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.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
