, or worse, in Iran, will not affect us. Remember the last time Iran experienced “regime change” in Iran? The price of oil quadrupled and the price of gold followed. The equity markets, already battered by three years of Jimmy Carter, encountered difficulties as well. Whatever hopes, paltry as they were under Mr. Carter, of recovery were quashed under the weight of, at that time, unheard of $42 oil. Our country went into a funk, economically, diplomatically, and psychologically, from which it took years to recover.
Given that oil has been quiescent of late, gold has taken a swoon from its highs of a few weeks ago, and stocks continue to go nowhere but up, one of three things is going on: Iran, at least relative to all the other bullish signs everyone but I is able to see so clearly, is no longer important, everything will be just fine in Iran, or no one is paying attention. I’m betting on the last of those possibilities. After all, a new season of “American Idol” is about to start.
Judging from the reactions of the oil, gold, and stock markets, I am pretty much alone in my concern, but I am quite worried about Iran at the moment. With the death this weekend of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the seeming confirmation of charges of torture of dissidents at Kahrizak Prison by the returning of indictments against twelve prison officials over the weekend, the earlier shutting down of that prison, and the continuing Muharram Shiite holiday, these are not idle concerns.
Ayatollah Montazeri was one of the architects of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, at one time the clear successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. However, about ten years after the revolution, Montazeri began criticizing Khomeini, accusing, with plenty of justification, the man who nosed him out for supreme leadership, Ayatollah Khamenei, of creating a dictatorship in Iran. Montazeri was incessant in his calls for reform of the Islamic Republic. Eventually, even his stature as a religious scholar, which exceeded that of Khamenei, could no longer protect him, and he was placed under house arrest in 1997, which continued until 2003. That punishment did not silence Montazeri, who called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “illegitimate,” apparently again with plenty of justification. For obvious reasons, Ayatollah Montazeri became a rallying point for the opposition movement in Iran, which has come to be known as the “green movement,” separate and distinct from what the rest of the world understands as the green movement.
Montazeri’s death over the weekend, and his funeral, scheduled for today, when combined with the weekend indictments of officials at Kahrizak, will provide yet another focal point for the green movement, especially when the level of fervor is increased by the ten day Muharram holiday. What might happen? Who knows? But an overthrow of the regime, while still a remote possibility, is not out of the question. Certainly, at the very least, Iran is in for a rough couple of days.
As most readers know, given my approach to U.S. foreign policy, my normal reaction would be to say “Well, it looks like the IRANIANS have a problem,” and leave them to work out their own difficulties as opposed to the current Bush/Obama/conservative/liberal approach so popular in this country of assuming that we know the optimal outcome for everybody in every corner of the world and thus offering our “advice,” at the point of a gun if necessary. That is, of course, my reaction in this case; contrary to modern American belief, the Iranians, even though they don’t speak English as a first language and don’t spend their evenings watching David Letterman, Jay Leno, and “Dancing with the Stars,” are adults and can think for themselves. We should let them do so and stay as far away from them as possible. Our attempts at intervention, as enlightened as the politicians in Washington, who, of course, have figured everything out, assume they are, usually result in disaster.
This does not mean, however, that unrest, or worse, in Iran, will not affect us. Remember the last time Iran experienced “regime change” in Iran? The price of oil quadrupled and the price of gold followed. The equity markets, already battered by three years of Jimmy Carter, encountered difficulties as well. Whatever hopes, paltry as they were under Mr. Carter, of recovery were quashed under the weight of, at that time, unheard of $42 oil. Our country went into a funk, economically, diplomatically, and psychologically, from which it took years to recover.
Given that oil has been quiescent of late, gold has taken a swoon from its highs of a few weeks ago, and stocks continue to go nowhere but up, one of three things is going on: Iran, at least relative to all the other bullish signs everyone but I is able to see so clearly, is no longer important, everything will be just fine in Iran, or no one is paying attention. I’m betting on the last of those possibilities. After all, a new season of “American Idol” is about to start.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
“DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”
12/16/09
Mayor Richard M. Daley, Cook County Board Finance Committee Chairman and 11th Ward Committeeman John Daley, and House Speaker, 13th Ward Committeeman, and state Democratic Party Chairman Mike Madigan are not, unless things change quickly, going to endorse Cook County Board President Todd Stroger for reelection. Why?
The Mayor has some substantive and stylistic differences with Mr. Stroger (See my other 12/16/09 post “((HEY TODD), WHO’S NAME IS ON THAT WATER TOWER OVER THERE?”) that provide plenty of reasons for the Mayor’s and his brother’s non-endorsement. Further, the Daleys and Mr. Madigan perceive, probably (but not definitely…perhaps this is grist for yet another post) correctly, that Todd Stroger cannot win in the primary and are simply following the admonition of the late legendary west side ward boss Bernie Neistein, “Don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers.” The Daleys and Mike Madigan don’t want to back a loser, so they won’t back Stroger, and they can’t afford to make waves, so they won’t publicly endorse any of his three opponents.
Why won’t the Mayor (or, more properly, his brother John, committeeman of the 11th ward and the guy whose endorsement is effectively the same as the “nonpolitical” Mayor’s) endorse any of Mr. Stroger’s opponents? Because there is absolutely no percentage in it. Say that the Mayor would really like Alderman Toni Preckwinkle to become the next President of the County Board. (I have no information that this is the case, but I strongly suspect that it is because Ms. Preckwinkle’s ascension to that job makes so much sense politically and the Mayor is quite adept at politics.) How does it help her to have the Mayor’s public endorsement? Given the racially charged nature of this city’s and this county’s politics, supporters of two of her opponents, Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown and Mr. Stroger, both of whom have worked very closely with the Daleys and would very much like the Daley endorsement but neither of which is known for a surfeit of shame, could use this very endorsement against Ms. Preckwinkle, branding her a “tool of the Daleys” and, by implication, an Uncle Tom. Why take this chance? Even, or perhaps especially, without a public endorsement, the Daleys and their allies in at least some of what are still referred to generically as the “organization wards” could still get the troops out there working for Preckwinkle; precinct captains don’t get their marching orders from the media. The smart move on Daley’s part is not to endorse.
Mike Madigan’s failure to endorse arises from a different set of dynamics. There is little doubt that his 13th Ward constituents support, probably overwhelmingly, the candidacy of Metropolitan Water Reclamation District president Terry O’Brien, the only White candidate in this field of four. If Mr. Madigan had nothing but his constituency to worry about, he would join Matthew O’Shea, committeeman of the 19th Ward, which features demographics, and voting patterns, very similar to those of the 13th Ward, in endorsing Mr. O’Brien. But while Mr. O’Shea is a relative political novice, Mr. Madigan is one of the two most powerful Democrats in the state and his responsibilities as House Speaker and State Party Chairman extend beyond the boundaries of the 13th Ward. He needs the support of Black Democrats in both the latter posts. Endorsing Terry O’Brien would be harmful (though, given the sheer skill and toughness of Mr. Madigan, not fatal) to Mr. Madigan’s statewide endeavors. So he can’t endorse O’Brien. But he can’t endorse any of the other candidates for fear of angering his constituents (though such an endorsement would be similarly non-fatal to Mr. Madigan’s very secure position in the 13th). One can anticipate that, as in the Daley’s 11th ward, there will be no candidate for County Board President on Mr. Madigan’s palm cards. However, while one suspects that, while Alderman Preckwinkle will do surprisingly well in the 11th, Terry O’Brien will win the 13th overwhelmingly.
All of this assumes that all four candidates will stay in the race, which I suspect is a highly unlikely outcome. The dynamics change markedly when people start dropping out, so we will watch this race very closely.
Mayor Richard M. Daley, Cook County Board Finance Committee Chairman and 11th Ward Committeeman John Daley, and House Speaker, 13th Ward Committeeman, and state Democratic Party Chairman Mike Madigan are not, unless things change quickly, going to endorse Cook County Board President Todd Stroger for reelection. Why?
The Mayor has some substantive and stylistic differences with Mr. Stroger (See my other 12/16/09 post “((HEY TODD), WHO’S NAME IS ON THAT WATER TOWER OVER THERE?”) that provide plenty of reasons for the Mayor’s and his brother’s non-endorsement. Further, the Daleys and Mr. Madigan perceive, probably (but not definitely…perhaps this is grist for yet another post) correctly, that Todd Stroger cannot win in the primary and are simply following the admonition of the late legendary west side ward boss Bernie Neistein, “Don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers.” The Daleys and Mike Madigan don’t want to back a loser, so they won’t back Stroger, and they can’t afford to make waves, so they won’t publicly endorse any of his three opponents.
Why won’t the Mayor (or, more properly, his brother John, committeeman of the 11th ward and the guy whose endorsement is effectively the same as the “nonpolitical” Mayor’s) endorse any of Mr. Stroger’s opponents? Because there is absolutely no percentage in it. Say that the Mayor would really like Alderman Toni Preckwinkle to become the next President of the County Board. (I have no information that this is the case, but I strongly suspect that it is because Ms. Preckwinkle’s ascension to that job makes so much sense politically and the Mayor is quite adept at politics.) How does it help her to have the Mayor’s public endorsement? Given the racially charged nature of this city’s and this county’s politics, supporters of two of her opponents, Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown and Mr. Stroger, both of whom have worked very closely with the Daleys and would very much like the Daley endorsement but neither of which is known for a surfeit of shame, could use this very endorsement against Ms. Preckwinkle, branding her a “tool of the Daleys” and, by implication, an Uncle Tom. Why take this chance? Even, or perhaps especially, without a public endorsement, the Daleys and their allies in at least some of what are still referred to generically as the “organization wards” could still get the troops out there working for Preckwinkle; precinct captains don’t get their marching orders from the media. The smart move on Daley’s part is not to endorse.
Mike Madigan’s failure to endorse arises from a different set of dynamics. There is little doubt that his 13th Ward constituents support, probably overwhelmingly, the candidacy of Metropolitan Water Reclamation District president Terry O’Brien, the only White candidate in this field of four. If Mr. Madigan had nothing but his constituency to worry about, he would join Matthew O’Shea, committeeman of the 19th Ward, which features demographics, and voting patterns, very similar to those of the 13th Ward, in endorsing Mr. O’Brien. But while Mr. O’Shea is a relative political novice, Mr. Madigan is one of the two most powerful Democrats in the state and his responsibilities as House Speaker and State Party Chairman extend beyond the boundaries of the 13th Ward. He needs the support of Black Democrats in both the latter posts. Endorsing Terry O’Brien would be harmful (though, given the sheer skill and toughness of Mr. Madigan, not fatal) to Mr. Madigan’s statewide endeavors. So he can’t endorse O’Brien. But he can’t endorse any of the other candidates for fear of angering his constituents (though such an endorsement would be similarly non-fatal to Mr. Madigan’s very secure position in the 13th). One can anticipate that, as in the Daley’s 11th ward, there will be no candidate for County Board President on Mr. Madigan’s palm cards. However, while one suspects that, while Alderman Preckwinkle will do surprisingly well in the 11th, Terry O’Brien will win the 13th overwhelmingly.
All of this assumes that all four candidates will stay in the race, which I suspect is a highly unlikely outcome. The dynamics change markedly when people start dropping out, so we will watch this race very closely.
“(HEY TODD), WHO’S NAME IS ON THAT WATER TOWER OVER THERE?”
12/16/09
Much has been made of late of the “feud,” “bad blood,” or “animosity” between Mayor Richard M. Daley and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger. Both men, of course, deny that any such bad feelings exist, but, remember, they are both career politicians and thus reflexively lie. As strange as this may sound, this is not a knock on either man; it is just an observation of the conduct of their profession. Politicians, as I have said numerous times on this blog and elsewhere, lie because it comes more naturally than telling the truth, only they don’t call it “lying.” They call it “posturing,” “bargaining,” or “public relations.” But I digress.
Apparently, Todd Stroger is upset with Rich Daley because Daley, or, more properly, Rich Daley’s brother John, who is chairman of the Cook County Board Finance Committee, did not support Mr. Stroger on his 1% increase in the sales tax. Indeed, John Daley was one of the leaders of the coalition of Board members who cut that sales tax increase in half. Stroger is also upset that neither (none really, but for purposes of this discussion, only Rich and John count, at least on the surface) Daley brother has endorsed him in his tough, four way primary race for effective reelection to the Board presidency. Reportedly, Stroger, who apparently doesn’t know much about politics in this city, is angry with the Daleys because House Speaker, 13th Ward Committeeman, and Democratic Party State Chairman Mike Madigan has not endorsed Mr. Stroger, as if Rich Daley can tell Mike Madigan what to do. More on that in my other 12/16 post “DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”
Despite denials on both sides, it is clear that the Daleys have had it with the Todd Stroger. But why? Some have argued that Stroger’s, er, inartful handling of his office has the Mayor very upset. While calling for austerity and arguing that the County was broke, Stroger went on a spree of hiring his relatives, friends, political cronies, lackeys, toadies, favorite busboys, and various other incompetent, unqualified hangers-on. The experienced observer is led to ask, however, how someone like Mayor Daley can criticize anyone for packing the payroll with relatives, friends, political cronies, lackeys, toadies, favorite busboys, and various other incompetent, unqualified hangers-on while warning of imminent financial demise. There is something to this argument, however, and to Daley’s anger with Stroger on this basis. While packing the payroll and handing out contracts to the favored few is a long time political tradition that still endures in these parts, the experienced and skilled politicians, like the Daleys, engage in activities with a degree of aplomb and style that Todd Stroger seems completely incapable of matching. Much like our former Governor, Mr. Stroger is simply too blatant about his corruption. Subtlety is a concept he, like Rod Blagojevich, has yet, and probably never, to grasp. This interferes with business as usual at City Hall and at the County Building by drawing too much attention to the nefarious goings-on that are part of government in and around the city of Chicago and the county of Cook.
Another angle argues that the Daleys are upset with Mr. Stroger because he has driven the County to financial ruin and was forced to raise taxes in order to keep the County afloat. But, again, it is difficult for Rich Daley to castigate someone for driving the political jurisdiction of which one is in charge to financial ruin while grasping for new sources of revenue. There is in this case also, however, an element of veracity and justification in the Mayor’s state of perturbation. The increase in the sales tax was huge, larger than the County needed, the latter even according to Todd Stroger, who said that the County could always use the extra revenue and, by taking this enormous bite of the apple now, could avoid coming back to the well later. (This explanation illustrates why Todd Stroger, the incumbent, is running fourth in a field of four candidates for his own job, but we are not talking about the opinions of the typical taxpayer and voter here; we are talking about the opinion of the Daleys.) Such a level of sales taxation has a direct impact on the city of Chicago, on doing business in the city of Chicago, in visiting the city of Chicago, and in living in the city of Chicago. The last thing that the Mayor wants is for the city to become a less attractive place, and Mr. Stroger’s tax increase did just that. Further, given the state of political literacy of the average voter, the Mayor is bound to continue to get some of the blame for this increase in taxes.
While there is certainly an element of truth in the argument that the Mayor is upset with the County Board president because of the blatant corruption and fiscal mismanagement leading to increased taxes at the County under Mr. Stroger’s tutelage, the true source of the Daleys’ displeasure with Mr. Stroger lies in a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago that found that Finance Committee Chairman John Daley voted with Board President Stroger on only half of fourteen votes the study considered pivotal. If this study understood the direction of power in this County or, more likely, were not striving so hard to be politically correct, it would have stated that Board President Stroger supported Finance Committee Chairman Daley only half the time on fourteen pivotal votes. Make no mistake—John Daley, almost certainly with the help of or at the behest of his brothers, runs the County Board and has done so for a long, long time. Apparently, young Mr. Stroger, unlike his politically more astute father, fails to understand this. The Stroger family exists politically to do the Daley family’s bidding. (See my 9/19/09 post “OF THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT”) This has been the case ever since Richard J. Daley took a liking to a young law student named John Stroger and effectively made him committeeman of the 8th Ward in 1968. Todd Stroger simply forgot, or was never told, who the boss is, and that is why the boss is angry with him.
Ironically, one of the sources of Mr. Stroger’s anger with the Daleys’ failure to endorse him (Again, see my other 12/16 post “DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”) is that Mr. Stroger feels he is owed for all the loyalty the Strogers have shown the Daleys over the years, including the senior Mr. Stroger’s backing Richard M. Daley for mayor in 1983 over Harold Washington. So one would suspect that, somewhere about halfway through that argument, the light would go off in Mr. Stroger’s head and he would realize who’s in charge. But apparently it hasn’t. And it also hasn’t dawned upon Mr. Stroger that politicians, and especially the Daleys, have short memories.
Much has been made of late of the “feud,” “bad blood,” or “animosity” between Mayor Richard M. Daley and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger. Both men, of course, deny that any such bad feelings exist, but, remember, they are both career politicians and thus reflexively lie. As strange as this may sound, this is not a knock on either man; it is just an observation of the conduct of their profession. Politicians, as I have said numerous times on this blog and elsewhere, lie because it comes more naturally than telling the truth, only they don’t call it “lying.” They call it “posturing,” “bargaining,” or “public relations.” But I digress.
Apparently, Todd Stroger is upset with Rich Daley because Daley, or, more properly, Rich Daley’s brother John, who is chairman of the Cook County Board Finance Committee, did not support Mr. Stroger on his 1% increase in the sales tax. Indeed, John Daley was one of the leaders of the coalition of Board members who cut that sales tax increase in half. Stroger is also upset that neither (none really, but for purposes of this discussion, only Rich and John count, at least on the surface) Daley brother has endorsed him in his tough, four way primary race for effective reelection to the Board presidency. Reportedly, Stroger, who apparently doesn’t know much about politics in this city, is angry with the Daleys because House Speaker, 13th Ward Committeeman, and Democratic Party State Chairman Mike Madigan has not endorsed Mr. Stroger, as if Rich Daley can tell Mike Madigan what to do. More on that in my other 12/16 post “DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”
Despite denials on both sides, it is clear that the Daleys have had it with the Todd Stroger. But why? Some have argued that Stroger’s, er, inartful handling of his office has the Mayor very upset. While calling for austerity and arguing that the County was broke, Stroger went on a spree of hiring his relatives, friends, political cronies, lackeys, toadies, favorite busboys, and various other incompetent, unqualified hangers-on. The experienced observer is led to ask, however, how someone like Mayor Daley can criticize anyone for packing the payroll with relatives, friends, political cronies, lackeys, toadies, favorite busboys, and various other incompetent, unqualified hangers-on while warning of imminent financial demise. There is something to this argument, however, and to Daley’s anger with Stroger on this basis. While packing the payroll and handing out contracts to the favored few is a long time political tradition that still endures in these parts, the experienced and skilled politicians, like the Daleys, engage in activities with a degree of aplomb and style that Todd Stroger seems completely incapable of matching. Much like our former Governor, Mr. Stroger is simply too blatant about his corruption. Subtlety is a concept he, like Rod Blagojevich, has yet, and probably never, to grasp. This interferes with business as usual at City Hall and at the County Building by drawing too much attention to the nefarious goings-on that are part of government in and around the city of Chicago and the county of Cook.
Another angle argues that the Daleys are upset with Mr. Stroger because he has driven the County to financial ruin and was forced to raise taxes in order to keep the County afloat. But, again, it is difficult for Rich Daley to castigate someone for driving the political jurisdiction of which one is in charge to financial ruin while grasping for new sources of revenue. There is in this case also, however, an element of veracity and justification in the Mayor’s state of perturbation. The increase in the sales tax was huge, larger than the County needed, the latter even according to Todd Stroger, who said that the County could always use the extra revenue and, by taking this enormous bite of the apple now, could avoid coming back to the well later. (This explanation illustrates why Todd Stroger, the incumbent, is running fourth in a field of four candidates for his own job, but we are not talking about the opinions of the typical taxpayer and voter here; we are talking about the opinion of the Daleys.) Such a level of sales taxation has a direct impact on the city of Chicago, on doing business in the city of Chicago, in visiting the city of Chicago, and in living in the city of Chicago. The last thing that the Mayor wants is for the city to become a less attractive place, and Mr. Stroger’s tax increase did just that. Further, given the state of political literacy of the average voter, the Mayor is bound to continue to get some of the blame for this increase in taxes.
While there is certainly an element of truth in the argument that the Mayor is upset with the County Board president because of the blatant corruption and fiscal mismanagement leading to increased taxes at the County under Mr. Stroger’s tutelage, the true source of the Daleys’ displeasure with Mr. Stroger lies in a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago that found that Finance Committee Chairman John Daley voted with Board President Stroger on only half of fourteen votes the study considered pivotal. If this study understood the direction of power in this County or, more likely, were not striving so hard to be politically correct, it would have stated that Board President Stroger supported Finance Committee Chairman Daley only half the time on fourteen pivotal votes. Make no mistake—John Daley, almost certainly with the help of or at the behest of his brothers, runs the County Board and has done so for a long, long time. Apparently, young Mr. Stroger, unlike his politically more astute father, fails to understand this. The Stroger family exists politically to do the Daley family’s bidding. (See my 9/19/09 post “OF THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT”) This has been the case ever since Richard J. Daley took a liking to a young law student named John Stroger and effectively made him committeeman of the 8th Ward in 1968. Todd Stroger simply forgot, or was never told, who the boss is, and that is why the boss is angry with him.
Ironically, one of the sources of Mr. Stroger’s anger with the Daleys’ failure to endorse him (Again, see my other 12/16 post “DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”) is that Mr. Stroger feels he is owed for all the loyalty the Strogers have shown the Daleys over the years, including the senior Mr. Stroger’s backing Richard M. Daley for mayor in 1983 over Harold Washington. So one would suspect that, somewhere about halfway through that argument, the light would go off in Mr. Stroger’s head and he would realize who’s in charge. But apparently it hasn’t. And it also hasn’t dawned upon Mr. Stroger that politicians, and especially the Daleys, have short memories.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
LOOK SLOVENLY, FEEL SLOVENLY, BE SLOVENLY
12/12/09
Two pieces of commercial advertising, the 21st century equivalent of the papal bull or royal decree, that are, or were, prominent during the Christmas season highlight several annoying modern cultural trends. Both these commercials do, or did, appear regularly on the network that I watch most (almost exclusively), CNBC, but I assume they appear with some degree of frequency on other networks, so my readers have probably seen them.
One commercial is for a credit card company that apparently features a very generous rewards program for those it snares in its death trap of perpetual financial obligation. This commercial, which always manages to catch my attention for obvious reasons, features a very comely young woman wearing an extremely fetching gown and reporting to (please let it be) her husband that she has used all their rewards points on the aforementioned gown but that there is clearly something in it for him. This commercial message highlights a number of cultural trends, and one is conveyed by the appearance of this very sharply dressed and coiffed young woman’s (please let it be her) husband. He has about three days growth of beard, is dressed in an old t-shirt, and looks very much like Richard Nixon at home as depicted in Mad magazine, circa 1972. It seems to be very popular of late for men to look like refugees from a Cook County Forest Preserve outhouse while women are expected to look like Grace Kelly in Rear Window. Especially curious is the beard phenomenon. I am not speaking of a full ZZ Top beard, a stylish goatee, or some degree of hirsuteness between the two. Such a beard can look very good on some men, though, in the case of yours truly, it only served to make me look at least ten years older, not a look for which a guy in his forties, which I was at the time, strives. No, we are talking not about a full beard, but rather an “I haven’t shaved in several days” stubble. Apparently, people find this attractive. However, those of us of a certain age and standard of personal grooming find it slovenly, bordering on dirty and unhygienic. Would one go to a job interview with three day’s growth of beard, assuming that one wasn’t applying for a job at, say, ACORN?
Perhaps young women find this particular manifestation of, if you will, disheveledness sexy. But, as the kids are fond of saying lately, “Really?” Perhaps young women like looking at men who have apparently lost their razors, or their will to live, but, once things move to the next level, do they really enjoy having their skin scratched, scraped, and otherwise ravaged by kissing a man who, out of lack of personal hygiene or a burning desire to signal his nonconformity by fitting in with the latest fashion trends, refuses to shave?
The next commercial, which, in addition to a being a clarion call of the debasement of our culture, is a blatant manifestation of many of the things that are wrong with “Christmas,” as currently celebrated, is for an outfit that will ship pajamas to (please let it be your) wife as a present. While this advertiser sells pajamas, one gets the feeling that most of its profits are not generated from the sale of flannels. This commercial seems to promise a man that if he buys his (please let it be) wife pajamas for Christmas, he will fulfill her seemingly never ending desire to prance around the room to titillate him for hours on end. The man featured in this ad gives us a knowing “I’m (finally, apparently) going to get mine” look as his woman, whose stunning physical beauty is, upon a not even all that close look, exceeded only, and vastly, by her rather addle-brained appearance, gazes curiously away from him, seemingly concocting in her rather compact brain imaginative ways to please the man who has so generously purchased her some provocative pjs. He is, you guessed it, sporting a three day stubble. So this fetching, but not exactly executive material, young woman gets the chance not only to please her bindlestiff resembling husband but to get her face and (presumably, if one follows the drift of the commercial, other areas of her body) ravaged in the process. What a thoughtful gift!
A sensible and not overly self consumed observer supposes that it is fine for a man to buy his wife provocative undergarments for Christmas, her birthday, or their anniversary as long as he understands that such a present is a gift to himself, rather than to his wife, and that he better, in addition to the aforementioned piffle, buy her something that she will really like or his objective in purchasing the aforementioned “gift” will never be realized. The previously discussed credit card commercial, for all its shortcomings, at least seems to recognize this apparently utterly manifest truth.
Two pieces of commercial advertising, the 21st century equivalent of the papal bull or royal decree, that are, or were, prominent during the Christmas season highlight several annoying modern cultural trends. Both these commercials do, or did, appear regularly on the network that I watch most (almost exclusively), CNBC, but I assume they appear with some degree of frequency on other networks, so my readers have probably seen them.
One commercial is for a credit card company that apparently features a very generous rewards program for those it snares in its death trap of perpetual financial obligation. This commercial, which always manages to catch my attention for obvious reasons, features a very comely young woman wearing an extremely fetching gown and reporting to (please let it be) her husband that she has used all their rewards points on the aforementioned gown but that there is clearly something in it for him. This commercial message highlights a number of cultural trends, and one is conveyed by the appearance of this very sharply dressed and coiffed young woman’s (please let it be her) husband. He has about three days growth of beard, is dressed in an old t-shirt, and looks very much like Richard Nixon at home as depicted in Mad magazine, circa 1972. It seems to be very popular of late for men to look like refugees from a Cook County Forest Preserve outhouse while women are expected to look like Grace Kelly in Rear Window. Especially curious is the beard phenomenon. I am not speaking of a full ZZ Top beard, a stylish goatee, or some degree of hirsuteness between the two. Such a beard can look very good on some men, though, in the case of yours truly, it only served to make me look at least ten years older, not a look for which a guy in his forties, which I was at the time, strives. No, we are talking not about a full beard, but rather an “I haven’t shaved in several days” stubble. Apparently, people find this attractive. However, those of us of a certain age and standard of personal grooming find it slovenly, bordering on dirty and unhygienic. Would one go to a job interview with three day’s growth of beard, assuming that one wasn’t applying for a job at, say, ACORN?
Perhaps young women find this particular manifestation of, if you will, disheveledness sexy. But, as the kids are fond of saying lately, “Really?” Perhaps young women like looking at men who have apparently lost their razors, or their will to live, but, once things move to the next level, do they really enjoy having their skin scratched, scraped, and otherwise ravaged by kissing a man who, out of lack of personal hygiene or a burning desire to signal his nonconformity by fitting in with the latest fashion trends, refuses to shave?
The next commercial, which, in addition to a being a clarion call of the debasement of our culture, is a blatant manifestation of many of the things that are wrong with “Christmas,” as currently celebrated, is for an outfit that will ship pajamas to (please let it be your) wife as a present. While this advertiser sells pajamas, one gets the feeling that most of its profits are not generated from the sale of flannels. This commercial seems to promise a man that if he buys his (please let it be) wife pajamas for Christmas, he will fulfill her seemingly never ending desire to prance around the room to titillate him for hours on end. The man featured in this ad gives us a knowing “I’m (finally, apparently) going to get mine” look as his woman, whose stunning physical beauty is, upon a not even all that close look, exceeded only, and vastly, by her rather addle-brained appearance, gazes curiously away from him, seemingly concocting in her rather compact brain imaginative ways to please the man who has so generously purchased her some provocative pjs. He is, you guessed it, sporting a three day stubble. So this fetching, but not exactly executive material, young woman gets the chance not only to please her bindlestiff resembling husband but to get her face and (presumably, if one follows the drift of the commercial, other areas of her body) ravaged in the process. What a thoughtful gift!
A sensible and not overly self consumed observer supposes that it is fine for a man to buy his wife provocative undergarments for Christmas, her birthday, or their anniversary as long as he understands that such a present is a gift to himself, rather than to his wife, and that he better, in addition to the aforementioned piffle, buy her something that she will really like or his objective in purchasing the aforementioned “gift” will never be realized. The previously discussed credit card commercial, for all its shortcomings, at least seems to recognize this apparently utterly manifest truth.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN’S PROGRESS
12/10/09
Yesterday (Wednesday, 12/9), I was interviewed by Becky Anderson of Anderson’s Bookshop in Naperville for a segment of “Authors Revealed,” her show on Naperville Community Television (“NCTV”). Becky is a great interviewer and the segment went very well. I don’t yet know when it will be aired, but I do know that there will be multiple airings and I will keep you posted. For those of you who don’t have access to NCTV on the air, I will find out if NCTV streams any of its programs on the internet.
Thanks, everybody.
Mark
Yesterday (Wednesday, 12/9), I was interviewed by Becky Anderson of Anderson’s Bookshop in Naperville for a segment of “Authors Revealed,” her show on Naperville Community Television (“NCTV”). Becky is a great interviewer and the segment went very well. I don’t yet know when it will be aired, but I do know that there will be multiple airings and I will keep you posted. For those of you who don’t have access to NCTV on the air, I will find out if NCTV streams any of its programs on the internet.
Thanks, everybody.
Mark
“DOIN’ WHAT COMES NATURALLY…”
12/10/09
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that Pepsi is dropping a Gatorade drink (something called “Focus”) named after Tiger Woods. Pepsi protests that this was part of a long planned product repositioning and had nothing to due with Mr. Woods’ marital, er, transgressions. Apparently, Pepsi really expects us to believe this.
Why do people in politics and big business feel compelled to lie? Why couldn’t Pepsi just say “We’re dropping Tiger Woods’ sponsorship because…
(Choose one here.)
…we are lily-livered Lilliputians, like most big businesses, afraid that somewhere, somehow, we might offend someone and thus lose even a dollar of revenue”
or, more likely, or at least more acceptable to the general public, even if further from the truth…
…we think Mr. Woods’ inability to control his putter reflects an image inconsistent with the wholesome image Pepsi seeks to convey.”?
Is it just that big businesses and politicians find it easier, and more natural, to lie than to tell the truth? One supposes so; a whole industry that calls itself “public relations” exists to help big corporations and full of themselves celebrities artfully lie. But judging from Pepsi’s performance here, perhaps such entities need no further help doing what comes naturally.
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that Pepsi is dropping a Gatorade drink (something called “Focus”) named after Tiger Woods. Pepsi protests that this was part of a long planned product repositioning and had nothing to due with Mr. Woods’ marital, er, transgressions. Apparently, Pepsi really expects us to believe this.
Why do people in politics and big business feel compelled to lie? Why couldn’t Pepsi just say “We’re dropping Tiger Woods’ sponsorship because…
(Choose one here.)
…we are lily-livered Lilliputians, like most big businesses, afraid that somewhere, somehow, we might offend someone and thus lose even a dollar of revenue”
or, more likely, or at least more acceptable to the general public, even if further from the truth…
…we think Mr. Woods’ inability to control his putter reflects an image inconsistent with the wholesome image Pepsi seeks to convey.”?
Is it just that big businesses and politicians find it easier, and more natural, to lie than to tell the truth? One supposes so; a whole industry that calls itself “public relations” exists to help big corporations and full of themselves celebrities artfully lie. But judging from Pepsi’s performance here, perhaps such entities need no further help doing what comes naturally.
“SMOKE AND FIRE UPON THE SEA…”
12/10/09
The UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen is very much in the news of late. Progress is being made on a number of fronts, but, being the Insightful Pontificator, what I consider progress is usually not what the strutting popinjays in politics and the media consider progress.
First, the eminent conferees have finally faced reality and determined that, if curbing greenhouse emissions, rather than bashing the developed world, is one’s true goal, one must do something about such emissions from the developing world. Virtually all the growth of greenhouse emissions from here on out will come from the developing world, and half of that will come from China. If we are going to cut greenhouse emissions, there will clearly be some price to pay in economic growth, and most of that price will be borne by those struggling on the first few rungs of the long climb to prosperity. This is a truth that such climate and environmental conferences have tried to avoid, and it doesn’t, as some would argue, by any means destroy the argument for cleaning up the environment. But honest debate must proceed from honest facts.
Second, the Bush/Obama administration has finally shown some backbone and refused to give in to Chinese demands that the “wealthy nations” foot the entire bill for cleaning up the developing world. The administration has come up with $10 billion for such purposes, but large developing nations, and China in particular, not wanting to be seen dipping into that pool at the expense of far poorer developing nations, have demanded more.
Hopefully, the administration’s refusal (so far, at least) to come up with more dough arises from its realization of the utter absurdity of the Chinese demand. Where will the U.S. come up with any more money to help China clean up its emissions? Where, indeed, will it come up with the $10 billion it has already pledged? You guessed it; given the state of our budget after 9 years of Bush/Obama, the government will have to borrow the money to give to China to clean up its environment. And from whom will we borrow the money? You guessed this one, too…China. So we’ll borrow money from China to give to China to clean up its industry, which exists primarily to meet U.S. demand for consumer products. The logic is either completely absurd or compellingly perverse.
The UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen is very much in the news of late. Progress is being made on a number of fronts, but, being the Insightful Pontificator, what I consider progress is usually not what the strutting popinjays in politics and the media consider progress.
First, the eminent conferees have finally faced reality and determined that, if curbing greenhouse emissions, rather than bashing the developed world, is one’s true goal, one must do something about such emissions from the developing world. Virtually all the growth of greenhouse emissions from here on out will come from the developing world, and half of that will come from China. If we are going to cut greenhouse emissions, there will clearly be some price to pay in economic growth, and most of that price will be borne by those struggling on the first few rungs of the long climb to prosperity. This is a truth that such climate and environmental conferences have tried to avoid, and it doesn’t, as some would argue, by any means destroy the argument for cleaning up the environment. But honest debate must proceed from honest facts.
Second, the Bush/Obama administration has finally shown some backbone and refused to give in to Chinese demands that the “wealthy nations” foot the entire bill for cleaning up the developing world. The administration has come up with $10 billion for such purposes, but large developing nations, and China in particular, not wanting to be seen dipping into that pool at the expense of far poorer developing nations, have demanded more.
Hopefully, the administration’s refusal (so far, at least) to come up with more dough arises from its realization of the utter absurdity of the Chinese demand. Where will the U.S. come up with any more money to help China clean up its emissions? Where, indeed, will it come up with the $10 billion it has already pledged? You guessed it; given the state of our budget after 9 years of Bush/Obama, the government will have to borrow the money to give to China to clean up its environment. And from whom will we borrow the money? You guessed this one, too…China. So we’ll borrow money from China to give to China to clean up its industry, which exists primarily to meet U.S. demand for consumer products. The logic is either completely absurd or compellingly perverse.
LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU SPEND AND I’LL REIMBURSE YOU
12/10/09
As regular readers know, I have a lot of problems with the proposed health care (health insurance, really) legislation in either its House or Senate variations. In addition to general philosophical objections, these problems center around the legislations’ reinforcing, rather than severing, the tie between health insurance and employment, the proposals’ not forcing consumers to put more “skin in the game” in the form of meaningful deductibles and co-pays, and our public servants’ continued silly insistence that we are somehow going to insure 30 million or so additional people while cutting costs. If we are going to dramatically expand coverage, it’s going to cost us something. Any honest debate must proceed from that premise. (See my already seminal 10/13/09 piece “I TOLD YA I WAS SICK.”) However, to expect our public servants, who live in a fantasyland, literally and figuratively, and who are convinced, perhaps with some justification, that the American public is too benighted to comprehend or deal with such things as costs and benefits, to engage in honest debate is wishful thinking on yours truly’s part. But I digress.
Yet another problem has emerged as the Senate bill winds its way toward passage, and its not that expansion of Medicare is a transparent back door method of achieving the long held liberal dream of a single payer health care system; I’ll leave that one to the usual cast of yahoo drones on the right. The shortcoming that I choose to address is setting the medical loss ratio, the percentage of premium income that health insurance companies must spend on actually providing health care, as opposed to administration and profit, at 90%, or at any fixed ratio, for that matter. Setting such a ratio provides perverse incentives to keep costs and premia high rather than seeking ways to reduce costs and premia.
Think about it. If an insurance company derives revenue of $100 (Put as many zeroes after that number as necessary; we’ll keep the numbers small to enhance and simplify the analysis.), under the Senate legislation, it must spend $90 on health care and can spend $10 on profit and administration. If the insurance company somehow finds ways to reduce health care costs to, say, $81, or by 10%, it can then only derive premium income of $90, reducing its profit/administrative margin to $9, or by 10%. If, however, the insurance company spends, say, $100 on health care, it can then increase premia to $111.11, and increase of 11.1% from its original $10 profit/administration margin. Such an arrangement is very much akin to the “cost plus” contracts that so enhanced the profitability of defense contractors at the expense of taxpayers in the Cold War era. One can easily see collusion between health care providers and insurance companies to increase health care costs, thus enhancing profitability for both. Thus, setting and mandating a medical loss ratio at 90%, or at any percentage, for that matter, works to increase, rather than cut, medical costs. Since the insurance company would derive no benefit from cutting costs, but would derive plenty of benefit from increasing costs, should we be surprised of health care costs increase dramatically under such a regime?
Once we start telling supposedly private, profit seeking insurance companies whom they must insure, how they can underwrite, and what their profit margins can be, we will have effectively nationalized health care, or at least we will have made delivery of health care very much akin to delivery of electricity or heat, effectively “utilitizing” health insurance. If we are going to do that, why maintain the ruse of a private sector health insurance system? Why not just go ahead and nationalize health care?
As regular readers know, I have a lot of problems with the proposed health care (health insurance, really) legislation in either its House or Senate variations. In addition to general philosophical objections, these problems center around the legislations’ reinforcing, rather than severing, the tie between health insurance and employment, the proposals’ not forcing consumers to put more “skin in the game” in the form of meaningful deductibles and co-pays, and our public servants’ continued silly insistence that we are somehow going to insure 30 million or so additional people while cutting costs. If we are going to dramatically expand coverage, it’s going to cost us something. Any honest debate must proceed from that premise. (See my already seminal 10/13/09 piece “I TOLD YA I WAS SICK.”) However, to expect our public servants, who live in a fantasyland, literally and figuratively, and who are convinced, perhaps with some justification, that the American public is too benighted to comprehend or deal with such things as costs and benefits, to engage in honest debate is wishful thinking on yours truly’s part. But I digress.
Yet another problem has emerged as the Senate bill winds its way toward passage, and its not that expansion of Medicare is a transparent back door method of achieving the long held liberal dream of a single payer health care system; I’ll leave that one to the usual cast of yahoo drones on the right. The shortcoming that I choose to address is setting the medical loss ratio, the percentage of premium income that health insurance companies must spend on actually providing health care, as opposed to administration and profit, at 90%, or at any fixed ratio, for that matter. Setting such a ratio provides perverse incentives to keep costs and premia high rather than seeking ways to reduce costs and premia.
Think about it. If an insurance company derives revenue of $100 (Put as many zeroes after that number as necessary; we’ll keep the numbers small to enhance and simplify the analysis.), under the Senate legislation, it must spend $90 on health care and can spend $10 on profit and administration. If the insurance company somehow finds ways to reduce health care costs to, say, $81, or by 10%, it can then only derive premium income of $90, reducing its profit/administrative margin to $9, or by 10%. If, however, the insurance company spends, say, $100 on health care, it can then increase premia to $111.11, and increase of 11.1% from its original $10 profit/administration margin. Such an arrangement is very much akin to the “cost plus” contracts that so enhanced the profitability of defense contractors at the expense of taxpayers in the Cold War era. One can easily see collusion between health care providers and insurance companies to increase health care costs, thus enhancing profitability for both. Thus, setting and mandating a medical loss ratio at 90%, or at any percentage, for that matter, works to increase, rather than cut, medical costs. Since the insurance company would derive no benefit from cutting costs, but would derive plenty of benefit from increasing costs, should we be surprised of health care costs increase dramatically under such a regime?
Once we start telling supposedly private, profit seeking insurance companies whom they must insure, how they can underwrite, and what their profit margins can be, we will have effectively nationalized health care, or at least we will have made delivery of health care very much akin to delivery of electricity or heat, effectively “utilitizing” health insurance. If we are going to do that, why maintain the ruse of a private sector health insurance system? Why not just go ahead and nationalize health care?
“HIC CALIX NOVUM AETERNUMQUE TESTAMENTUM EST IN SANGUINE MEO…”
12/10/09
In my now classic 10/27/09 piece, ““HOC EST CORPUS MEUM,” I reported that many Catholic churches, and at least two that we attend, had temporarily ceased offering Communion under both species due to the H1N1 epidemic. Communion, at that time, at least at our churches, would be offered under the species of the Host, or in the form of Christ’s flesh. The Precious Blood would not be offered because of the obvious risks of drinking from a common cup. Further, the handshake of peace would be suspended at least one of our parishes and replaced by a similarly welcoming gesture, such as a nod or a smile, that did not bear the same risk of disease transmission as does a handshake. The gist of my post was that, while these were sensible and favorable developments that did not in any way violate Church doctrine, they fell short as long as the holy water font, which features, in most cases, stagnant water, a perfect environment for spreading disease, was still available and as long as some people insisted on taking Communion on their tongues, which usually results in potentially disease bearing saliva going from the tongue of the communicant to the fingers of the priest or Eucharistic minister to the next Host that priest or minister hands to the next communicant who places the Host in his or her mouth.
Apparently, though, that progress toward a sensible approach to disease mitigation has been halted, and, surprisingly, that progress has been stopped at the most liberal of the parishes we attend. While our more conservative parish, Sts. Peter and Paul, continues to offer Communion under only one species, the far more liberal St. Thomas the Apostle announced at Mass two weeks ago that, after consulting with “experts,” the parish had determined that it was okay to offer the Precious Blood out of a common cup.
Hmm…
I am no medical doctor or bacteriologist, so I could be wrong, as I, and most of us, have been on numerous occasions, but I have to ask just which “experts” said that scores of people drinking out of a common cup in the throes of an epidemic is a good and safe idea. I know that I will be accused of asking this question not out of a sense of genuine inquiry but, rather, out of a sense of sarcastic disagreement with what appears to be an utterly absurd decision. I plead guilty.
In my now classic 10/27/09 piece, ““HOC EST CORPUS MEUM,” I reported that many Catholic churches, and at least two that we attend, had temporarily ceased offering Communion under both species due to the H1N1 epidemic. Communion, at that time, at least at our churches, would be offered under the species of the Host, or in the form of Christ’s flesh. The Precious Blood would not be offered because of the obvious risks of drinking from a common cup. Further, the handshake of peace would be suspended at least one of our parishes and replaced by a similarly welcoming gesture, such as a nod or a smile, that did not bear the same risk of disease transmission as does a handshake. The gist of my post was that, while these were sensible and favorable developments that did not in any way violate Church doctrine, they fell short as long as the holy water font, which features, in most cases, stagnant water, a perfect environment for spreading disease, was still available and as long as some people insisted on taking Communion on their tongues, which usually results in potentially disease bearing saliva going from the tongue of the communicant to the fingers of the priest or Eucharistic minister to the next Host that priest or minister hands to the next communicant who places the Host in his or her mouth.
Apparently, though, that progress toward a sensible approach to disease mitigation has been halted, and, surprisingly, that progress has been stopped at the most liberal of the parishes we attend. While our more conservative parish, Sts. Peter and Paul, continues to offer Communion under only one species, the far more liberal St. Thomas the Apostle announced at Mass two weeks ago that, after consulting with “experts,” the parish had determined that it was okay to offer the Precious Blood out of a common cup.
Hmm…
I am no medical doctor or bacteriologist, so I could be wrong, as I, and most of us, have been on numerous occasions, but I have to ask just which “experts” said that scores of people drinking out of a common cup in the throes of an epidemic is a good and safe idea. I know that I will be accused of asking this question not out of a sense of genuine inquiry but, rather, out of a sense of sarcastic disagreement with what appears to be an utterly absurd decision. I plead guilty.
Friday, December 4, 2009
“DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT CLEMENCEAU SAID ABOUT WAR, MANDRAKE?”
12/4/09
In today’s (i.e., Friday, 12/4/09’s) lead editorial, the Wall Street Journal lambastes our NATO partners for what the Journal considers their miserly approach to defense and the Obama administration for continuing a long trend toward reduced defense spending as a percent of GDP. The Journal trots out its usual chart showing that the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has declined markedly since 1960 in a more or less continuous pattern.
Why does the Journal insist on defending its perennial argument for more defense spending with the canard that there is somehow an inherent and direct relationship between the size of GDP and the necessity for greater defense spending? We spend on defense when we need defending. We don’t necessarily have a greater need for defense as our GDP grows. The Journal seems to be arguing that spending on defense should be a constant share of GDP regardless of the presence or absence of foreign threats. This is nonsense. Heavy spending on defense even when threats, or at least threats that can be met and defeated by conventional military means, are quiescent lead to waste of resources. More dangerously, such spending also sustains and enhances a huge bureaucracy that, like most bureaucracies, is always looking for things to do to defend and increase its bureaucratic prerogatives. Freedom and enterprise are always in danger when government bureaucracies are looking for ways to sustain and enhance themselves, and the danger is especially great when the defense establishment is starting to feel extraneous.
Defense is, of course, government’s primary job. But spending on defense, even though it is the most important government spending, is still government spending. It still saps the private sector and citizenry of some element of its vitality, and, like any other government spending, should be done only to the extent necessary. Looking for ways to deploy money spent on defense is especially debilitating to a society. As someone once said, war is to government what fertilizer is to plants.
In today’s (i.e., Friday, 12/4/09’s) lead editorial, the Wall Street Journal lambastes our NATO partners for what the Journal considers their miserly approach to defense and the Obama administration for continuing a long trend toward reduced defense spending as a percent of GDP. The Journal trots out its usual chart showing that the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has declined markedly since 1960 in a more or less continuous pattern.
Why does the Journal insist on defending its perennial argument for more defense spending with the canard that there is somehow an inherent and direct relationship between the size of GDP and the necessity for greater defense spending? We spend on defense when we need defending. We don’t necessarily have a greater need for defense as our GDP grows. The Journal seems to be arguing that spending on defense should be a constant share of GDP regardless of the presence or absence of foreign threats. This is nonsense. Heavy spending on defense even when threats, or at least threats that can be met and defeated by conventional military means, are quiescent lead to waste of resources. More dangerously, such spending also sustains and enhances a huge bureaucracy that, like most bureaucracies, is always looking for things to do to defend and increase its bureaucratic prerogatives. Freedom and enterprise are always in danger when government bureaucracies are looking for ways to sustain and enhance themselves, and the danger is especially great when the defense establishment is starting to feel extraneous.
Defense is, of course, government’s primary job. But spending on defense, even though it is the most important government spending, is still government spending. It still saps the private sector and citizenry of some element of its vitality, and, like any other government spending, should be done only to the extent necessary. Looking for ways to deploy money spent on defense is especially debilitating to a society. As someone once said, war is to government what fertilizer is to plants.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
CHAIRMAN’S PROGRESS
12/1/09
Check out today’s (i.e., Tuesday, 12/1/09’s) Naperville Sun at
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/index.html
Click on the Lifestyle tab to see a very well written article by Heather Kryczka, who, judging by her last name, sounds like she comes from the 23rd or 32nd ward, but is from Naperville. The article concerns my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, and the very successful signing we held at Anderson’s Bookshop in Naperville on 11/21/09. The great picture of yours truly (and, believe me, great pictures of yours truly are very hard to come by; I inherited my dad’s utter inability to take a good picture) is included only in today’s print edition, however.
Last Sunday (i.e., 11/29/09), I appeared on “Socially Incorrect Radio,” hosted by Mark Huffman and fellow former 19th Warder Brian Brophy on WIMS Radio, Michigan City, IN.
http://www.wimsradio.com/
The show went very well, and it is highly likely I will be on the program again in the near future. I will let my readers know in advance of my next appearance on The Talk of the South Shore. WIMS streams live on the internet, so you can listen to it anywhere in the world.
Our promotional efforts for The Chairman continue; remember, books make great, understated Christmas gifts!
Check out today’s (i.e., Tuesday, 12/1/09’s) Naperville Sun at
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/index.html
Click on the Lifestyle tab to see a very well written article by Heather Kryczka, who, judging by her last name, sounds like she comes from the 23rd or 32nd ward, but is from Naperville. The article concerns my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, and the very successful signing we held at Anderson’s Bookshop in Naperville on 11/21/09. The great picture of yours truly (and, believe me, great pictures of yours truly are very hard to come by; I inherited my dad’s utter inability to take a good picture) is included only in today’s print edition, however.
Last Sunday (i.e., 11/29/09), I appeared on “Socially Incorrect Radio,” hosted by Mark Huffman and fellow former 19th Warder Brian Brophy on WIMS Radio, Michigan City, IN.
http://www.wimsradio.com/
The show went very well, and it is highly likely I will be on the program again in the near future. I will let my readers know in advance of my next appearance on The Talk of the South Shore. WIMS streams live on the internet, so you can listen to it anywhere in the world.
Our promotional efforts for The Chairman continue; remember, books make great, understated Christmas gifts!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
KEEP CHRIST OUT OF “CHRISTMAS,” 2009 EDITION
11/26/09
The new truths and admonitions of “Christmas,” as celebrated in modern America and as reflected in our most salient contribution to world culture, our media:
--The level to which one is enjoying “Christmas” can best be measured by one’s level of stress and anxiety. If you’re not short, snappy, angry, generally fed-up, and exhausted, you’re not adequately celebrating “Christmas.”
--Forget that feint toward fiscal sobriety you began in the wake of the collective spending binge that got us into the economic soup from which eminences in the economics profession tell us we are currently emerging…get out there and spend lots and lots of money you don’t have. Why, it’s Christmas! And the perfect cure for an economy that was nearly driven off the edge by too much leverage is more leverage, much like the cure for excessive debauchery (done to celebrate “Christmas,” of course) is a little hair of the dog. Works every time…for awhile.
--Ladies, if a man loves you, he will show it by buying you jewelry at “Christmas” time.
--If a man doesn’t buy you jewelry for “Christmas,” he doesn’t love you.
--If he does buy you jewelry, he surely loves you and the only response is to melt into his arms and be willing to commit your life to him. After all, he bought you jewelry. And it doesn’t matter if he is a drunk, a philanderer, a flim-flam man, or even a Chicago alderman. If he bought you jewelry, he is worthy of all your love.
--Another good way to show one’s love, once one has bought every worthless shiny trinket the jewelry industry foists on the naïve, is to buy one’s love a car. And not just any car, but, rather, a Mercedes, a Lexus, or a car with a similar pedigree. One presumes that love means never having to drive a VW or a Toyota.
--“Christmas” time is an ideal time for holiday parties featuring plenty of drunken lasciviousness. These are perfect occasions for cheating on one’s spouse and shrugging off one’s transgressions with the imbecilic and inherently contradictory rationalization “Hey, it was Christmas.”
--Now is the time to teach the timeless lessons of “Christmas” to the next generation…those lessons of greed, materialism, rudeness, anxiety, stress, and me-meism so manifest in our modern celebration of “Christmas.” Teach your kids to be greedy from a tender age; after all, according to the experts, we have to spend, spend, spend if our over leveraged economy is ever to get back on track.
--The only use for the old Christmas hymns and carols is to employ as tunes into which we can insert lyrics encouraging us to spend. Witness the current ad for the Illinois lotto which uses the tune of “Joy to the World” to list all the people who are worthy of scratch-offs this holiday season.
--The most appropriate Christmas dinner conversation, besides what you got or where you are going to recover from the holidays, is why in the world we are expected to spend so much time in church at this busy time of the year, what a pain it was to get into our out of the church parking lot, and how crowded Mass was with all those people who only come to church twice a year. And it’s perfectly appropriate to ask why, if it’s Christmas, the recessional song was not “Jingle Bell Rock” or “Santa Baby.”
--Whatever you do, don’t acknowledge in any way that this holiday was originally designed to celebrate that Guy who was born some 2000 years ago to bring salvation to the world. He is so bad for business, and he mocks the modern American way. Thinking of Him during this time of materialistic licentiousness only makes us feel guilty, and what do we have to be guilty about? We’re only celebrating Christmas, for God’s sake!
The only favorable development over the last twenty or thirty years in what we still laughingly, or, more properly, sacrilegiously, call “Christmas” is that we increasingly call it something else—“holiday time,” “the winter holiday,” the “end of year celebration,” or some other anodyne tripe. This is great—I don’t want Christ’s name in any way associated with the way we celebrate this senseless and silly bacchanal.
God bless you all at Christmas time. It can be such a wonderful, holy time not only of commemorating the birth of our Savior, but also to renew our determination to have Him come into our hearts and enlighten our lives. Don’t waste it. Don’t join the rest of society in slapping Him in the face on His birthday, of all days.
And to those of you who will celebrate Hannukah in the coming weeks…have a blessed and holy holiday, and thank you for sharing your Son, and your faith, with us.
The new truths and admonitions of “Christmas,” as celebrated in modern America and as reflected in our most salient contribution to world culture, our media:
--The level to which one is enjoying “Christmas” can best be measured by one’s level of stress and anxiety. If you’re not short, snappy, angry, generally fed-up, and exhausted, you’re not adequately celebrating “Christmas.”
--Forget that feint toward fiscal sobriety you began in the wake of the collective spending binge that got us into the economic soup from which eminences in the economics profession tell us we are currently emerging…get out there and spend lots and lots of money you don’t have. Why, it’s Christmas! And the perfect cure for an economy that was nearly driven off the edge by too much leverage is more leverage, much like the cure for excessive debauchery (done to celebrate “Christmas,” of course) is a little hair of the dog. Works every time…for awhile.
--Ladies, if a man loves you, he will show it by buying you jewelry at “Christmas” time.
--If a man doesn’t buy you jewelry for “Christmas,” he doesn’t love you.
--If he does buy you jewelry, he surely loves you and the only response is to melt into his arms and be willing to commit your life to him. After all, he bought you jewelry. And it doesn’t matter if he is a drunk, a philanderer, a flim-flam man, or even a Chicago alderman. If he bought you jewelry, he is worthy of all your love.
--Another good way to show one’s love, once one has bought every worthless shiny trinket the jewelry industry foists on the naïve, is to buy one’s love a car. And not just any car, but, rather, a Mercedes, a Lexus, or a car with a similar pedigree. One presumes that love means never having to drive a VW or a Toyota.
--“Christmas” time is an ideal time for holiday parties featuring plenty of drunken lasciviousness. These are perfect occasions for cheating on one’s spouse and shrugging off one’s transgressions with the imbecilic and inherently contradictory rationalization “Hey, it was Christmas.”
--Now is the time to teach the timeless lessons of “Christmas” to the next generation…those lessons of greed, materialism, rudeness, anxiety, stress, and me-meism so manifest in our modern celebration of “Christmas.” Teach your kids to be greedy from a tender age; after all, according to the experts, we have to spend, spend, spend if our over leveraged economy is ever to get back on track.
--The only use for the old Christmas hymns and carols is to employ as tunes into which we can insert lyrics encouraging us to spend. Witness the current ad for the Illinois lotto which uses the tune of “Joy to the World” to list all the people who are worthy of scratch-offs this holiday season.
--The most appropriate Christmas dinner conversation, besides what you got or where you are going to recover from the holidays, is why in the world we are expected to spend so much time in church at this busy time of the year, what a pain it was to get into our out of the church parking lot, and how crowded Mass was with all those people who only come to church twice a year. And it’s perfectly appropriate to ask why, if it’s Christmas, the recessional song was not “Jingle Bell Rock” or “Santa Baby.”
--Whatever you do, don’t acknowledge in any way that this holiday was originally designed to celebrate that Guy who was born some 2000 years ago to bring salvation to the world. He is so bad for business, and he mocks the modern American way. Thinking of Him during this time of materialistic licentiousness only makes us feel guilty, and what do we have to be guilty about? We’re only celebrating Christmas, for God’s sake!
The only favorable development over the last twenty or thirty years in what we still laughingly, or, more properly, sacrilegiously, call “Christmas” is that we increasingly call it something else—“holiday time,” “the winter holiday,” the “end of year celebration,” or some other anodyne tripe. This is great—I don’t want Christ’s name in any way associated with the way we celebrate this senseless and silly bacchanal.
God bless you all at Christmas time. It can be such a wonderful, holy time not only of commemorating the birth of our Savior, but also to renew our determination to have Him come into our hearts and enlighten our lives. Don’t waste it. Don’t join the rest of society in slapping Him in the face on His birthday, of all days.
And to those of you who will celebrate Hannukah in the coming weeks…have a blessed and holy holiday, and thank you for sharing your Son, and your faith, with us.
YEP, THEY’VE RUINED THIS ONE, TOO
11/26/09
The evolution of Thanksgiving, the day on which I write this missive, is now complete. A long time ago, Thanksgiving was a day of gratitude and humility for the blessings that God has imparted on our once great nation. We recalled the sacrifices of our forefathers, embodied in the story of the Pilgrims, which enabled our great experiment in self-governance, personal responsibility, and humility before our God to take root. It was a day to share with family, to celebrate, and reflect on the blessings granted to us in the happy confluence of events that resulted in our having been born in, or found our way to, this country.
Thanksgiving then began an evolution to what I called on my now famous and timeless and 11/22/07 post (BLESSED AND GRATEFUL THANKSGIVING !!!), “an excuse for gorging ourselves on turkey, watching football, and preparing for hyper-stressed Christmas shopping ordeals” and was given the detestable moniker “Turkey Day.” Concurrently with that evolution, which was itself contemporaneous with and reflective of the general downward devolution of our society, was Thanksgiving’s losing its own identity to become an ancillary celebration to what we still laughingly call “Christmas;” indeed, Thanksgiving became the kickoff of the “holiday shopping season.” By now, though, Thanksgiving is no longer the kickoff of the holiday shopping season; another sports analogy is appropriate. Thanksgiving is now more akin to the college basketball conference playoffs, i.e., the preliminaries are behind us and now the serious shopping begins. We were playing for fun, but now everything counts…it’s do or die.
Witness the headline in today’s Chicago Sun-Times (on Thanksgiving Day, mind you): “On Your Mark…Get Set…SHOP!!!” How can one possibly deny that America’s greatest days are ahead of it?
The evolution of Thanksgiving, the day on which I write this missive, is now complete. A long time ago, Thanksgiving was a day of gratitude and humility for the blessings that God has imparted on our once great nation. We recalled the sacrifices of our forefathers, embodied in the story of the Pilgrims, which enabled our great experiment in self-governance, personal responsibility, and humility before our God to take root. It was a day to share with family, to celebrate, and reflect on the blessings granted to us in the happy confluence of events that resulted in our having been born in, or found our way to, this country.
Thanksgiving then began an evolution to what I called on my now famous and timeless and 11/22/07 post (BLESSED AND GRATEFUL THANKSGIVING !!!), “an excuse for gorging ourselves on turkey, watching football, and preparing for hyper-stressed Christmas shopping ordeals” and was given the detestable moniker “Turkey Day.” Concurrently with that evolution, which was itself contemporaneous with and reflective of the general downward devolution of our society, was Thanksgiving’s losing its own identity to become an ancillary celebration to what we still laughingly call “Christmas;” indeed, Thanksgiving became the kickoff of the “holiday shopping season.” By now, though, Thanksgiving is no longer the kickoff of the holiday shopping season; another sports analogy is appropriate. Thanksgiving is now more akin to the college basketball conference playoffs, i.e., the preliminaries are behind us and now the serious shopping begins. We were playing for fun, but now everything counts…it’s do or die.
Witness the headline in today’s Chicago Sun-Times (on Thanksgiving Day, mind you): “On Your Mark…Get Set…SHOP!!!” How can one possibly deny that America’s greatest days are ahead of it?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
“THEN I MADE THE USUAL STOP…COFFEE AT THE COFFEE SHOP…”
11/21/09
One of the big banks in Chicago is currently running an ad on news and talk radio touting its acuity in relating and providing services to small businesses. (Big banks can empathize with the needs and challenges confronting the entrepreneur about as naturally as Nancy Pelosi can empathize with the needs and challenges confronting, say, a resident of the back woods of Mississippi, but that is another issue.) As part of its pitch to what, in its endless, pointless meetings, its employees doubtless refer to as “the entrepreneurial community,” the bank’s ad says something to the effect that “If you run the local coffee shop...,” accompanied by the sound of a, well, I don’t know what you call it. It’s the machine in those Starbuckesque coffee shops that heats milk or makes foam or whatever it is the habitués of those places put in their coffee and makes a suction type sound that has become nearly as ubiquitous in popular culture as the irritating sound of a clicking camera was about ten or fifteen years ago. After being annoyed by this “Can’t you see by the fact that we are familiar with froo-frooey coffee shops that we are in touch with entrepreneurs?” ad, I thought that one’s conception of a coffee shop reveals perhaps a generational divide but, more succinctly, a nearly continental divide in people’s attitudes toward life.
One can think of a coffee shop as do those who sponsor the aforementioned ad, those brimming with the entrepreneurial spirit and small business energy but who somehow sacrificed their true aspirations to take positions with big, coddling banks in which one’s success is determined by the number of committees one joins and how skillfully one ingratiates himself with one’s gormless superiors at seemingly interminable and completely vestigial meetings. For these dazzling, sophisticated urbanites, a “coffee shop” is a Starbuck’s, a Caribou, or one of the countless knock-offs of these formulaic heralds of the decline of our society.
One can also think of a coffee shop as one, or, more likely, a combination of, the following:
--a place like the joint depicted in Edward Hopper’s “Nighthawks”
--a place like the place depicted in Helnwein’s “Nighthawks” parody, “Boulevard of Broken Dreams”
--a diner in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, (on) Long Island, or any number of eastern locales. And I mean a real diner, not a yuppie place that calls itself something like “Franc’s old time down home diner,” where people who wouldn’t be caught dead in a real diner go to eat concoctions the names of which people who eat in real diners can’t pronounce
--Lume’s on 116th and Western in my old neighborhood
--a place a not yet ruined, old time casino, like the Tropicana or Binyon’s, has off in the corner where one can get a reuben and a cup of coffee or a gallon or so of iced tea after a rough night of at the tables
--the midwestern variant of the diner, which we refer to as “a Greek joint, not a Greek food Greek joint, but a Greek joint where the menu is 19 pages long and where breakfast is served any time of day”
--the place Denny’s does a mixed job of replicating
--the places politicians go when attempting to hoodwink us into believing that they have even the remotest idea of how real people live as they campaign in Iowa or New Hampshire.
If one has the Starbuck’s/Caribou idea of a coffee shop, one thinks of the world one way. If one has the other conception of a coffee shop outlined above, one thinks of the world a different way. I can’t exactly put my finger on the differences in those worldviews; however, depending on one’s side of the divide, one might describe it as one of the following:
--Backward looking/forward looking
--One with a profound appreciation of the country’s former greatness/passenger (or driver) as our country and culture heads over a cliff
--Cheap/bon vivant
--One who is prudent with one’s hard earned money/one who has the financial acumen of a grape
--old coot who likes elevator music/chic new age jazz aficionado
--one who likes real music by guys like Sinatra, Martin, Williams, Cash, and Davis/sheepish fan of idiotic “interpretations” of the aforementioned classics by people who until yesterday were listening to Brittney Spears
--Old fogey/bold embracer of all that is new and profound
--solid, God fearing, patriotic, testicular American/froo-frooey, latte sipping, new age confidante of Communists
You get the idea.
If this is not the first time you have read the Insightful Pontificator, you have a pretty good idea of which side of the divide I inhabit. However, don’t misunderstand me; I like, no, I LOVE, Starbuck’s coffee, and I even sort of like their stores. I especially recommend the Starbuck’s on the corner of 103rd and Longwood Drive, which was converted from a Christian Science Reading Room. While the conversion was a yet another sign of the decidedly downward turn our society was taken (but which seemed inevitable after the companion church was converted to condos), this is perhaps the most beautiful, and fitting, Starbuck’s I have ever visited. Again, unless this is the first time you have read this blog, you know that I don’t like paying for Starbuck’s coffee. But occasionally people give me Starubuck’s gift cards and, when they do, I enjoy a cup of COFFEE (a cup of black coffee, not some calorie laden, fancy dancy, hotsy totsy, latta happa waha cup of God knows what for $5.75 that the guy in either Birkenstocks or a $1000 suit right in front of me in line is ordering when I just want to get a cup of coffee) at Starbuck’s or I buy a bag of the stuff to make at home, which is much cheaper but still far too extravagant when Maxwell House can be made for, on sale, about 1/5 the price. I’ve only been to Caribou twice, when there was some kind of free or greatly reduced price deal, so I can’t venture much of an opinion on their product. That alone probably says volumes about it.
So this post is not a dissertation on the quality of the product; it is a statement on the culture divide signified by the dispenser of the product. On both notes, however, the best takeout coffee available anywhere is not in Starbuck’s or, on, to many, what is the other side of the cultural divide, Dunkin’ Donuts…
no, the best takeout coffee in the world is found at White Castle. And given a choice between a slider and some kind of froo-frooey overpriced “biscotti” (whatever on God’s green earth that is), well, even if this is the first time you’ve ever read the Pontificator, you know my feelings on those alternatives.
One of the big banks in Chicago is currently running an ad on news and talk radio touting its acuity in relating and providing services to small businesses. (Big banks can empathize with the needs and challenges confronting the entrepreneur about as naturally as Nancy Pelosi can empathize with the needs and challenges confronting, say, a resident of the back woods of Mississippi, but that is another issue.) As part of its pitch to what, in its endless, pointless meetings, its employees doubtless refer to as “the entrepreneurial community,” the bank’s ad says something to the effect that “If you run the local coffee shop...,” accompanied by the sound of a, well, I don’t know what you call it. It’s the machine in those Starbuckesque coffee shops that heats milk or makes foam or whatever it is the habitués of those places put in their coffee and makes a suction type sound that has become nearly as ubiquitous in popular culture as the irritating sound of a clicking camera was about ten or fifteen years ago. After being annoyed by this “Can’t you see by the fact that we are familiar with froo-frooey coffee shops that we are in touch with entrepreneurs?” ad, I thought that one’s conception of a coffee shop reveals perhaps a generational divide but, more succinctly, a nearly continental divide in people’s attitudes toward life.
One can think of a coffee shop as do those who sponsor the aforementioned ad, those brimming with the entrepreneurial spirit and small business energy but who somehow sacrificed their true aspirations to take positions with big, coddling banks in which one’s success is determined by the number of committees one joins and how skillfully one ingratiates himself with one’s gormless superiors at seemingly interminable and completely vestigial meetings. For these dazzling, sophisticated urbanites, a “coffee shop” is a Starbuck’s, a Caribou, or one of the countless knock-offs of these formulaic heralds of the decline of our society.
One can also think of a coffee shop as one, or, more likely, a combination of, the following:
--a place like the joint depicted in Edward Hopper’s “Nighthawks”
--a place like the place depicted in Helnwein’s “Nighthawks” parody, “Boulevard of Broken Dreams”
--a diner in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, (on) Long Island, or any number of eastern locales. And I mean a real diner, not a yuppie place that calls itself something like “Franc’s old time down home diner,” where people who wouldn’t be caught dead in a real diner go to eat concoctions the names of which people who eat in real diners can’t pronounce
--Lume’s on 116th and Western in my old neighborhood
--a place a not yet ruined, old time casino, like the Tropicana or Binyon’s, has off in the corner where one can get a reuben and a cup of coffee or a gallon or so of iced tea after a rough night of at the tables
--the midwestern variant of the diner, which we refer to as “a Greek joint, not a Greek food Greek joint, but a Greek joint where the menu is 19 pages long and where breakfast is served any time of day”
--the place Denny’s does a mixed job of replicating
--the places politicians go when attempting to hoodwink us into believing that they have even the remotest idea of how real people live as they campaign in Iowa or New Hampshire.
If one has the Starbuck’s/Caribou idea of a coffee shop, one thinks of the world one way. If one has the other conception of a coffee shop outlined above, one thinks of the world a different way. I can’t exactly put my finger on the differences in those worldviews; however, depending on one’s side of the divide, one might describe it as one of the following:
--Backward looking/forward looking
--One with a profound appreciation of the country’s former greatness/passenger (or driver) as our country and culture heads over a cliff
--Cheap/bon vivant
--One who is prudent with one’s hard earned money/one who has the financial acumen of a grape
--old coot who likes elevator music/chic new age jazz aficionado
--one who likes real music by guys like Sinatra, Martin, Williams, Cash, and Davis/sheepish fan of idiotic “interpretations” of the aforementioned classics by people who until yesterday were listening to Brittney Spears
--Old fogey/bold embracer of all that is new and profound
--solid, God fearing, patriotic, testicular American/froo-frooey, latte sipping, new age confidante of Communists
You get the idea.
If this is not the first time you have read the Insightful Pontificator, you have a pretty good idea of which side of the divide I inhabit. However, don’t misunderstand me; I like, no, I LOVE, Starbuck’s coffee, and I even sort of like their stores. I especially recommend the Starbuck’s on the corner of 103rd and Longwood Drive, which was converted from a Christian Science Reading Room. While the conversion was a yet another sign of the decidedly downward turn our society was taken (but which seemed inevitable after the companion church was converted to condos), this is perhaps the most beautiful, and fitting, Starbuck’s I have ever visited. Again, unless this is the first time you have read this blog, you know that I don’t like paying for Starbuck’s coffee. But occasionally people give me Starubuck’s gift cards and, when they do, I enjoy a cup of COFFEE (a cup of black coffee, not some calorie laden, fancy dancy, hotsy totsy, latta happa waha cup of God knows what for $5.75 that the guy in either Birkenstocks or a $1000 suit right in front of me in line is ordering when I just want to get a cup of coffee) at Starbuck’s or I buy a bag of the stuff to make at home, which is much cheaper but still far too extravagant when Maxwell House can be made for, on sale, about 1/5 the price. I’ve only been to Caribou twice, when there was some kind of free or greatly reduced price deal, so I can’t venture much of an opinion on their product. That alone probably says volumes about it.
So this post is not a dissertation on the quality of the product; it is a statement on the culture divide signified by the dispenser of the product. On both notes, however, the best takeout coffee available anywhere is not in Starbuck’s or, on, to many, what is the other side of the cultural divide, Dunkin’ Donuts…
no, the best takeout coffee in the world is found at White Castle. And given a choice between a slider and some kind of froo-frooey overpriced “biscotti” (whatever on God’s green earth that is), well, even if this is the first time you’ve ever read the Pontificator, you know my feelings on those alternatives.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
A LITTLE ADOLESCENT BOY HUMOR TO BRIGHTEN YOUR DAY
11/19/09
In my post of 11/3/09 (See “ANOTHER GREAT WRITER EMERGES FROM THE SOUTH SIDE”), I reprinted what I thought was perhaps the greatest letter to the editor of all time, which I had stumbled across in that day’s Chicago Sun-Times. Apparently, the Sun-Times has done it again. In today’s edition, I found perhaps the funniest and/or most ironic local news story of all time. (Okay, okay…I know it wasn’t all that funny for the victim, I’m glad my wife and/or one of my daughters was not the victim, I’m happy that none of you was the victim, and I’m especially glad that I was not the victim. But tell me with a straight face that you didn’t laugh out loud after reading this short news story.) I reprint it almost in its entirety, leaving out only the last sentence, “Both charges he faces are misdemeanors.” only to emphasize the line that gives the story its ironic humor:
“N.W. Side cabbie allegedly exposed himself to woman
A Northwest Side cab driver has been charged with public indecency and assault after allegedly exposing himself to a woman exiting his cab in the Austin neighborhood earlier this month.
Badri Hassan, 36, grabbed the woman’s arm and exposed himself at the intersection of West Ohio and North Laramie Avenue on Nov. 8, according to police.
Hassan, of the 4000 block of West Cullom, works for Flash Cab.”
The Chicago Tribune is a great paper, as are the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but I suspect that none of those papers would have felt the Sun-Times’ compulsion to identify Mr. Hassan’s employer.
In my post of 11/3/09 (See “ANOTHER GREAT WRITER EMERGES FROM THE SOUTH SIDE”), I reprinted what I thought was perhaps the greatest letter to the editor of all time, which I had stumbled across in that day’s Chicago Sun-Times. Apparently, the Sun-Times has done it again. In today’s edition, I found perhaps the funniest and/or most ironic local news story of all time. (Okay, okay…I know it wasn’t all that funny for the victim, I’m glad my wife and/or one of my daughters was not the victim, I’m happy that none of you was the victim, and I’m especially glad that I was not the victim. But tell me with a straight face that you didn’t laugh out loud after reading this short news story.) I reprint it almost in its entirety, leaving out only the last sentence, “Both charges he faces are misdemeanors.” only to emphasize the line that gives the story its ironic humor:
“N.W. Side cabbie allegedly exposed himself to woman
A Northwest Side cab driver has been charged with public indecency and assault after allegedly exposing himself to a woman exiting his cab in the Austin neighborhood earlier this month.
Badri Hassan, 36, grabbed the woman’s arm and exposed himself at the intersection of West Ohio and North Laramie Avenue on Nov. 8, according to police.
Hassan, of the 4000 block of West Cullom, works for Flash Cab.”
The Chicago Tribune is a great paper, as are the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but I suspect that none of those papers would have felt the Sun-Times’ compulsion to identify Mr. Hassan’s employer.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
“EVERY MAN A MILLIONAIRE…”
11/17/09
In my last post, I berated and debunked the hysteria masquerading as argumentation against transferring Guantanamo inmates to a largely unused prison in Thomson, a small town located in a remote stretch of northwest Illinois. Never one to pick favorites when the opportunity arises to bash political types on both sides of any issue, it’s only fair that I now attack the lunacy masquerading as analysis supporting the transfer of the aforementioned bad guys to Thomson.
Perhaps in an order to mollify such well reasoned arguments as Congressman (and recent Sarah Palin acolyte) Mark Kirk’s
“If (the Obama) administration brings al-Qaida terrorists to Illinois, our state and the Chicago metropolitan area will become ground zero for jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment, and radicalization.”,
recent convert to jingoistic know-nothingness Congressman Don Manzullo’s
“The issue is ‘Are you going to exchange the promise of jobs for national security?’ National security trumps everything.”,
Mr. Manzullo’s
“al-Qaida would follow al-Qaida”,
or perennial hanger-on and current gubernatorial candidate Dock Walls’
“We must assume that terrorist groups would constantly plot to free their cohorts. That this small town is in fairly close proximity to a major river should be of safety and strategic concern.”,
proponents of moving the prisoners to Thomson argue that only 100, and perhaps as few as 35, current Guantanamo prisoners may find their way to western Illinois. At the same time, these Thomson proponents, who apparently never saw a fight from which they would not shy away, argue that the move to Thomson would create 400 to 500 new jobs.
Hmm…
Assuming that the stated maximum number of inmates (100) will be transferred and the stated minimum number of new jobs (400) will be created, that’s four prison employees for each new inmate. Assuming the minimum number of inmates transferred (35) and the maximum number of new jobs (500) created, that works out to a little more than 14 employees per prisoner. Now, I am no expert on prison operation (which is one of the many reasons I never ran for sheriff, but that’s another story), but four employees to watch one guy seems a little excessive, even by government standards. 14 employees to watch one guy? Only in Illinois, I guess.
Proponents of Thomson then go on to argue that those (maximum stated) 500 new jobs will result in a total payroll of $85mm. That works out to $170,000 per job. Even by government standards, that seems awfully rich. Perhaps former investment bankers and bond lawyers can make themselves whole by moving to Thomson and becoming prison guards.
Such outlandish numbers are part of the political and civic culture. I remember, when I was active in the Chicago civic community, the argument that Daley’s O’Hare expansion project would create 350,000 new jobs. This outlandish contention, which only yours truly did not accept on face value, was backed by a report of an eminent consulting firm. Why not? If the city is paying one’s consulting firm the types of fees that this “report” generated, such “consultants” will say anything they’re told to say. So the numbers bandied about by Thomson supporters, probably fully supported by a “consultants’ report,” are all part of the game. Those who play this game are counting on people’s not paying attention or inability to do math, not bad things on which to count.
As I indicated in my last post, moving the soon to be Guantanamo alumni to Thomson is a good idea. We have a nearly empty prison situated in an economically depressed area. Supermax prisons can hold bad guys safely; they always have. Given the much ballyhooed worldwide network of Al Qaida, these prisoners’ being located in northwest Illinois does not change the attractiveness of, say, Rock Island, as a target relative to, say, New York or London. And, yes, Al Qaida knows that there is a big city on the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan; having their comrades in prison in Illinois will not enhance their knowledge of geography. You can read my last post for further arguments in favor of Thomson, or, more properly, for further arguments against the arguments against Thomson.
Transferring the Guantanamo terrorists to Thomson has merit; one only wishes that those in favor of the Thomson transfer didn’t trot out the aforementioned ridiculous numbers to support what is a sound argument without such credibility sapping numbers. However, one can’t blame the Thomsonites for using such numbers; the people usually fall for such fantastic statistics. After all, a big time consulting firm would never lie.
In my last post, I berated and debunked the hysteria masquerading as argumentation against transferring Guantanamo inmates to a largely unused prison in Thomson, a small town located in a remote stretch of northwest Illinois. Never one to pick favorites when the opportunity arises to bash political types on both sides of any issue, it’s only fair that I now attack the lunacy masquerading as analysis supporting the transfer of the aforementioned bad guys to Thomson.
Perhaps in an order to mollify such well reasoned arguments as Congressman (and recent Sarah Palin acolyte) Mark Kirk’s
“If (the Obama) administration brings al-Qaida terrorists to Illinois, our state and the Chicago metropolitan area will become ground zero for jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment, and radicalization.”,
recent convert to jingoistic know-nothingness Congressman Don Manzullo’s
“The issue is ‘Are you going to exchange the promise of jobs for national security?’ National security trumps everything.”,
Mr. Manzullo’s
“al-Qaida would follow al-Qaida”,
or perennial hanger-on and current gubernatorial candidate Dock Walls’
“We must assume that terrorist groups would constantly plot to free their cohorts. That this small town is in fairly close proximity to a major river should be of safety and strategic concern.”,
proponents of moving the prisoners to Thomson argue that only 100, and perhaps as few as 35, current Guantanamo prisoners may find their way to western Illinois. At the same time, these Thomson proponents, who apparently never saw a fight from which they would not shy away, argue that the move to Thomson would create 400 to 500 new jobs.
Hmm…
Assuming that the stated maximum number of inmates (100) will be transferred and the stated minimum number of new jobs (400) will be created, that’s four prison employees for each new inmate. Assuming the minimum number of inmates transferred (35) and the maximum number of new jobs (500) created, that works out to a little more than 14 employees per prisoner. Now, I am no expert on prison operation (which is one of the many reasons I never ran for sheriff, but that’s another story), but four employees to watch one guy seems a little excessive, even by government standards. 14 employees to watch one guy? Only in Illinois, I guess.
Proponents of Thomson then go on to argue that those (maximum stated) 500 new jobs will result in a total payroll of $85mm. That works out to $170,000 per job. Even by government standards, that seems awfully rich. Perhaps former investment bankers and bond lawyers can make themselves whole by moving to Thomson and becoming prison guards.
Such outlandish numbers are part of the political and civic culture. I remember, when I was active in the Chicago civic community, the argument that Daley’s O’Hare expansion project would create 350,000 new jobs. This outlandish contention, which only yours truly did not accept on face value, was backed by a report of an eminent consulting firm. Why not? If the city is paying one’s consulting firm the types of fees that this “report” generated, such “consultants” will say anything they’re told to say. So the numbers bandied about by Thomson supporters, probably fully supported by a “consultants’ report,” are all part of the game. Those who play this game are counting on people’s not paying attention or inability to do math, not bad things on which to count.
As I indicated in my last post, moving the soon to be Guantanamo alumni to Thomson is a good idea. We have a nearly empty prison situated in an economically depressed area. Supermax prisons can hold bad guys safely; they always have. Given the much ballyhooed worldwide network of Al Qaida, these prisoners’ being located in northwest Illinois does not change the attractiveness of, say, Rock Island, as a target relative to, say, New York or London. And, yes, Al Qaida knows that there is a big city on the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan; having their comrades in prison in Illinois will not enhance their knowledge of geography. You can read my last post for further arguments in favor of Thomson, or, more properly, for further arguments against the arguments against Thomson.
Transferring the Guantanamo terrorists to Thomson has merit; one only wishes that those in favor of the Thomson transfer didn’t trot out the aforementioned ridiculous numbers to support what is a sound argument without such credibility sapping numbers. However, one can’t blame the Thomsonites for using such numbers; the people usually fall for such fantastic statistics. After all, a big time consulting firm would never lie.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
"OMIGOSH!!! THERE IT IS! RIGHT UNDER THE BED!"
11/15/09
President Obama’s idea of moving suspected terrorists from the balmy Caribbean clime of our base on Castro’s island Workers’ Paradise to the alternately intolerably icy and unbearably hot and humid reaches of western Illinois has generated plenty of excitement.
Congressman Mark Kirk, taking a break from his obsequious yet so far fruitless pursuit of an endorsement of his Senate run from GOP braintrust Sarah Palin has stated that
“If (the Obama) administration brings al-Qaida terrorists to Illinois, our state and the Chicago metropolitan area will become ground zero for jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment, and radicalization.”
The increasingly less reasonable Congressman Don Manzullo, whose district really needs an economic shot in the arm and in which the Thomson Correctional Center, the proposed storage area for the suspected terrorists, is located, has, falling back on that perennial Republican chestnut, national defense, thundered
“The issue is ‘Are you going to exchange the promise of jobs for national security?’ National security trumps everything.”
Does Mr. Manzullo really think “National security trumps everything?” If he does, we can only conclude that his metamorphosis from a sensible conservative to a jingoistic yahoo is now complete. But I digress. Mr. Manzullo went on to observe, in what he presumably thinks is a rational manner, that “al-Qaida would follow al-Qaida” if Thomson ends up housing the Guantanamo alums. This, of course, is only natural; why wouldn’t al-Qaida, upon discovering a site so close to Morrison, Prophetstown, and Geneseo, want to immediately make up for past oversights and set up a terrorist workshop in such a target rich area?
The hysteria about Thomson’s becoming Guantanamo North is apparently bi-partisan. Democratic Representative Melissa Bean, from Chicago’s northwest suburbs yet apparently unaware that Guantanamo is closer to Miami than Thomson is to Chicago, says she is “opposed to transferring Guantanamo detainees to Illinois, or anywhere in the United States, without substantial assurance regarding potential security threats.” Dock Walls, current Democratic candidate for governor and perennial candidate for anything involving a public paycheck, wisely intones
“We must assume that terrorist groups would constantly plot to free their cohorts. That this small town is in fairly close proximity to a major river should be of safety and strategic concern.”
Hmm…
Of what are these estimables afraid? That the suspected terrorists are dangerous men? That is why they will be housed in a maximum security facility; Thomson will be the new Marion, which was, before being downgraded to a medium security facility a few years ago, the new Alcatraz. The potential danger to the public of even the most dangerous characters is, to put it mildly, severely mitigated in a supermax facility. The likes of John Wayne Gacy and Richard Speck were housed with little incident in lesser facilities in our state. John Gotti was kept at a safe distance from mayhem in Marion. Are the al-Qaida people more dangerous than any of the aforementioned? Potentially, yes. In a supermax facility? No. The village president of Thomson, Jerry “Duke” Hebeler, who, not surprisingly, is making more sense than any of his big city colleagues, put it best, to wit, “A murder is a murderer, no matter where he’s from.” Perhaps Mr. Hebeler might be interested in moving to Springfield; we can only hope that people of such common sense might seek statewide office in the Land of Lincoln. But we can justifiably fear that such common sense would quite understandably dissuade Mr. Hebeler and those like him from joining the pack of hyenas that currently constitutes state government here; thus, the very attributes that make Mr. Hebeler a compelling candidate for statewide office disqualify him for statewide office in Illinois. Again, I digress.
But don’t these terrorists and potential terrorists have a wide network of compatriots with whom they could plot death and destruction? Yes, but so did John Gotti. Did he plot such destruction from behind Marion’s walls? Probably, but his potential for evildoing was severely constrained by the supermax nature of that facility. And if al-Qaida’s network is so extensive, what does it matter where these people are housed? If they can strike anywhere in the world, why would they choose to plot against, say, Moline, when they could go after, say, New York, London, Riyadh, or Tel-Aviv? To argue that these guys are dangerous because they are part of an international terror network detracts from the argument that northwestern Illinois is in imminent peril from their presence. The people of Thomson, who, according to the “al-Qaida will follow al-Qaida argument,” are most vulnerable, are not overly alarmed by the prospect of new, belligerent neighbors; indeed, the citizens of Thomson are solidly behind the President’s plan.
Why should we take in out of state criminals, the likes of Messrs. Manzullo, Walls, and Kirk will bellow? So why don’t we shut down the federal prison at Marion? It held people like John Gotti, who probably had never been to our state, except, perhaps, to pay respects to Tony “Joe Batters” Accardo, before finding permanent housing in Marion. Why not shut down all our federal prisons? Who needs those jobs anyway? Perhaps we can put the guards and other prison employees to more gainful work, like toiling away at federal government approved “green” projects or organizing their communities.
Mr. Walls apparently speaks for a group of people who fear the dangers of a potential jail break from Thomson. Hmm…a group of al-Qaida terrorists are going to have an easy time, Mr. Wall must suppose, blending into the social fabric of Thomson, population < 600. Or perhaps Mr. Walls fears an al-Qaida version of McHale’s navy floating down the Illinois or the Mississippi with the explicit purpose of throwing open the doors at Thomson in a 21st century redux of Normandy, only with fewer people, and no beaches, involved.
The only sillier argument than the “close to a river and therefore subject to nefarious escape plots” is the line of illogic that suggests that once these suspected terrorists are housed in Thomson, al-Qaida will finally realize there is a huge city on the southwest shores of Lake Michigan. This argument goes that only the coasts have been vulnerable so far due to al-Qaida’s limited knowledge of American geography. But, once the Guantanamo alums are housed in Thomson, Chicago will be in their crosshairs. The same people who make this argument also argue that al-Qaida is a cabal of terrorist masterminds, capable of bringing our country to its knees due to their worldwide network of ultra-sophisticated, technologically savvy cohorts. They expect us to fall for both arguments; unfortunately, we usually do.
Opponents of moving the Guantanamo crowd to Thomson cannot win with such specious arguments. But they will probably succeed in thwarting the President’s plans for Thomson. After all, Governor Pat “No Relation” Quinn is for the Thomson plan. Given his track record, as soon as someone capable of cutting a political deal, writing a campaign check, or effecting a put-upon attitude raises an objection, the Governor will change his mind. Some other state will get the Guantanamo prisoner bonanza in the interest of “listening to the people.”
President Obama’s idea of moving suspected terrorists from the balmy Caribbean clime of our base on Castro’s island Workers’ Paradise to the alternately intolerably icy and unbearably hot and humid reaches of western Illinois has generated plenty of excitement.
Congressman Mark Kirk, taking a break from his obsequious yet so far fruitless pursuit of an endorsement of his Senate run from GOP braintrust Sarah Palin has stated that
“If (the Obama) administration brings al-Qaida terrorists to Illinois, our state and the Chicago metropolitan area will become ground zero for jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment, and radicalization.”
The increasingly less reasonable Congressman Don Manzullo, whose district really needs an economic shot in the arm and in which the Thomson Correctional Center, the proposed storage area for the suspected terrorists, is located, has, falling back on that perennial Republican chestnut, national defense, thundered
“The issue is ‘Are you going to exchange the promise of jobs for national security?’ National security trumps everything.”
Does Mr. Manzullo really think “National security trumps everything?” If he does, we can only conclude that his metamorphosis from a sensible conservative to a jingoistic yahoo is now complete. But I digress. Mr. Manzullo went on to observe, in what he presumably thinks is a rational manner, that “al-Qaida would follow al-Qaida” if Thomson ends up housing the Guantanamo alums. This, of course, is only natural; why wouldn’t al-Qaida, upon discovering a site so close to Morrison, Prophetstown, and Geneseo, want to immediately make up for past oversights and set up a terrorist workshop in such a target rich area?
The hysteria about Thomson’s becoming Guantanamo North is apparently bi-partisan. Democratic Representative Melissa Bean, from Chicago’s northwest suburbs yet apparently unaware that Guantanamo is closer to Miami than Thomson is to Chicago, says she is “opposed to transferring Guantanamo detainees to Illinois, or anywhere in the United States, without substantial assurance regarding potential security threats.” Dock Walls, current Democratic candidate for governor and perennial candidate for anything involving a public paycheck, wisely intones
“We must assume that terrorist groups would constantly plot to free their cohorts. That this small town is in fairly close proximity to a major river should be of safety and strategic concern.”
Hmm…
Of what are these estimables afraid? That the suspected terrorists are dangerous men? That is why they will be housed in a maximum security facility; Thomson will be the new Marion, which was, before being downgraded to a medium security facility a few years ago, the new Alcatraz. The potential danger to the public of even the most dangerous characters is, to put it mildly, severely mitigated in a supermax facility. The likes of John Wayne Gacy and Richard Speck were housed with little incident in lesser facilities in our state. John Gotti was kept at a safe distance from mayhem in Marion. Are the al-Qaida people more dangerous than any of the aforementioned? Potentially, yes. In a supermax facility? No. The village president of Thomson, Jerry “Duke” Hebeler, who, not surprisingly, is making more sense than any of his big city colleagues, put it best, to wit, “A murder is a murderer, no matter where he’s from.” Perhaps Mr. Hebeler might be interested in moving to Springfield; we can only hope that people of such common sense might seek statewide office in the Land of Lincoln. But we can justifiably fear that such common sense would quite understandably dissuade Mr. Hebeler and those like him from joining the pack of hyenas that currently constitutes state government here; thus, the very attributes that make Mr. Hebeler a compelling candidate for statewide office disqualify him for statewide office in Illinois. Again, I digress.
But don’t these terrorists and potential terrorists have a wide network of compatriots with whom they could plot death and destruction? Yes, but so did John Gotti. Did he plot such destruction from behind Marion’s walls? Probably, but his potential for evildoing was severely constrained by the supermax nature of that facility. And if al-Qaida’s network is so extensive, what does it matter where these people are housed? If they can strike anywhere in the world, why would they choose to plot against, say, Moline, when they could go after, say, New York, London, Riyadh, or Tel-Aviv? To argue that these guys are dangerous because they are part of an international terror network detracts from the argument that northwestern Illinois is in imminent peril from their presence. The people of Thomson, who, according to the “al-Qaida will follow al-Qaida argument,” are most vulnerable, are not overly alarmed by the prospect of new, belligerent neighbors; indeed, the citizens of Thomson are solidly behind the President’s plan.
Why should we take in out of state criminals, the likes of Messrs. Manzullo, Walls, and Kirk will bellow? So why don’t we shut down the federal prison at Marion? It held people like John Gotti, who probably had never been to our state, except, perhaps, to pay respects to Tony “Joe Batters” Accardo, before finding permanent housing in Marion. Why not shut down all our federal prisons? Who needs those jobs anyway? Perhaps we can put the guards and other prison employees to more gainful work, like toiling away at federal government approved “green” projects or organizing their communities.
Mr. Walls apparently speaks for a group of people who fear the dangers of a potential jail break from Thomson. Hmm…a group of al-Qaida terrorists are going to have an easy time, Mr. Wall must suppose, blending into the social fabric of Thomson, population < 600. Or perhaps Mr. Walls fears an al-Qaida version of McHale’s navy floating down the Illinois or the Mississippi with the explicit purpose of throwing open the doors at Thomson in a 21st century redux of Normandy, only with fewer people, and no beaches, involved.
The only sillier argument than the “close to a river and therefore subject to nefarious escape plots” is the line of illogic that suggests that once these suspected terrorists are housed in Thomson, al-Qaida will finally realize there is a huge city on the southwest shores of Lake Michigan. This argument goes that only the coasts have been vulnerable so far due to al-Qaida’s limited knowledge of American geography. But, once the Guantanamo alums are housed in Thomson, Chicago will be in their crosshairs. The same people who make this argument also argue that al-Qaida is a cabal of terrorist masterminds, capable of bringing our country to its knees due to their worldwide network of ultra-sophisticated, technologically savvy cohorts. They expect us to fall for both arguments; unfortunately, we usually do.
Opponents of moving the Guantanamo crowd to Thomson cannot win with such specious arguments. But they will probably succeed in thwarting the President’s plans for Thomson. After all, Governor Pat “No Relation” Quinn is for the Thomson plan. Given his track record, as soon as someone capable of cutting a political deal, writing a campaign check, or effecting a put-upon attitude raises an objection, the Governor will change his mind. Some other state will get the Guantanamo prisoner bonanza in the interest of “listening to the people.”
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
I HEAR SISYPHUS IS LOOKING FOR A JOB
11/11/09
A friend asked my opinion on GM’s ever being able to repay its federal bailout money, especially in light of Chairman Ed Whitacres’s discomfort with committing to any timetables for an IPO or for repayment of the government’s loans to GM. My answer got sufficiently detailed to merit posting:
The article on Whitacre's comments in this (Wednesday) morning's Journal was especially confusing. Apparently, "only" about $6.7b of the bailout money remains in the form of loans; of the rest, about $29.9b is in stock and $13.4b in some kind of half-hindquartered "escrow" fund, at least as far as I can tell from this very poorly written article. If the General doesn’t use the $13.4b by June, it can ask for a 12 month “extension” to keep the cash on hand in case something “unexpected” comes up. I suspect 12 months will become 24, 36, 48, 72….months.
It will be hard enough to pay back the $6.7 billion in loans when we are dealing with a company that pats itself on the back when it achieves a cash flow positive month. But one can conceive of a situation in which the loan will be paid back, rather than being converted into more equity. If the economists are right about the economy (You know how I feel about that!) and if GM continues to make the remarkable progress it is making on the product front, we’ll get that $6.7 billion back. However, for the government to break even on its stock investment, market cap would have to reach $67 billion. The highest GM’s market cap has ever been was $60 billion in the halcyon days of 2000. No, we’re never going to see at least a substantial chunk of this money again. But the Bush/Obama administration doubtless feels it was a good investment—heck, it wasn’t their money!
The Opel situation is an odd one that I visited in my blog a few posts ago. It seems like the German bridge loan was contingent on the Magna/Sberbank deal getting done and might be called if GM keeps Opel. But GM has figured out a way (using your money—it’s all your money now) to pay back the bridge loan. Further European (German, British, Spanish, Polish) financing was put in place envisioning Magna/Sberbank (and more union friendly) ownership. But GM feels that it might be able to replace that financing with, you guessed it, your money, if it keeps Opel. However, should GM need to use any of the European money, and it looks like it will, such money will be contingent on refraining from asking for the kind of concessions in Europe that it has achieved in the U.S. This would make Opel a conduit for channeling American taxpayer dollars to European unions. Yet another reason to thank George and Barack.
The Bush/Obama administration has apparently concluded that it will not let GM die, that it will shovel in unlimited amounts of money if necessary. (One wonders if even the federal government has enough money to save Chrysler, but I suspect the Bush/Obamacrats will strive mightily to effect this rescue; again, it’s not their money.) So the oft suggested strategy of buying a GM car in order to get our money back probably won’t achieve its stated ends. The question then becomes whether we buy Chevys, Buicks, and Cadillacs in hopes of stopping GM from becoming a bottomless pit or buy Fords, Hondas, Toyotas, etc. in support of free enterprise. I still say we should buy the car that represents the best value, however we define that as individuals, and I might also add that we probably should be at least somewhat mindful of domestic content, regardless of the nameplate a car carries. While for people who think like we do, it’s hard to forsake a spunky free enterpriser for a ward of the state, GM has some great product out there. Further, despite my goal of owning one of every nameplate available in the U.S. before I die, I’ve never owned a Chevy, a Buick, a GMC, or a Caddy. Though I can’t see ever owning a GMC, it looks like at least one GM car is in my future!
A friend asked my opinion on GM’s ever being able to repay its federal bailout money, especially in light of Chairman Ed Whitacres’s discomfort with committing to any timetables for an IPO or for repayment of the government’s loans to GM. My answer got sufficiently detailed to merit posting:
The article on Whitacre's comments in this (Wednesday) morning's Journal was especially confusing. Apparently, "only" about $6.7b of the bailout money remains in the form of loans; of the rest, about $29.9b is in stock and $13.4b in some kind of half-hindquartered "escrow" fund, at least as far as I can tell from this very poorly written article. If the General doesn’t use the $13.4b by June, it can ask for a 12 month “extension” to keep the cash on hand in case something “unexpected” comes up. I suspect 12 months will become 24, 36, 48, 72….months.
It will be hard enough to pay back the $6.7 billion in loans when we are dealing with a company that pats itself on the back when it achieves a cash flow positive month. But one can conceive of a situation in which the loan will be paid back, rather than being converted into more equity. If the economists are right about the economy (You know how I feel about that!) and if GM continues to make the remarkable progress it is making on the product front, we’ll get that $6.7 billion back. However, for the government to break even on its stock investment, market cap would have to reach $67 billion. The highest GM’s market cap has ever been was $60 billion in the halcyon days of 2000. No, we’re never going to see at least a substantial chunk of this money again. But the Bush/Obama administration doubtless feels it was a good investment—heck, it wasn’t their money!
The Opel situation is an odd one that I visited in my blog a few posts ago. It seems like the German bridge loan was contingent on the Magna/Sberbank deal getting done and might be called if GM keeps Opel. But GM has figured out a way (using your money—it’s all your money now) to pay back the bridge loan. Further European (German, British, Spanish, Polish) financing was put in place envisioning Magna/Sberbank (and more union friendly) ownership. But GM feels that it might be able to replace that financing with, you guessed it, your money, if it keeps Opel. However, should GM need to use any of the European money, and it looks like it will, such money will be contingent on refraining from asking for the kind of concessions in Europe that it has achieved in the U.S. This would make Opel a conduit for channeling American taxpayer dollars to European unions. Yet another reason to thank George and Barack.
The Bush/Obama administration has apparently concluded that it will not let GM die, that it will shovel in unlimited amounts of money if necessary. (One wonders if even the federal government has enough money to save Chrysler, but I suspect the Bush/Obamacrats will strive mightily to effect this rescue; again, it’s not their money.) So the oft suggested strategy of buying a GM car in order to get our money back probably won’t achieve its stated ends. The question then becomes whether we buy Chevys, Buicks, and Cadillacs in hopes of stopping GM from becoming a bottomless pit or buy Fords, Hondas, Toyotas, etc. in support of free enterprise. I still say we should buy the car that represents the best value, however we define that as individuals, and I might also add that we probably should be at least somewhat mindful of domestic content, regardless of the nameplate a car carries. While for people who think like we do, it’s hard to forsake a spunky free enterpriser for a ward of the state, GM has some great product out there. Further, despite my goal of owning one of every nameplate available in the U.S. before I die, I’ve never owned a Chevy, a Buick, a GMC, or a Caddy. Though I can’t see ever owning a GMC, it looks like at least one GM car is in my future!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
SPACE KADDETTS?
11/7/09
In the seemingly endless soap opera that GM’s Hamlet portrayal on Opel has become, the latest development is that GM will now keep Opel to maintain its European presence. Apparently, GM has decided that keeping Opel would be cheaper than making Chevy an international brand and that, apparently, since happy days are here again, courtesy of plenty of taxpayer cash and assurances from cerebral economists that the “recession” is behind us, the time for hard choices has passed. Keeping Opel is not a done deal; European governments, primarily those of Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Poland, must provide financing for an Opel restructuring roughly equivalent to the financing they were willing to provide for the Magna/Sberbank deal. GM claims, however, that it if the Europeans don’t want to play ball, it can use its own (read “your”) liquidity for the deal. There is also the matter of the outstanding bridge loan Germany extended to GM contingent on the Magna/Sberbank deal getting done. GM assures us that it is paying off that loan, again with your money.
Assuming that the financing gets done, and it may not, given that such financing may be contingent on labor concessions the General may not be willing to make, GM will keep Opel. Is this a good idea? Those who think so cite the 1981 Chrysler bailout. Back then, the federal government made the rescue contingent on Chrysler effectively divesting its overseas operations. This made Chrysler a regional (i.e., North American) car company, which no doubt has inhibited its continuing struggle for survival since then. Making GM get rid of Opel would have the same consequences for GM, the argument goes. This is nonsense. Losing Opel would not eliminate GM’s global presence. The overseas presence that really matters to GM is its presence in China, where it is the largest foreign car manufacturer. GM knows this; its international headquarters are in Shanghai, not, say, Berlin, Madrid, London, or Warsaw. Yes, Europe is a large and important market and should remain so. But the market of the future is China. Divesting itself of Opel would have no impact on GM’s presence in China, or anywhere in Asia for that matter. So the “let GM keep Opel or the General becomes Chrysler” argument makes little sense.
Besides, GM produces some great cars, yet another distinction between it and Chrysler.
In the seemingly endless soap opera that GM’s Hamlet portrayal on Opel has become, the latest development is that GM will now keep Opel to maintain its European presence. Apparently, GM has decided that keeping Opel would be cheaper than making Chevy an international brand and that, apparently, since happy days are here again, courtesy of plenty of taxpayer cash and assurances from cerebral economists that the “recession” is behind us, the time for hard choices has passed. Keeping Opel is not a done deal; European governments, primarily those of Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Poland, must provide financing for an Opel restructuring roughly equivalent to the financing they were willing to provide for the Magna/Sberbank deal. GM claims, however, that it if the Europeans don’t want to play ball, it can use its own (read “your”) liquidity for the deal. There is also the matter of the outstanding bridge loan Germany extended to GM contingent on the Magna/Sberbank deal getting done. GM assures us that it is paying off that loan, again with your money.
Assuming that the financing gets done, and it may not, given that such financing may be contingent on labor concessions the General may not be willing to make, GM will keep Opel. Is this a good idea? Those who think so cite the 1981 Chrysler bailout. Back then, the federal government made the rescue contingent on Chrysler effectively divesting its overseas operations. This made Chrysler a regional (i.e., North American) car company, which no doubt has inhibited its continuing struggle for survival since then. Making GM get rid of Opel would have the same consequences for GM, the argument goes. This is nonsense. Losing Opel would not eliminate GM’s global presence. The overseas presence that really matters to GM is its presence in China, where it is the largest foreign car manufacturer. GM knows this; its international headquarters are in Shanghai, not, say, Berlin, Madrid, London, or Warsaw. Yes, Europe is a large and important market and should remain so. But the market of the future is China. Divesting itself of Opel would have no impact on GM’s presence in China, or anywhere in Asia for that matter. So the “let GM keep Opel or the General becomes Chrysler” argument makes little sense.
Besides, GM produces some great cars, yet another distinction between it and Chrysler.
“I WISH YOU COULD HAVE COME UP WITH A BETTER STORY; I FELT DISTINCTLY LIKE AN IDIOT REPEATING IT.”
11/7/09
There are plenty of decent arguments against the House health insurance bill, which most of the media, and the country, continues to mistakenly call a “health care” bill (See my numerous posts on this subject over the last few months.), but the GOP persists in making a decidedly asinine argument against the measure. In fact, this argument is so inane that it makes the House bill look far better than it probably is by exposing its main opponents for the frauds that they are.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, never one to make an intelligent argument when advancing an idiotic argument is easier, repeated this risible contention yesterday when he said:
“American do not want a trillion dollar government takeover of health care that increases costs and lets Washington bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by doctors and patients.” (Emphasis mine)
Mr. Boehner’s specious argument provides yet more evidence, as if more evidence were needed, of the complete separation from reality that characterizes the political class, regardless of Party. Just what planet does Mr. Boehner inhabit? Where are medical decisions made by doctors and patients? Medical decisions are currently made by insurance companies. Under the “health care” schemes being hatched by the Democrats, such decisions will either continue to be made either by health insurance companies, who, as it turns out, will (Surprise!) be the chief beneficiaries of both the House and Senate bills, or by government health bureaucrats. But the doctor and the patient? They will remain as they are now…nearly completely out of the decision making loop…regardless of what happens with the “health care” bill.
One would think that the Republicans would be able to make a more compelling argument against the proposed “health care” legislation. That they can’t tells us a great deal about either the mental firepower these patheticos wield or the underlying strength of the House “health care” legislation. I suspect the former.
There are plenty of decent arguments against the House health insurance bill, which most of the media, and the country, continues to mistakenly call a “health care” bill (See my numerous posts on this subject over the last few months.), but the GOP persists in making a decidedly asinine argument against the measure. In fact, this argument is so inane that it makes the House bill look far better than it probably is by exposing its main opponents for the frauds that they are.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, never one to make an intelligent argument when advancing an idiotic argument is easier, repeated this risible contention yesterday when he said:
“American do not want a trillion dollar government takeover of health care that increases costs and lets Washington bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by doctors and patients.” (Emphasis mine)
Mr. Boehner’s specious argument provides yet more evidence, as if more evidence were needed, of the complete separation from reality that characterizes the political class, regardless of Party. Just what planet does Mr. Boehner inhabit? Where are medical decisions made by doctors and patients? Medical decisions are currently made by insurance companies. Under the “health care” schemes being hatched by the Democrats, such decisions will either continue to be made either by health insurance companies, who, as it turns out, will (Surprise!) be the chief beneficiaries of both the House and Senate bills, or by government health bureaucrats. But the doctor and the patient? They will remain as they are now…nearly completely out of the decision making loop…regardless of what happens with the “health care” bill.
One would think that the Republicans would be able to make a more compelling argument against the proposed “health care” legislation. That they can’t tells us a great deal about either the mental firepower these patheticos wield or the underlying strength of the House “health care” legislation. I suspect the former.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
“IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER CAR (OR A REALLY CHEAP CHRYSLER), BUY IT!”
11/5/09
Chrysler told analysts and dealers yesterday that it is on the way back, vowing to return to profitability by 2011 and to repay its debt to the U.S. government by 2014. Chrysler broke even in September and has been cash flow positive in the last few months. The latter is good news, but not much of a feat with cash for clunkers providing a taxpayer financed shot in the arm and with most of Chrysler’s debt having been eliminated, courtesy of the long suffering, but still magnanimous, taxpayers. The former is a fantasy.
Why am I so pessimistic (besides my general nature) about Chrysler’s future? As I’ve said before (See, most saliently, my 5/1/09 post “CAN THEY MAKE IT? CAN THEY MAKE IT?”), it boils down to product, which the analysts don’t understand at all, mostly because few would be caught dead in a domestically branded car, and which one would think the dealers would understand if one were not as familiar as is yours truly with how dealers do business. With my usual caveat that there is no really bad product out there, and if one can get a really good deal on a Chrysler, and one seeks only transportation from one’s automobile, one should buy a Chrysler, it is clear that, in relative terms, Chrysler’s product line is pathetic and there is nothing in the pipeline, with the possible exception of the new Grand Cherokee, to change that any time in the near future.
In order to meet its goal of returning to profitability in 2011 and getting off the dole by 2014, Chrysler yesterday told its audience that it would:
--boost sales of its Ram trucks by 50% over the next five years.
--increase global Jeep sales by 60% over the next five years.
--double U.S. sales of Chrysler branded products over the next five years.
--power half of Chrysler’s products with engines based on Fiat technology by 2014.
Hmm…
Even if we assume that the economy and car sales will return to the halcyon days of 2005-2007 by 2014, one has the following questions:
--What is it about the Ram that will cause its sales to increase 50% by 2014? The Ram is one of the few competitive products that Chrysler produces, but its sales still come in third in a field of three. Pickup driver are a loyal bunch; getting such a customer into a rival’s product, even when that product is clearly superior, is difficult. Getting an F-150 or a Silverado driver into a merely competitive Ram is well nigh impossible.
--How are Jeep sales going to increase by 60% over five years? As I’ve said before, only Wall Street thinks Jeep is a great brand, probably because Jeep is one of the few domestic products a Wall Street, or even a buy side, analyst would consider, probably because Jeeps make them feel extra manly, but I digress. Jeep’s momentary day in the sun was eclipsed when other manufacturers jumped on the SUV wagon about fifteen years ago. Now that the world has moved to crossovers, Jeep gives us the Compass and the Patriot and, some might argue, the new Grand Cherokee. Oh boy.
--Double U.S. sales of the Chrysler brand in five years? How? Chrysler has nothing, except for its minivans, and even those, while selling well, are widely acknowledged to trail both their Honda and Toyota competitors in any measure, other than post heavily incentivized price. Chrysler cars are a relative joke and there is nothing on the reasonable horizon to change that. Does the “analytical community” think the Fiat 500, about the size of a Mini-Cooper, will make a significant dent in the U.S. market? Does anyone not on the Chrysler payroll think the rest of the proposed Fiat based products, which fit awkwardly into standard U.S. size classifications and represent no discernible breakthroughs, will suddenly become smash hits in the U.S.? If those products don’t result in at least a few tectonic shifts in the U.S. car market, there is no basis for even fantasizing about Chrysler’s doubling sales in five years.
--Why does the idea of having Fiat designed engines’ powering half of Chrysler products by 2014 get the juices flowing so salubriously? There will be some savings involved, and that is a good thing. But beyond that, why the excitement? If there is such pent-up demand for Fiat products and technology in this country, if there are indeed legions of Americans out there saying, or even thinking, “Boy, I’d really like a Fiat, but I guess I’ll just have to settle for a Toyota,” why has Fiat been out of this country for over fifteen years? Why has it waited for Chrysler to offer itself for nothing in order to attempt to repenetrate this market?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Unless the government has decided that it will do whatever is necessary to keep Chrysler alive, Chrysler is doomed because its products simply are not competitive, and companies, especially car companies, are a collection of products, not numbers on financial statements. Fiat is by no means the joke it was ten years ago; it has made remarkable progress under the very coolly named (even in an industry characterized by executives with very cool names) Sergio Marchionne. But Fiat is not Toyota, Honda, VW, or even Daimler, which could not turn around Chrysler. Americans are not crying out for Fiats or Alfa Romeos. And they certainly aren’t buying Chryslers.
Chrysler told analysts and dealers yesterday that it is on the way back, vowing to return to profitability by 2011 and to repay its debt to the U.S. government by 2014. Chrysler broke even in September and has been cash flow positive in the last few months. The latter is good news, but not much of a feat with cash for clunkers providing a taxpayer financed shot in the arm and with most of Chrysler’s debt having been eliminated, courtesy of the long suffering, but still magnanimous, taxpayers. The former is a fantasy.
Why am I so pessimistic (besides my general nature) about Chrysler’s future? As I’ve said before (See, most saliently, my 5/1/09 post “CAN THEY MAKE IT? CAN THEY MAKE IT?”), it boils down to product, which the analysts don’t understand at all, mostly because few would be caught dead in a domestically branded car, and which one would think the dealers would understand if one were not as familiar as is yours truly with how dealers do business. With my usual caveat that there is no really bad product out there, and if one can get a really good deal on a Chrysler, and one seeks only transportation from one’s automobile, one should buy a Chrysler, it is clear that, in relative terms, Chrysler’s product line is pathetic and there is nothing in the pipeline, with the possible exception of the new Grand Cherokee, to change that any time in the near future.
In order to meet its goal of returning to profitability in 2011 and getting off the dole by 2014, Chrysler yesterday told its audience that it would:
--boost sales of its Ram trucks by 50% over the next five years.
--increase global Jeep sales by 60% over the next five years.
--double U.S. sales of Chrysler branded products over the next five years.
--power half of Chrysler’s products with engines based on Fiat technology by 2014.
Hmm…
Even if we assume that the economy and car sales will return to the halcyon days of 2005-2007 by 2014, one has the following questions:
--What is it about the Ram that will cause its sales to increase 50% by 2014? The Ram is one of the few competitive products that Chrysler produces, but its sales still come in third in a field of three. Pickup driver are a loyal bunch; getting such a customer into a rival’s product, even when that product is clearly superior, is difficult. Getting an F-150 or a Silverado driver into a merely competitive Ram is well nigh impossible.
--How are Jeep sales going to increase by 60% over five years? As I’ve said before, only Wall Street thinks Jeep is a great brand, probably because Jeep is one of the few domestic products a Wall Street, or even a buy side, analyst would consider, probably because Jeeps make them feel extra manly, but I digress. Jeep’s momentary day in the sun was eclipsed when other manufacturers jumped on the SUV wagon about fifteen years ago. Now that the world has moved to crossovers, Jeep gives us the Compass and the Patriot and, some might argue, the new Grand Cherokee. Oh boy.
--Double U.S. sales of the Chrysler brand in five years? How? Chrysler has nothing, except for its minivans, and even those, while selling well, are widely acknowledged to trail both their Honda and Toyota competitors in any measure, other than post heavily incentivized price. Chrysler cars are a relative joke and there is nothing on the reasonable horizon to change that. Does the “analytical community” think the Fiat 500, about the size of a Mini-Cooper, will make a significant dent in the U.S. market? Does anyone not on the Chrysler payroll think the rest of the proposed Fiat based products, which fit awkwardly into standard U.S. size classifications and represent no discernible breakthroughs, will suddenly become smash hits in the U.S.? If those products don’t result in at least a few tectonic shifts in the U.S. car market, there is no basis for even fantasizing about Chrysler’s doubling sales in five years.
--Why does the idea of having Fiat designed engines’ powering half of Chrysler products by 2014 get the juices flowing so salubriously? There will be some savings involved, and that is a good thing. But beyond that, why the excitement? If there is such pent-up demand for Fiat products and technology in this country, if there are indeed legions of Americans out there saying, or even thinking, “Boy, I’d really like a Fiat, but I guess I’ll just have to settle for a Toyota,” why has Fiat been out of this country for over fifteen years? Why has it waited for Chrysler to offer itself for nothing in order to attempt to repenetrate this market?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Unless the government has decided that it will do whatever is necessary to keep Chrysler alive, Chrysler is doomed because its products simply are not competitive, and companies, especially car companies, are a collection of products, not numbers on financial statements. Fiat is by no means the joke it was ten years ago; it has made remarkable progress under the very coolly named (even in an industry characterized by executives with very cool names) Sergio Marchionne. But Fiat is not Toyota, Honda, VW, or even Daimler, which could not turn around Chrysler. Americans are not crying out for Fiats or Alfa Romeos. And they certainly aren’t buying Chryslers.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
THE CHAIRMAN, A NOVEL OF BIG CITY POLITICS IS NOW AVAILABLE AT SEVERAL INDEPENDENT BOOK STORES
11/4/09
I’m delighted to let you know that my book The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics is now available at the following independent bookstores:
--Anderson’s Book Shop in Naperville, where we have a signing scheduled for Saturday, 11/21 at 11:00 AM
--57th Street Books in Hyde Park, at the corner of 57th and Kimbark
--Town House Books in St. Charles.
I am trying to get the book into more independent book stores; if you know of such a store that I should approach about carrying the book, please let me know.
The Chairman, of course, remains available at Amazon.com, at BookSurge.com, and by calling BookSurge at 866 308 6235, Option 6 or at 843 789 5000, option 6.
Several of you have read the book and sent me your comments and/or written reviews of the book on Amazon; thanks! I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that.
Mark
Mightydad@att.net
I’m delighted to let you know that my book The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics is now available at the following independent bookstores:
--Anderson’s Book Shop in Naperville, where we have a signing scheduled for Saturday, 11/21 at 11:00 AM
--57th Street Books in Hyde Park, at the corner of 57th and Kimbark
--Town House Books in St. Charles.
I am trying to get the book into more independent book stores; if you know of such a store that I should approach about carrying the book, please let me know.
The Chairman, of course, remains available at Amazon.com, at BookSurge.com, and by calling BookSurge at 866 308 6235, Option 6 or at 843 789 5000, option 6.
Several of you have read the book and sent me your comments and/or written reviews of the book on Amazon; thanks! I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that.
Mark
Mightydad@att.net
“PEOPLE IN THESE PARTS GET THE TIME OF DAY FROM THE ATCHISON TOPEKA AND THE SANTA FE…”
11/4/09
The big business news story of yesterday was Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway’s purchase for $100 in either cash or Berkshire stock of the 77% of Burlington Northern it didn’t already own.
Mr. Buffett, displaying his usual, and lately grossly misplaced, optimism, called the purchase “…an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States. I love these bets,” quickly adding that the deal was “not a bet on next month or next year.”
The press and the analytical community quickly busied itself with trying to discern the Oracle of Omaha’s possible additional, or at least more specific, motivations for buying BN at a 31% premium to the stock’s price before the announcement and/or with opining on the merits of the purchase. Being interested in the thought processes of truly consistently sage investors, a class that Mr. Buffett, though not infallible, seems to define, I have joined in this game of speculation.
Clearly, the BN purchase was a big “green” bet by Mr. Buffett, a motivation generally acknowledged by all concerned. Moving freight by rail is far more efficient than moving freight by truck. As fuel gets more expensive and concern for hydrocarbon emissions increases, both of which still appear to be secular trends, rail will become and increasingly sensible and fashionable way to move freight.
BN is also attractive to Mr. Buffett because it is one of the industries not subject to foreign competition and outsourcing. It is also heavily regulated and provides steady, though not spectacular, returns.
Unlike talk radio hosts who somehow caught lightning in a bottle and assume that such bits of luck make them qualified to opine on subjects about which they know less than nothing, I don’t second guess the financial and investment prowess of Warren Buffett. He remains the foremost investor in the world. However, while I don’t question what Mr. Buffett does, I do question what Mr. Buffett tells us about what he does. Like any good investor, Mr. Buffett knows not to tell his inquisitors too much about his motivations or his plans.
Think for a moment what railroads do. They move commodities, such as coal and wheat. They also move bulky manufactured goods, including cars, electronic products, and any number of other consumer and capital goods. Increasingly, the direction of these movements has been commodities toward ports for export and manufactured goods away from ports toward final purchase points inside the U.S. Indeed, the railroads have enjoyed something of a resurgence over the last few years, and not only because of their ability to move freight relatively efficiently; much of their resurgence has arisen as the aforementioned directions of the freight it moves have become a more permanent feature of world trade patterns…commodities out of the U.S., manufactured goods into the U.S.
So, yes, Mr. Buffett’s purchase of BN is “…an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States.” But I would like to add a few words to that anodyne aphorism. Given the rail industry’s relative immunity to foreign competition, and, more importantly, its role in exporting commodities and importing manufactured goods, a bet on rail is, even though Mr. Buffett would never say this, an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States as a Third World country. As with most of Mr. Buffett’s bets, I’d say this was a pretty good one.
The big business news story of yesterday was Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway’s purchase for $100 in either cash or Berkshire stock of the 77% of Burlington Northern it didn’t already own.
Mr. Buffett, displaying his usual, and lately grossly misplaced, optimism, called the purchase “…an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States. I love these bets,” quickly adding that the deal was “not a bet on next month or next year.”
The press and the analytical community quickly busied itself with trying to discern the Oracle of Omaha’s possible additional, or at least more specific, motivations for buying BN at a 31% premium to the stock’s price before the announcement and/or with opining on the merits of the purchase. Being interested in the thought processes of truly consistently sage investors, a class that Mr. Buffett, though not infallible, seems to define, I have joined in this game of speculation.
Clearly, the BN purchase was a big “green” bet by Mr. Buffett, a motivation generally acknowledged by all concerned. Moving freight by rail is far more efficient than moving freight by truck. As fuel gets more expensive and concern for hydrocarbon emissions increases, both of which still appear to be secular trends, rail will become and increasingly sensible and fashionable way to move freight.
BN is also attractive to Mr. Buffett because it is one of the industries not subject to foreign competition and outsourcing. It is also heavily regulated and provides steady, though not spectacular, returns.
Unlike talk radio hosts who somehow caught lightning in a bottle and assume that such bits of luck make them qualified to opine on subjects about which they know less than nothing, I don’t second guess the financial and investment prowess of Warren Buffett. He remains the foremost investor in the world. However, while I don’t question what Mr. Buffett does, I do question what Mr. Buffett tells us about what he does. Like any good investor, Mr. Buffett knows not to tell his inquisitors too much about his motivations or his plans.
Think for a moment what railroads do. They move commodities, such as coal and wheat. They also move bulky manufactured goods, including cars, electronic products, and any number of other consumer and capital goods. Increasingly, the direction of these movements has been commodities toward ports for export and manufactured goods away from ports toward final purchase points inside the U.S. Indeed, the railroads have enjoyed something of a resurgence over the last few years, and not only because of their ability to move freight relatively efficiently; much of their resurgence has arisen as the aforementioned directions of the freight it moves have become a more permanent feature of world trade patterns…commodities out of the U.S., manufactured goods into the U.S.
So, yes, Mr. Buffett’s purchase of BN is “…an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States.” But I would like to add a few words to that anodyne aphorism. Given the rail industry’s relative immunity to foreign competition, and, more importantly, its role in exporting commodities and importing manufactured goods, a bet on rail is, even though Mr. Buffett would never say this, an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States as a Third World country. As with most of Mr. Buffett’s bets, I’d say this was a pretty good one.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
ANOTHER GREAT WRITER EMERGES FROM THE SOUTH SIDE
11/3/09
Today I read perhaps the greatest letter to the editor in the history of such missives and found it imperative to share the letter, and my feelings thereon, with both the readers of both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Insightful Pontificator:
11/3/09
In today’s Sun-Times, I read what is possibly concurrently both the funniest and the saddest, and perhaps the greatest, letter in the history of letters to the editor in any paper, the following letter from Kevin Duffin, who resides in my old neighborhood, Morgan Park:
“I agree wholeheartedly with Alderman Carrie Austin—aldermen should not be subjected to a search when they enter the city’s central headquarters for administrative hearings. They should be subjected to a search when they leave.”
I don’t know what Mr. Duffin does for a living, but the stand-up stage, or the world of punditry, is calling.
Congratulations, Mr. Duffin!
Mark Quinn
Naperville
Today I read perhaps the greatest letter to the editor in the history of such missives and found it imperative to share the letter, and my feelings thereon, with both the readers of both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Insightful Pontificator:
11/3/09
In today’s Sun-Times, I read what is possibly concurrently both the funniest and the saddest, and perhaps the greatest, letter in the history of letters to the editor in any paper, the following letter from Kevin Duffin, who resides in my old neighborhood, Morgan Park:
“I agree wholeheartedly with Alderman Carrie Austin—aldermen should not be subjected to a search when they enter the city’s central headquarters for administrative hearings. They should be subjected to a search when they leave.”
I don’t know what Mr. Duffin does for a living, but the stand-up stage, or the world of punditry, is calling.
Congratulations, Mr. Duffin!
Mark Quinn
Naperville
THE CAR GUY ALSO RISES
11/3/09
As I watched CNBC this morning, an ad appeared for the new Caddy SRX, which, from what I’ve read, is either a terrific vehicle or a major disappointment. I haven’t driven this one yet, so I have no opinion of my own on this vehicle, but this uncharacteristic lack of an opinion has no bearing on this post. The ad, typical of most Caddy ads since the “Welcome to the world of gentlemen, gentlemen” ad of several years ago, was quite inane. (Clearly, the quality of Cadillac ads has clearly not kept pace with the continuing improvement in the Cadillac product, but I digress.) One particular annoyance in this ad caught my attention: The camera zooms in on the young driver’s right hand as she pretends to shift her automatic transmission. Okay, maybe it was one of those vestigial manumatics that she was pretending to shift, but it wasn’t a manual; the SRX is unavailable with a manual. This “let’s pretend we’re really driving” approach is by no means unique to Caddy advertising; I distinctly remember a Buick ad of a few years ago when a similar young driver pretended to shift her automatic equipped LaCrosse. If you watch enough car ads, you’ll notice legions of steerers pretending to be drivers.
So as an aficionado of real manual transmissions, and as an observer of human nature, I have one question:
How many drivers of manual transmissions pretend they have automatic transmissions?
As I watched CNBC this morning, an ad appeared for the new Caddy SRX, which, from what I’ve read, is either a terrific vehicle or a major disappointment. I haven’t driven this one yet, so I have no opinion of my own on this vehicle, but this uncharacteristic lack of an opinion has no bearing on this post. The ad, typical of most Caddy ads since the “Welcome to the world of gentlemen, gentlemen” ad of several years ago, was quite inane. (Clearly, the quality of Cadillac ads has clearly not kept pace with the continuing improvement in the Cadillac product, but I digress.) One particular annoyance in this ad caught my attention: The camera zooms in on the young driver’s right hand as she pretends to shift her automatic transmission. Okay, maybe it was one of those vestigial manumatics that she was pretending to shift, but it wasn’t a manual; the SRX is unavailable with a manual. This “let’s pretend we’re really driving” approach is by no means unique to Caddy advertising; I distinctly remember a Buick ad of a few years ago when a similar young driver pretended to shift her automatic equipped LaCrosse. If you watch enough car ads, you’ll notice legions of steerers pretending to be drivers.
So as an aficionado of real manual transmissions, and as an observer of human nature, I have one question:
How many drivers of manual transmissions pretend they have automatic transmissions?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
“THERE HE GOES AGAIN…”
11/1/09
A story in today’s (i.e., Sunday, 11/1’s) Chicago Tribune reports that Carol Adams, a former Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services, has decided to decline a job offer from Governor, Pat “I know you’re a man of honor and a different kind of public servant” Quinn. Ms. Adams was offered a newly created $110,000 per year post as “Illinois representative to Africa.” After the fiscally prudent governor’s decision to create this new position out of whole cloth, doubtless due to the brobdingnagian surplus of cash causing the state’s coffers to burst, drew criticism, Ms. Adams decided that “pressing family medical issues,” which doubtless came up only after Quinn’s decision was ripped for once again laying bare the showboating and pandering that characterizes the man who made it, “made my relocation to South Africa prohibitive,” despite Ms. Brown’s contention that “The opportunity to work in Africa has been a career long desire of mine.” Isn’t it fortuitous that politicians’ “family and medical issues” always seem to coincide with times in which political pressure seems to intensify?
One could not be accused of being overly cynical if one were to conclude that Ms. Adams’ decision to give up her “career long desire” was not entirely voluntary. Mr. Quinn (no relation, by the way) simply cannot withstand the fully justifiable criticism that came in the wake of his creating this position. Some of the criticism arose because Ms. Adams is perceived by some as being in the Blagojevich camp. This may not be fair; while Ms. Adams was appointed to her DHS job by Governor Blagojevich, this does not necessarily make her one of Blago’s people. But even if she is complete Blago lackey, and I suspect she’s not, the more justifiable criticism should arise from Governor Quinn’s cavalier attitude toward the state budget. He tells us we are in a time of deep fiscal distress, caused by the recession and, to a greater extent, by a combination of years of fiscal mismanagement by financial dunces and/or a willingness of people who ought to know better to put short term political expediency ahead of fiscal prudence. He tells us that the people who make Illinois work have to sacrifice by paying higher taxes so the people who make their livings sucking the public teat can continue business as usual. The governor tells us that we can’t possibly have wholesale layoffs in the sacrosanct public sector despite such layoffs, and worse, taking place in the private sector, no sir. In times of distress, we have to continue “vital services,” as defined by the people who dispense, not the people who provide, the funds for those services.
Mr. Quinn’s insouciant attitude toward the working people of the state, the people about whom he claims to be so concerned, is illustrated by his creation of something called a “public health advocate” (See my already seminal 10/28/09 post, “OH, SO YOU’RE IN FAVOR OF JUVENILE DIABETES, EH?”) and now something called an “Illinois representative to Africa” when we have less than no money in the state’s coffers and we have to demand (not “ask,” as the politicians like to say. There is nothing voluntary about the taxing power of the state.) that the “working people” cough up more money so the pols can send their friends off to exotic locales to collect high salaries and fend off the (Horrors!) dreaded day when such luminaries might have to get real jobs.
Some might argue that trade missions, such as the proposed Africa post, are especially necessary in these times of economic distress. We need such outposts, we are told, to bring business to Illinois. Think about it, though; in a time of worldwide economic distress, which is hitting the developing world at least as hard as the developed world, just how much business are we going to get out of Africa, or any place, for that matter? And how can a government office help in such an effort? You guessed it…by handing out tax breaks or subsidies of one kind or another to attract what the pols and hangers-on, with their vast experience in financial matters, decide is “business.” So the governor proposes, in a time of fiscal deprivation, to spend money to create a post to hand out more of the money we don’t have.
But it gets better. Governor Quinn, a man of vast foresight that transcends the tawdry world of business and finance, envisions the South African outpost as transcending the role of a traditional trade outpost to focus on building relationships with universities and the South African academic community. Establishing relationships with universities and the academic community? That’s a burning priority in a time of fiscal dystopia if I ever saw one!
The question that arises from Governor Quinn’s oh so typical of political types latest plan to spend money we don’t have transcends our poltroonish governor to encompass just about every politician who currently represents us: Just what planet do these popinjays inhabit? I used to think that term limits would be a solution to our problems, and I still do. But we need more. After all, term limits would not save us from the likes of Pat Quinn, who has never held a particular public office long enough to have any kind of proposed term limit kick in; the Pat Quinns of the world, with the full acquiescence of the brain-dead voters, just leap from sinecure to sinecure. What we need is a requirement that, before an individual can hold public office, s/he has to have held some kind of non-political job. I don’t necessarily mean a private sector job, though that, of course, would be nice. How about a public sector job in which one does actual work, like the legions of honest, hardworking government workers who have actual responsibilities, whose jobs don’t consist of bloviating in front of TV cameras as part of an endless campaign to hornswoggle voters who are too consumed with situation comedies and late night talk shows to pay attention to their responsibilities as citizens?
How about some politicians with some kind of experience in the real world of work, be it in the public or private sector, rather than a career that never transcends the narcissistic world of the public officeholder?
A story in today’s (i.e., Sunday, 11/1’s) Chicago Tribune reports that Carol Adams, a former Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services, has decided to decline a job offer from Governor, Pat “I know you’re a man of honor and a different kind of public servant” Quinn. Ms. Adams was offered a newly created $110,000 per year post as “Illinois representative to Africa.” After the fiscally prudent governor’s decision to create this new position out of whole cloth, doubtless due to the brobdingnagian surplus of cash causing the state’s coffers to burst, drew criticism, Ms. Adams decided that “pressing family medical issues,” which doubtless came up only after Quinn’s decision was ripped for once again laying bare the showboating and pandering that characterizes the man who made it, “made my relocation to South Africa prohibitive,” despite Ms. Brown’s contention that “The opportunity to work in Africa has been a career long desire of mine.” Isn’t it fortuitous that politicians’ “family and medical issues” always seem to coincide with times in which political pressure seems to intensify?
One could not be accused of being overly cynical if one were to conclude that Ms. Adams’ decision to give up her “career long desire” was not entirely voluntary. Mr. Quinn (no relation, by the way) simply cannot withstand the fully justifiable criticism that came in the wake of his creating this position. Some of the criticism arose because Ms. Adams is perceived by some as being in the Blagojevich camp. This may not be fair; while Ms. Adams was appointed to her DHS job by Governor Blagojevich, this does not necessarily make her one of Blago’s people. But even if she is complete Blago lackey, and I suspect she’s not, the more justifiable criticism should arise from Governor Quinn’s cavalier attitude toward the state budget. He tells us we are in a time of deep fiscal distress, caused by the recession and, to a greater extent, by a combination of years of fiscal mismanagement by financial dunces and/or a willingness of people who ought to know better to put short term political expediency ahead of fiscal prudence. He tells us that the people who make Illinois work have to sacrifice by paying higher taxes so the people who make their livings sucking the public teat can continue business as usual. The governor tells us that we can’t possibly have wholesale layoffs in the sacrosanct public sector despite such layoffs, and worse, taking place in the private sector, no sir. In times of distress, we have to continue “vital services,” as defined by the people who dispense, not the people who provide, the funds for those services.
Mr. Quinn’s insouciant attitude toward the working people of the state, the people about whom he claims to be so concerned, is illustrated by his creation of something called a “public health advocate” (See my already seminal 10/28/09 post, “OH, SO YOU’RE IN FAVOR OF JUVENILE DIABETES, EH?”) and now something called an “Illinois representative to Africa” when we have less than no money in the state’s coffers and we have to demand (not “ask,” as the politicians like to say. There is nothing voluntary about the taxing power of the state.) that the “working people” cough up more money so the pols can send their friends off to exotic locales to collect high salaries and fend off the (Horrors!) dreaded day when such luminaries might have to get real jobs.
Some might argue that trade missions, such as the proposed Africa post, are especially necessary in these times of economic distress. We need such outposts, we are told, to bring business to Illinois. Think about it, though; in a time of worldwide economic distress, which is hitting the developing world at least as hard as the developed world, just how much business are we going to get out of Africa, or any place, for that matter? And how can a government office help in such an effort? You guessed it…by handing out tax breaks or subsidies of one kind or another to attract what the pols and hangers-on, with their vast experience in financial matters, decide is “business.” So the governor proposes, in a time of fiscal deprivation, to spend money to create a post to hand out more of the money we don’t have.
But it gets better. Governor Quinn, a man of vast foresight that transcends the tawdry world of business and finance, envisions the South African outpost as transcending the role of a traditional trade outpost to focus on building relationships with universities and the South African academic community. Establishing relationships with universities and the academic community? That’s a burning priority in a time of fiscal dystopia if I ever saw one!
The question that arises from Governor Quinn’s oh so typical of political types latest plan to spend money we don’t have transcends our poltroonish governor to encompass just about every politician who currently represents us: Just what planet do these popinjays inhabit? I used to think that term limits would be a solution to our problems, and I still do. But we need more. After all, term limits would not save us from the likes of Pat Quinn, who has never held a particular public office long enough to have any kind of proposed term limit kick in; the Pat Quinns of the world, with the full acquiescence of the brain-dead voters, just leap from sinecure to sinecure. What we need is a requirement that, before an individual can hold public office, s/he has to have held some kind of non-political job. I don’t necessarily mean a private sector job, though that, of course, would be nice. How about a public sector job in which one does actual work, like the legions of honest, hardworking government workers who have actual responsibilities, whose jobs don’t consist of bloviating in front of TV cameras as part of an endless campaign to hornswoggle voters who are too consumed with situation comedies and late night talk shows to pay attention to their responsibilities as citizens?
How about some politicians with some kind of experience in the real world of work, be it in the public or private sector, rather than a career that never transcends the narcissistic world of the public officeholder?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
OH, SO YOU’RE IN FAVOR OF JUVENILE DIABETES, EH?
10/28/09
Mike Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times (Sneed’s column, by the way, is indispensable for those who want to keep abreast of the various shenanigans that surround the politics of the Windy City.) reports today that Governor Pat Quinn is pushing for “the creation of a public health advocate to centralize the efforts of the state’s major medical institutions in battling chronic illnesses like juvenile diabetes, asthma, and autism.”
Hmm…
To hear Governor Quinn, and just about everyone else in Springfield tell it, the state is broke, busted, bankrupt. Things are so bad that the governor and his accomplices in the state legislator have no other choice but to raise taxes. The governor assures us that he is squeezing every dime he can out of state spending, but that will not be enough to obviate raising taxes and impose, for the first time since the inception of the state income tax in 1969, an effectively progressive income tax.
So if the governor is squeezing every dime out of the budget, where will the money come from to create this position, or perhaps office, of “public health advocate”?
One is sure that Governor Quinn, always effusive about his concern for the downtrodden, will accuse anyone who opposes this latest scheme to spend more of your money of lacking “compassion,” and probably of being in favor of the spread of juvenile diabetes, asthma, and autism. Those who will benefit, one way or the other, from this new arm of the state bureaucracy will scream that we “need” such an advocate. We need such an advocate? The state has done well for the last 191 years without such an advocate, so the term “need” is in this case, as it always is in public discourse, a term generally used by those with a huge vested interest in finding unmet needs, needs that can only be met by the direction of generous amounts of other people’s money toward the “only” people who can solve those “needs.”
One does not know whether creating the office of the public health advocate would be a good use of state money. It might just be another layer of bureaucracy that serves to inhibit the worthy missions it is ostensibly designed to facilitate. Even worse, it might be just another means of rewarding an assortment of lackeys, toadies, and hangers-on, along with any other jackanapes willing to kick back a portion of his taxpayer financed earnings to the coffers of the Demipublicans who run this state. But let’s assume for a moment that creating such an advocate is a worthy public expenditure that will actually make a positive difference in the battle against assorted debilitating, potentially fatal diseases. Even if this is the case, is this a time, when the state coffers are running on less than empty, to be embarking on this crusade?
The politicians keep telling us we’re broke, that they need more of our money because there is simply “no place to cut.” Yet, even in what they tell us are the worst of times, they still can come up with new ways to spend our money. In better times, they consistently managed to find a “need” that became “pressing” when it looked like tax revenues were in danger of going unspent. Now, those needs become “pressing” even when the pols are crying for more tax revenues to stave off bankruptcy.
Have these people no sense of what the typical person is going through? Does the word “economize” have any meaning to our public servants? Don’t they have any sense that, when the people who pay the bills have to find ways to cut spending, the government just might have to tighten its belt just a tiny notch? Do the people who make a living spending your money to advance their careers have any sense of responsibility…or even shame?
Mike Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times (Sneed’s column, by the way, is indispensable for those who want to keep abreast of the various shenanigans that surround the politics of the Windy City.) reports today that Governor Pat Quinn is pushing for “the creation of a public health advocate to centralize the efforts of the state’s major medical institutions in battling chronic illnesses like juvenile diabetes, asthma, and autism.”
Hmm…
To hear Governor Quinn, and just about everyone else in Springfield tell it, the state is broke, busted, bankrupt. Things are so bad that the governor and his accomplices in the state legislator have no other choice but to raise taxes. The governor assures us that he is squeezing every dime he can out of state spending, but that will not be enough to obviate raising taxes and impose, for the first time since the inception of the state income tax in 1969, an effectively progressive income tax.
So if the governor is squeezing every dime out of the budget, where will the money come from to create this position, or perhaps office, of “public health advocate”?
One is sure that Governor Quinn, always effusive about his concern for the downtrodden, will accuse anyone who opposes this latest scheme to spend more of your money of lacking “compassion,” and probably of being in favor of the spread of juvenile diabetes, asthma, and autism. Those who will benefit, one way or the other, from this new arm of the state bureaucracy will scream that we “need” such an advocate. We need such an advocate? The state has done well for the last 191 years without such an advocate, so the term “need” is in this case, as it always is in public discourse, a term generally used by those with a huge vested interest in finding unmet needs, needs that can only be met by the direction of generous amounts of other people’s money toward the “only” people who can solve those “needs.”
One does not know whether creating the office of the public health advocate would be a good use of state money. It might just be another layer of bureaucracy that serves to inhibit the worthy missions it is ostensibly designed to facilitate. Even worse, it might be just another means of rewarding an assortment of lackeys, toadies, and hangers-on, along with any other jackanapes willing to kick back a portion of his taxpayer financed earnings to the coffers of the Demipublicans who run this state. But let’s assume for a moment that creating such an advocate is a worthy public expenditure that will actually make a positive difference in the battle against assorted debilitating, potentially fatal diseases. Even if this is the case, is this a time, when the state coffers are running on less than empty, to be embarking on this crusade?
The politicians keep telling us we’re broke, that they need more of our money because there is simply “no place to cut.” Yet, even in what they tell us are the worst of times, they still can come up with new ways to spend our money. In better times, they consistently managed to find a “need” that became “pressing” when it looked like tax revenues were in danger of going unspent. Now, those needs become “pressing” even when the pols are crying for more tax revenues to stave off bankruptcy.
Have these people no sense of what the typical person is going through? Does the word “economize” have any meaning to our public servants? Don’t they have any sense that, when the people who pay the bills have to find ways to cut spending, the government just might have to tighten its belt just a tiny notch? Do the people who make a living spending your money to advance their careers have any sense of responsibility…or even shame?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
BOOK SIGNING AT ANDERSON’S IN NAPERVILLE!
10/27/09
We have scheduled a book signing for my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics
Anderson’s Book Shop
123 West Jefferson, Naperville, 60540
630 355 2665
Saturday, November 21
11:00 AM
Anderson’s website is:
http://www.andersonsbookshop.com/
Watch the Anderson site, the Insightful Pontificator, and perhaps the Tribune book section as 11/21 approaches for more information.
Thanks!
Mark
We have scheduled a book signing for my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics
Anderson’s Book Shop
123 West Jefferson, Naperville, 60540
630 355 2665
Saturday, November 21
11:00 AM
Anderson’s website is:
http://www.andersonsbookshop.com/
Watch the Anderson site, the Insightful Pontificator, and perhaps the Tribune book section as 11/21 approaches for more information.
Thanks!
Mark
"HOC EST CORPUS MEUM"
10/27/09
As a lifelong and rather seriously practicing Catholic and the husband of a nurse by training who seems to be obsessed about the H1N1 virus and the flu in general, especially in light of the death of one of our daughter’s high school classmates from H1N1, I am acutely interested in the Church’s reaction to the H1N1 scare.
First, a little personal background. We are classic parish shoppers; we are registered at what has long been, and is becoming more of, a “traditional” Catholic parish, Sts. Peter and Paul in Naperville. We also attend a neighboring parish, St. Thomas the Apostle, which takes a much more progressive approach to the faith and liturgy. We maintain strong ties to the church I attended as a child, Sacred Heart in Chicago; our kids were confirmed there and I am a lector and Eucharistic minister there. It’s difficult to classify Sacred Heart’s position on the “ideological” spectrum. Yes, it’s traditional, but it’s not. It is clearly run by the laity, and thus is probably on the forefront of Church evolution, though perhaps not realizing so. “Interesting” is perhaps the best, but still least descriptive, way to describe Sacred Heart, though some would say “quick and to the point” and “homey” would be more salient descriptions. We also occasionally attend yet another church, Our Lady of Mercy in Aurora. Its place on the ideological spectrum lies much closer to that of Sts. Peter and Paul than to St. Thomas. We very much enjoy the simplicity of its liturgy.
In the throes of the H1N1 scare, and especially prompted by the death of Michelle Fahle, the aforementioned Naperville North student, St. Thomas suspended distribution of the Precious Blood, distributing Communion only under the species of the Host. Sts. Peter and Paul, a few weeks later, took the same action and went a step further, suggesting that rather than a handshake of peace, a wave, a bow, or a “verbal expression of peace” be substituted.
I applaud these moves. Some would argue that such precautions are unnecessary because God would never allow us to get sick ingesting His Body and Blood and, to a degree, I admire that level of faith. However, I, and most of my fellow Catholics, would argue that God wants us to employ our heads along with our faith. He’s given us the ability to think for a reason; we ought to use it. Taking such precautions just makes sense, especially since the Church teaches that Christ is fully received in Communion under one species; i.e., it is not necessary to take Communion under both species.
However, there are at least two flaws in the Church’s precautionary measures, or at least in St. Peter and Paul’s, and, probably by extension, the more traditional camp’s in the Church, approach. First, people are still taking Communion on their tongues, as opposed to in their hands. As a Eucharistic minister, I know what happens when a Communicant takes Communion on her tongue: her tongue, saliva and all, almost inevitably comes into contact with the priest’s or Eucharistic minister’s hand. That hand then picks up the next Host and distributes it to the next Communicant. The problem is obvious, and if the Church is serious about arresting the spread of disease, it should immediately discontinue the practice of taking Communion on one’s tongue, requiring that Communion be taken in one’s hand.
On this note, I should disclose that I have long looked askance at the practice of taking Communion on one’s tongue. I made my First Communion as Vatican II was winding down and thus, for the first few years I took Communion, I took it on my tongue. However, as soon as Communion in the hand, so to speak, became available, I quickly abandoned the practice of taking Communion on my tongue. Hygiene was not even a consideration at the time; just the wonder of holding the Creator of the universe in my hands was sufficient reason to want to take Communion in my hand. I have to admit that I don’t understand people’s insistence on taking Communion on their tongue. Perhaps in the case of older people (Remember, Vatican II was forty five years ago!) who grew up and came of age in the pre-Vatican II days and have a hard time breaking with tradition, such insistence is understandable. But one wonders what motivates young people, sometimes kids, to insist on taking Communion on their tongues. Obviously, their parents or teachers have them convinced that there is something more profound about receiving Communion that way or even that there is something sinful about taking Communion in one’s hands. If Jesus had not said “Take this and eat,” but had rather said “Stick out your tongue while I put this in your mouth,” perhaps I could understand. And if I weren’t a Eucharistic minister, and thus able to see how ridiculous people look with their eyes closed and perhaps the least attractive appendage on their bodies fully extended, while waiting to receive their Lord, perhaps I could understand. But given my reasonable familiarity with scripture, and my experience as a Eucharistic minister, seeing people at what certainly approaches their worst and having my fingers effectively licked repeatedly, I have become even more opposed to Communion on the tongue. While I understand that the Catholic Church is an awfully big place with plenty of room for people with different approaches to the incidentals as long as we agree on the essentials, I have an especially hard time understanding that odd approach to reception of Our Savior. But hygienic reasons make objection to Communion on the tongue more than a strong preference; it is an imperative.
The second flaw in the Church’s approach to hygiene is the continued use of the holy water font at the entrance to the church. I know people who refuse to engage in the handshake of peace (for hygienic reasons, of course) but think nothing of dipping their hands into the stagnant water of the holy water font upon entering and leaving church. Talk about a veritable agar dish of bacteria! If one is going to eliminate the handshake of peace and the distribution of the Precious Blood, one should certainly take out the holy water fonts!
One would hope that elimination of the distribution of the Precious Blood from a common cup, removal of the holy water fonts, and perhaps altering the handshake of peace would become permanent features of our liturgical practice, even after H1N1 is no longer a threat. H1N1 is not the only disease extant, and having people drink from the same cup, and dipping their hands into the same stagnant water, as people, who are carrying colds, flu, and God only knows what else is an ideal way to spread any type of disease. At least ten years ago, our then pastor at Sacred Heart told me that, in addition to his pastoral duties at two parishes, he was the chaplain for an association of Catholic doctors and nurses. He went on to report that none of the people in that group would ever take the Precious Blood from a common cup for fear of contacting disease. This was long before the current bout of swine flu. It made eminent sense then, and it does now.
The Church teaches us that Jesus is fully present in his Body and Blood distributed to us at Communion. But the Church also teaches us that we are the body of Christ. We have to respect, and continually nourish ourselves with, the former, but we also have to take care of the latter.
As a lifelong and rather seriously practicing Catholic and the husband of a nurse by training who seems to be obsessed about the H1N1 virus and the flu in general, especially in light of the death of one of our daughter’s high school classmates from H1N1, I am acutely interested in the Church’s reaction to the H1N1 scare.
First, a little personal background. We are classic parish shoppers; we are registered at what has long been, and is becoming more of, a “traditional” Catholic parish, Sts. Peter and Paul in Naperville. We also attend a neighboring parish, St. Thomas the Apostle, which takes a much more progressive approach to the faith and liturgy. We maintain strong ties to the church I attended as a child, Sacred Heart in Chicago; our kids were confirmed there and I am a lector and Eucharistic minister there. It’s difficult to classify Sacred Heart’s position on the “ideological” spectrum. Yes, it’s traditional, but it’s not. It is clearly run by the laity, and thus is probably on the forefront of Church evolution, though perhaps not realizing so. “Interesting” is perhaps the best, but still least descriptive, way to describe Sacred Heart, though some would say “quick and to the point” and “homey” would be more salient descriptions. We also occasionally attend yet another church, Our Lady of Mercy in Aurora. Its place on the ideological spectrum lies much closer to that of Sts. Peter and Paul than to St. Thomas. We very much enjoy the simplicity of its liturgy.
In the throes of the H1N1 scare, and especially prompted by the death of Michelle Fahle, the aforementioned Naperville North student, St. Thomas suspended distribution of the Precious Blood, distributing Communion only under the species of the Host. Sts. Peter and Paul, a few weeks later, took the same action and went a step further, suggesting that rather than a handshake of peace, a wave, a bow, or a “verbal expression of peace” be substituted.
I applaud these moves. Some would argue that such precautions are unnecessary because God would never allow us to get sick ingesting His Body and Blood and, to a degree, I admire that level of faith. However, I, and most of my fellow Catholics, would argue that God wants us to employ our heads along with our faith. He’s given us the ability to think for a reason; we ought to use it. Taking such precautions just makes sense, especially since the Church teaches that Christ is fully received in Communion under one species; i.e., it is not necessary to take Communion under both species.
However, there are at least two flaws in the Church’s precautionary measures, or at least in St. Peter and Paul’s, and, probably by extension, the more traditional camp’s in the Church, approach. First, people are still taking Communion on their tongues, as opposed to in their hands. As a Eucharistic minister, I know what happens when a Communicant takes Communion on her tongue: her tongue, saliva and all, almost inevitably comes into contact with the priest’s or Eucharistic minister’s hand. That hand then picks up the next Host and distributes it to the next Communicant. The problem is obvious, and if the Church is serious about arresting the spread of disease, it should immediately discontinue the practice of taking Communion on one’s tongue, requiring that Communion be taken in one’s hand.
On this note, I should disclose that I have long looked askance at the practice of taking Communion on one’s tongue. I made my First Communion as Vatican II was winding down and thus, for the first few years I took Communion, I took it on my tongue. However, as soon as Communion in the hand, so to speak, became available, I quickly abandoned the practice of taking Communion on my tongue. Hygiene was not even a consideration at the time; just the wonder of holding the Creator of the universe in my hands was sufficient reason to want to take Communion in my hand. I have to admit that I don’t understand people’s insistence on taking Communion on their tongue. Perhaps in the case of older people (Remember, Vatican II was forty five years ago!) who grew up and came of age in the pre-Vatican II days and have a hard time breaking with tradition, such insistence is understandable. But one wonders what motivates young people, sometimes kids, to insist on taking Communion on their tongues. Obviously, their parents or teachers have them convinced that there is something more profound about receiving Communion that way or even that there is something sinful about taking Communion in one’s hands. If Jesus had not said “Take this and eat,” but had rather said “Stick out your tongue while I put this in your mouth,” perhaps I could understand. And if I weren’t a Eucharistic minister, and thus able to see how ridiculous people look with their eyes closed and perhaps the least attractive appendage on their bodies fully extended, while waiting to receive their Lord, perhaps I could understand. But given my reasonable familiarity with scripture, and my experience as a Eucharistic minister, seeing people at what certainly approaches their worst and having my fingers effectively licked repeatedly, I have become even more opposed to Communion on the tongue. While I understand that the Catholic Church is an awfully big place with plenty of room for people with different approaches to the incidentals as long as we agree on the essentials, I have an especially hard time understanding that odd approach to reception of Our Savior. But hygienic reasons make objection to Communion on the tongue more than a strong preference; it is an imperative.
The second flaw in the Church’s approach to hygiene is the continued use of the holy water font at the entrance to the church. I know people who refuse to engage in the handshake of peace (for hygienic reasons, of course) but think nothing of dipping their hands into the stagnant water of the holy water font upon entering and leaving church. Talk about a veritable agar dish of bacteria! If one is going to eliminate the handshake of peace and the distribution of the Precious Blood, one should certainly take out the holy water fonts!
One would hope that elimination of the distribution of the Precious Blood from a common cup, removal of the holy water fonts, and perhaps altering the handshake of peace would become permanent features of our liturgical practice, even after H1N1 is no longer a threat. H1N1 is not the only disease extant, and having people drink from the same cup, and dipping their hands into the same stagnant water, as people, who are carrying colds, flu, and God only knows what else is an ideal way to spread any type of disease. At least ten years ago, our then pastor at Sacred Heart told me that, in addition to his pastoral duties at two parishes, he was the chaplain for an association of Catholic doctors and nurses. He went on to report that none of the people in that group would ever take the Precious Blood from a common cup for fear of contacting disease. This was long before the current bout of swine flu. It made eminent sense then, and it does now.
The Church teaches us that Jesus is fully present in his Body and Blood distributed to us at Communion. But the Church also teaches us that we are the body of Christ. We have to respect, and continually nourish ourselves with, the former, but we also have to take care of the latter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
