12/31/09
“Paid cash?
One way ticket?
No baggage?
On a terrorist watch list?
Welcome aboard, sir…have a nice flight.”
The above conversation could have taken place, word for word, with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before he boarded the Amsterdam-New York Northwest Flight that he almost brought down with his literal crotch rocket. Rather than apply common sense, and the guidelines that have already been provided, the government has decided that we law abiding citizens will now have to be subjected to searches that amount to auditions for Penthouse or Playgirl Magazine. Further, the Obama Administration, with the full acquiescence, indeed the encouragement, of the “small government” GOP, is going to get us more involved with money and “advisors” (perhaps sons and grandsons of the “advisors” who JFK and LBJ sent to Vietnam) in the “insurgency” (civil war, really) in Yemen. Great.
It all makes sense, however, from the typical politician’s perspective when you consider that there is very little money in common sense while there is lots and lots of money in gee-whiz, big brother technology and virtually uncountable piles of cash in war. Why miss an opportunity to make campaign contributors, and one’s self, rich? When terrorists send us lemons, our politicians make lemonade.
For my money, give me the machine politicians of yesteryear. (See The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, by yours truly.) Yes, they stole from us, but they made no bones about it; they didn’t trot around piously pontificating about their concern for mankind and their ability to lead us to a new American Valhalla under their wise and prudent leadership. We knew they were making themselves rich at our expense, but at least we got something out of it…a clean street, a garbage can, a contribution to the Little League team, a fixed parking ticket, maybe a job. All we get from the current crop of popinjays and poltroons is hot air, huge bills, and effective theft on a scale that would make the Honorable Alderman Thomas Keane (34th) blush. And, believe me, the Honorable Alderman Vito Marzullo (25th), would have never allowed the likes of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Flight 253.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
“I CAN TELL BY THE WAY YOU DRESS THAT YOU ARE A REAL COWBOY”
12/23/09
The subject of Rahm Emanuel came up in an e-conversation with an old and good friend this morning. I though my comments merited a post, so here it goes:
Rahm Emanuel, by the way, is one of the most overrated people in the world. My theory is that he fancies himself, as does the easily impressed, compensating national media, some kind of two-fisted tough guy because he drops an occasional F-bomb. (How that makes one tough is completely beyond me, but that's grist for another mill.) However, back in his hometown, the city of deals, he is little more than a pissant. Yes, he may have more power in Washington than one could hope to achieve in any position in Chicago (though that is doubtful...two mayors named Daley achieved considerable state and national power in local office. However, little Rahm is no Rich Daley, let alone Dick Daley. To even suggest the latter is laughable.), but I suspect it grates on him that he never hit the big leagues in the city that is synonymous with tough guy deal makers. The attitude among the real powers in this town toward Rahm seems to be "Yeah, sure kid...make like you're tough, act like a big guy, do whatever the hell you want. Just make sure you keep sending federal money our way or we'll find someone who will. Understand, kid?"
Just a theory.
The subject of Rahm Emanuel came up in an e-conversation with an old and good friend this morning. I though my comments merited a post, so here it goes:
Rahm Emanuel, by the way, is one of the most overrated people in the world. My theory is that he fancies himself, as does the easily impressed, compensating national media, some kind of two-fisted tough guy because he drops an occasional F-bomb. (How that makes one tough is completely beyond me, but that's grist for another mill.) However, back in his hometown, the city of deals, he is little more than a pissant. Yes, he may have more power in Washington than one could hope to achieve in any position in Chicago (though that is doubtful...two mayors named Daley achieved considerable state and national power in local office. However, little Rahm is no Rich Daley, let alone Dick Daley. To even suggest the latter is laughable.), but I suspect it grates on him that he never hit the big leagues in the city that is synonymous with tough guy deal makers. The attitude among the real powers in this town toward Rahm seems to be "Yeah, sure kid...make like you're tough, act like a big guy, do whatever the hell you want. Just make sure you keep sending federal money our way or we'll find someone who will. Understand, kid?"
Just a theory.
Monday, December 21, 2009
“I’VE BEEN TO PARIS, PERU, IRAQ, IRAN…I SPEAK VERY, VERY FLUENT SPANISH…”
12/21/09
Judging from the reactions of the oil, gold, and stock markets, I am pretty much alone in my concern, but I am quite worried about Iran at the moment. With the death this weekend of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the seeming confirmation of charges of torture of dissidents at Kahrizak Prison by the returning of indictments against twelve prison officials over the weekend, the earlier shutting down of that prison, and the continuing Muharram Shiite holiday, these are not idle concerns.
Ayatollah Montazeri was one of the architects of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, at one time the clear successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. However, about ten years after the revolution, Montazeri began criticizing Khomeini, accusing, with plenty of justification, the man who nosed him out for supreme leadership, Ayatollah Khamenei, of creating a dictatorship in Iran. Montazeri was incessant in his calls for reform of the Islamic Republic. Eventually, even his stature as a religious scholar, which exceeded that of Khamenei, could no longer protect him, and he was placed under house arrest in 1997, which continued until 2003. That punishment did not silence Montazeri, who called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “illegitimate,” apparently again with plenty of justification. For obvious reasons, Ayatollah Montazeri became a rallying point for the opposition movement in Iran, which has come to be known as the “green movement,” separate and distinct from what the rest of the world understands as the green movement.
Montazeri’s death over the weekend, and his funeral, scheduled for today, when combined with the weekend indictments of officials at Kahrizak, will provide yet another focal point for the green movement, especially when the level of fervor is increased by the ten day Muharram holiday. What might happen? Who knows? But an overthrow of the regime, while still a remote possibility, is not out of the question. Certainly, at the very least, Iran is in for a rough couple of days.
As most readers know, given my approach to U.S. foreign policy, my normal reaction would be to say “Well, it looks like the IRANIANS have a problem,” and leave them to work out their own difficulties as opposed to the current Bush/Obama/conservative/liberal approach so popular in this country of assuming that we know the optimal outcome for everybody in every corner of the world and thus offering our “advice,” at the point of a gun if necessary. That is, of course, my reaction in this case; contrary to modern American belief, the Iranians, even though they don’t speak English as a first language and don’t spend their evenings watching David Letterman, Jay Leno, and “Dancing with the Stars,” are adults and can think for themselves. We should let them do so and stay as far away from them as possible. Our attempts at intervention, as enlightened as the politicians in Washington, who, of course, have figured everything out, assume they are, usually result in disaster.
This does not mean, however, that unrest, or worse, in Iran, will not affect us. Remember the last time Iran experienced “regime change” in Iran? The price of oil quadrupled and the price of gold followed. The equity markets, already battered by three years of Jimmy Carter, encountered difficulties as well. Whatever hopes, paltry as they were under Mr. Carter, of recovery were quashed under the weight of, at that time, unheard of $42 oil. Our country went into a funk, economically, diplomatically, and psychologically, from which it took years to recover.
Given that oil has been quiescent of late, gold has taken a swoon from its highs of a few weeks ago, and stocks continue to go nowhere but up, one of three things is going on: Iran, at least relative to all the other bullish signs everyone but I is able to see so clearly, is no longer important, everything will be just fine in Iran, or no one is paying attention. I’m betting on the last of those possibilities. After all, a new season of “American Idol” is about to start.
Judging from the reactions of the oil, gold, and stock markets, I am pretty much alone in my concern, but I am quite worried about Iran at the moment. With the death this weekend of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the seeming confirmation of charges of torture of dissidents at Kahrizak Prison by the returning of indictments against twelve prison officials over the weekend, the earlier shutting down of that prison, and the continuing Muharram Shiite holiday, these are not idle concerns.
Ayatollah Montazeri was one of the architects of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, at one time the clear successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. However, about ten years after the revolution, Montazeri began criticizing Khomeini, accusing, with plenty of justification, the man who nosed him out for supreme leadership, Ayatollah Khamenei, of creating a dictatorship in Iran. Montazeri was incessant in his calls for reform of the Islamic Republic. Eventually, even his stature as a religious scholar, which exceeded that of Khamenei, could no longer protect him, and he was placed under house arrest in 1997, which continued until 2003. That punishment did not silence Montazeri, who called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “illegitimate,” apparently again with plenty of justification. For obvious reasons, Ayatollah Montazeri became a rallying point for the opposition movement in Iran, which has come to be known as the “green movement,” separate and distinct from what the rest of the world understands as the green movement.
Montazeri’s death over the weekend, and his funeral, scheduled for today, when combined with the weekend indictments of officials at Kahrizak, will provide yet another focal point for the green movement, especially when the level of fervor is increased by the ten day Muharram holiday. What might happen? Who knows? But an overthrow of the regime, while still a remote possibility, is not out of the question. Certainly, at the very least, Iran is in for a rough couple of days.
As most readers know, given my approach to U.S. foreign policy, my normal reaction would be to say “Well, it looks like the IRANIANS have a problem,” and leave them to work out their own difficulties as opposed to the current Bush/Obama/conservative/liberal approach so popular in this country of assuming that we know the optimal outcome for everybody in every corner of the world and thus offering our “advice,” at the point of a gun if necessary. That is, of course, my reaction in this case; contrary to modern American belief, the Iranians, even though they don’t speak English as a first language and don’t spend their evenings watching David Letterman, Jay Leno, and “Dancing with the Stars,” are adults and can think for themselves. We should let them do so and stay as far away from them as possible. Our attempts at intervention, as enlightened as the politicians in Washington, who, of course, have figured everything out, assume they are, usually result in disaster.
This does not mean, however, that unrest, or worse, in Iran, will not affect us. Remember the last time Iran experienced “regime change” in Iran? The price of oil quadrupled and the price of gold followed. The equity markets, already battered by three years of Jimmy Carter, encountered difficulties as well. Whatever hopes, paltry as they were under Mr. Carter, of recovery were quashed under the weight of, at that time, unheard of $42 oil. Our country went into a funk, economically, diplomatically, and psychologically, from which it took years to recover.
Given that oil has been quiescent of late, gold has taken a swoon from its highs of a few weeks ago, and stocks continue to go nowhere but up, one of three things is going on: Iran, at least relative to all the other bullish signs everyone but I is able to see so clearly, is no longer important, everything will be just fine in Iran, or no one is paying attention. I’m betting on the last of those possibilities. After all, a new season of “American Idol” is about to start.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
“DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”
12/16/09
Mayor Richard M. Daley, Cook County Board Finance Committee Chairman and 11th Ward Committeeman John Daley, and House Speaker, 13th Ward Committeeman, and state Democratic Party Chairman Mike Madigan are not, unless things change quickly, going to endorse Cook County Board President Todd Stroger for reelection. Why?
The Mayor has some substantive and stylistic differences with Mr. Stroger (See my other 12/16/09 post “((HEY TODD), WHO’S NAME IS ON THAT WATER TOWER OVER THERE?”) that provide plenty of reasons for the Mayor’s and his brother’s non-endorsement. Further, the Daleys and Mr. Madigan perceive, probably (but not definitely…perhaps this is grist for yet another post) correctly, that Todd Stroger cannot win in the primary and are simply following the admonition of the late legendary west side ward boss Bernie Neistein, “Don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers.” The Daleys and Mike Madigan don’t want to back a loser, so they won’t back Stroger, and they can’t afford to make waves, so they won’t publicly endorse any of his three opponents.
Why won’t the Mayor (or, more properly, his brother John, committeeman of the 11th ward and the guy whose endorsement is effectively the same as the “nonpolitical” Mayor’s) endorse any of Mr. Stroger’s opponents? Because there is absolutely no percentage in it. Say that the Mayor would really like Alderman Toni Preckwinkle to become the next President of the County Board. (I have no information that this is the case, but I strongly suspect that it is because Ms. Preckwinkle’s ascension to that job makes so much sense politically and the Mayor is quite adept at politics.) How does it help her to have the Mayor’s public endorsement? Given the racially charged nature of this city’s and this county’s politics, supporters of two of her opponents, Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown and Mr. Stroger, both of whom have worked very closely with the Daleys and would very much like the Daley endorsement but neither of which is known for a surfeit of shame, could use this very endorsement against Ms. Preckwinkle, branding her a “tool of the Daleys” and, by implication, an Uncle Tom. Why take this chance? Even, or perhaps especially, without a public endorsement, the Daleys and their allies in at least some of what are still referred to generically as the “organization wards” could still get the troops out there working for Preckwinkle; precinct captains don’t get their marching orders from the media. The smart move on Daley’s part is not to endorse.
Mike Madigan’s failure to endorse arises from a different set of dynamics. There is little doubt that his 13th Ward constituents support, probably overwhelmingly, the candidacy of Metropolitan Water Reclamation District president Terry O’Brien, the only White candidate in this field of four. If Mr. Madigan had nothing but his constituency to worry about, he would join Matthew O’Shea, committeeman of the 19th Ward, which features demographics, and voting patterns, very similar to those of the 13th Ward, in endorsing Mr. O’Brien. But while Mr. O’Shea is a relative political novice, Mr. Madigan is one of the two most powerful Democrats in the state and his responsibilities as House Speaker and State Party Chairman extend beyond the boundaries of the 13th Ward. He needs the support of Black Democrats in both the latter posts. Endorsing Terry O’Brien would be harmful (though, given the sheer skill and toughness of Mr. Madigan, not fatal) to Mr. Madigan’s statewide endeavors. So he can’t endorse O’Brien. But he can’t endorse any of the other candidates for fear of angering his constituents (though such an endorsement would be similarly non-fatal to Mr. Madigan’s very secure position in the 13th). One can anticipate that, as in the Daley’s 11th ward, there will be no candidate for County Board President on Mr. Madigan’s palm cards. However, while one suspects that, while Alderman Preckwinkle will do surprisingly well in the 11th, Terry O’Brien will win the 13th overwhelmingly.
All of this assumes that all four candidates will stay in the race, which I suspect is a highly unlikely outcome. The dynamics change markedly when people start dropping out, so we will watch this race very closely.
Mayor Richard M. Daley, Cook County Board Finance Committee Chairman and 11th Ward Committeeman John Daley, and House Speaker, 13th Ward Committeeman, and state Democratic Party Chairman Mike Madigan are not, unless things change quickly, going to endorse Cook County Board President Todd Stroger for reelection. Why?
The Mayor has some substantive and stylistic differences with Mr. Stroger (See my other 12/16/09 post “((HEY TODD), WHO’S NAME IS ON THAT WATER TOWER OVER THERE?”) that provide plenty of reasons for the Mayor’s and his brother’s non-endorsement. Further, the Daleys and Mr. Madigan perceive, probably (but not definitely…perhaps this is grist for yet another post) correctly, that Todd Stroger cannot win in the primary and are simply following the admonition of the late legendary west side ward boss Bernie Neistein, “Don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers.” The Daleys and Mike Madigan don’t want to back a loser, so they won’t back Stroger, and they can’t afford to make waves, so they won’t publicly endorse any of his three opponents.
Why won’t the Mayor (or, more properly, his brother John, committeeman of the 11th ward and the guy whose endorsement is effectively the same as the “nonpolitical” Mayor’s) endorse any of Mr. Stroger’s opponents? Because there is absolutely no percentage in it. Say that the Mayor would really like Alderman Toni Preckwinkle to become the next President of the County Board. (I have no information that this is the case, but I strongly suspect that it is because Ms. Preckwinkle’s ascension to that job makes so much sense politically and the Mayor is quite adept at politics.) How does it help her to have the Mayor’s public endorsement? Given the racially charged nature of this city’s and this county’s politics, supporters of two of her opponents, Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown and Mr. Stroger, both of whom have worked very closely with the Daleys and would very much like the Daley endorsement but neither of which is known for a surfeit of shame, could use this very endorsement against Ms. Preckwinkle, branding her a “tool of the Daleys” and, by implication, an Uncle Tom. Why take this chance? Even, or perhaps especially, without a public endorsement, the Daleys and their allies in at least some of what are still referred to generically as the “organization wards” could still get the troops out there working for Preckwinkle; precinct captains don’t get their marching orders from the media. The smart move on Daley’s part is not to endorse.
Mike Madigan’s failure to endorse arises from a different set of dynamics. There is little doubt that his 13th Ward constituents support, probably overwhelmingly, the candidacy of Metropolitan Water Reclamation District president Terry O’Brien, the only White candidate in this field of four. If Mr. Madigan had nothing but his constituency to worry about, he would join Matthew O’Shea, committeeman of the 19th Ward, which features demographics, and voting patterns, very similar to those of the 13th Ward, in endorsing Mr. O’Brien. But while Mr. O’Shea is a relative political novice, Mr. Madigan is one of the two most powerful Democrats in the state and his responsibilities as House Speaker and State Party Chairman extend beyond the boundaries of the 13th Ward. He needs the support of Black Democrats in both the latter posts. Endorsing Terry O’Brien would be harmful (though, given the sheer skill and toughness of Mr. Madigan, not fatal) to Mr. Madigan’s statewide endeavors. So he can’t endorse O’Brien. But he can’t endorse any of the other candidates for fear of angering his constituents (though such an endorsement would be similarly non-fatal to Mr. Madigan’s very secure position in the 13th). One can anticipate that, as in the Daley’s 11th ward, there will be no candidate for County Board President on Mr. Madigan’s palm cards. However, while one suspects that, while Alderman Preckwinkle will do surprisingly well in the 11th, Terry O’Brien will win the 13th overwhelmingly.
All of this assumes that all four candidates will stay in the race, which I suspect is a highly unlikely outcome. The dynamics change markedly when people start dropping out, so we will watch this race very closely.
“(HEY TODD), WHO’S NAME IS ON THAT WATER TOWER OVER THERE?”
12/16/09
Much has been made of late of the “feud,” “bad blood,” or “animosity” between Mayor Richard M. Daley and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger. Both men, of course, deny that any such bad feelings exist, but, remember, they are both career politicians and thus reflexively lie. As strange as this may sound, this is not a knock on either man; it is just an observation of the conduct of their profession. Politicians, as I have said numerous times on this blog and elsewhere, lie because it comes more naturally than telling the truth, only they don’t call it “lying.” They call it “posturing,” “bargaining,” or “public relations.” But I digress.
Apparently, Todd Stroger is upset with Rich Daley because Daley, or, more properly, Rich Daley’s brother John, who is chairman of the Cook County Board Finance Committee, did not support Mr. Stroger on his 1% increase in the sales tax. Indeed, John Daley was one of the leaders of the coalition of Board members who cut that sales tax increase in half. Stroger is also upset that neither (none really, but for purposes of this discussion, only Rich and John count, at least on the surface) Daley brother has endorsed him in his tough, four way primary race for effective reelection to the Board presidency. Reportedly, Stroger, who apparently doesn’t know much about politics in this city, is angry with the Daleys because House Speaker, 13th Ward Committeeman, and Democratic Party State Chairman Mike Madigan has not endorsed Mr. Stroger, as if Rich Daley can tell Mike Madigan what to do. More on that in my other 12/16 post “DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”
Despite denials on both sides, it is clear that the Daleys have had it with the Todd Stroger. But why? Some have argued that Stroger’s, er, inartful handling of his office has the Mayor very upset. While calling for austerity and arguing that the County was broke, Stroger went on a spree of hiring his relatives, friends, political cronies, lackeys, toadies, favorite busboys, and various other incompetent, unqualified hangers-on. The experienced observer is led to ask, however, how someone like Mayor Daley can criticize anyone for packing the payroll with relatives, friends, political cronies, lackeys, toadies, favorite busboys, and various other incompetent, unqualified hangers-on while warning of imminent financial demise. There is something to this argument, however, and to Daley’s anger with Stroger on this basis. While packing the payroll and handing out contracts to the favored few is a long time political tradition that still endures in these parts, the experienced and skilled politicians, like the Daleys, engage in activities with a degree of aplomb and style that Todd Stroger seems completely incapable of matching. Much like our former Governor, Mr. Stroger is simply too blatant about his corruption. Subtlety is a concept he, like Rod Blagojevich, has yet, and probably never, to grasp. This interferes with business as usual at City Hall and at the County Building by drawing too much attention to the nefarious goings-on that are part of government in and around the city of Chicago and the county of Cook.
Another angle argues that the Daleys are upset with Mr. Stroger because he has driven the County to financial ruin and was forced to raise taxes in order to keep the County afloat. But, again, it is difficult for Rich Daley to castigate someone for driving the political jurisdiction of which one is in charge to financial ruin while grasping for new sources of revenue. There is in this case also, however, an element of veracity and justification in the Mayor’s state of perturbation. The increase in the sales tax was huge, larger than the County needed, the latter even according to Todd Stroger, who said that the County could always use the extra revenue and, by taking this enormous bite of the apple now, could avoid coming back to the well later. (This explanation illustrates why Todd Stroger, the incumbent, is running fourth in a field of four candidates for his own job, but we are not talking about the opinions of the typical taxpayer and voter here; we are talking about the opinion of the Daleys.) Such a level of sales taxation has a direct impact on the city of Chicago, on doing business in the city of Chicago, in visiting the city of Chicago, and in living in the city of Chicago. The last thing that the Mayor wants is for the city to become a less attractive place, and Mr. Stroger’s tax increase did just that. Further, given the state of political literacy of the average voter, the Mayor is bound to continue to get some of the blame for this increase in taxes.
While there is certainly an element of truth in the argument that the Mayor is upset with the County Board president because of the blatant corruption and fiscal mismanagement leading to increased taxes at the County under Mr. Stroger’s tutelage, the true source of the Daleys’ displeasure with Mr. Stroger lies in a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago that found that Finance Committee Chairman John Daley voted with Board President Stroger on only half of fourteen votes the study considered pivotal. If this study understood the direction of power in this County or, more likely, were not striving so hard to be politically correct, it would have stated that Board President Stroger supported Finance Committee Chairman Daley only half the time on fourteen pivotal votes. Make no mistake—John Daley, almost certainly with the help of or at the behest of his brothers, runs the County Board and has done so for a long, long time. Apparently, young Mr. Stroger, unlike his politically more astute father, fails to understand this. The Stroger family exists politically to do the Daley family’s bidding. (See my 9/19/09 post “OF THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT”) This has been the case ever since Richard J. Daley took a liking to a young law student named John Stroger and effectively made him committeeman of the 8th Ward in 1968. Todd Stroger simply forgot, or was never told, who the boss is, and that is why the boss is angry with him.
Ironically, one of the sources of Mr. Stroger’s anger with the Daleys’ failure to endorse him (Again, see my other 12/16 post “DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”) is that Mr. Stroger feels he is owed for all the loyalty the Strogers have shown the Daleys over the years, including the senior Mr. Stroger’s backing Richard M. Daley for mayor in 1983 over Harold Washington. So one would suspect that, somewhere about halfway through that argument, the light would go off in Mr. Stroger’s head and he would realize who’s in charge. But apparently it hasn’t. And it also hasn’t dawned upon Mr. Stroger that politicians, and especially the Daleys, have short memories.
Much has been made of late of the “feud,” “bad blood,” or “animosity” between Mayor Richard M. Daley and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger. Both men, of course, deny that any such bad feelings exist, but, remember, they are both career politicians and thus reflexively lie. As strange as this may sound, this is not a knock on either man; it is just an observation of the conduct of their profession. Politicians, as I have said numerous times on this blog and elsewhere, lie because it comes more naturally than telling the truth, only they don’t call it “lying.” They call it “posturing,” “bargaining,” or “public relations.” But I digress.
Apparently, Todd Stroger is upset with Rich Daley because Daley, or, more properly, Rich Daley’s brother John, who is chairman of the Cook County Board Finance Committee, did not support Mr. Stroger on his 1% increase in the sales tax. Indeed, John Daley was one of the leaders of the coalition of Board members who cut that sales tax increase in half. Stroger is also upset that neither (none really, but for purposes of this discussion, only Rich and John count, at least on the surface) Daley brother has endorsed him in his tough, four way primary race for effective reelection to the Board presidency. Reportedly, Stroger, who apparently doesn’t know much about politics in this city, is angry with the Daleys because House Speaker, 13th Ward Committeeman, and Democratic Party State Chairman Mike Madigan has not endorsed Mr. Stroger, as if Rich Daley can tell Mike Madigan what to do. More on that in my other 12/16 post “DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”
Despite denials on both sides, it is clear that the Daleys have had it with the Todd Stroger. But why? Some have argued that Stroger’s, er, inartful handling of his office has the Mayor very upset. While calling for austerity and arguing that the County was broke, Stroger went on a spree of hiring his relatives, friends, political cronies, lackeys, toadies, favorite busboys, and various other incompetent, unqualified hangers-on. The experienced observer is led to ask, however, how someone like Mayor Daley can criticize anyone for packing the payroll with relatives, friends, political cronies, lackeys, toadies, favorite busboys, and various other incompetent, unqualified hangers-on while warning of imminent financial demise. There is something to this argument, however, and to Daley’s anger with Stroger on this basis. While packing the payroll and handing out contracts to the favored few is a long time political tradition that still endures in these parts, the experienced and skilled politicians, like the Daleys, engage in activities with a degree of aplomb and style that Todd Stroger seems completely incapable of matching. Much like our former Governor, Mr. Stroger is simply too blatant about his corruption. Subtlety is a concept he, like Rod Blagojevich, has yet, and probably never, to grasp. This interferes with business as usual at City Hall and at the County Building by drawing too much attention to the nefarious goings-on that are part of government in and around the city of Chicago and the county of Cook.
Another angle argues that the Daleys are upset with Mr. Stroger because he has driven the County to financial ruin and was forced to raise taxes in order to keep the County afloat. But, again, it is difficult for Rich Daley to castigate someone for driving the political jurisdiction of which one is in charge to financial ruin while grasping for new sources of revenue. There is in this case also, however, an element of veracity and justification in the Mayor’s state of perturbation. The increase in the sales tax was huge, larger than the County needed, the latter even according to Todd Stroger, who said that the County could always use the extra revenue and, by taking this enormous bite of the apple now, could avoid coming back to the well later. (This explanation illustrates why Todd Stroger, the incumbent, is running fourth in a field of four candidates for his own job, but we are not talking about the opinions of the typical taxpayer and voter here; we are talking about the opinion of the Daleys.) Such a level of sales taxation has a direct impact on the city of Chicago, on doing business in the city of Chicago, in visiting the city of Chicago, and in living in the city of Chicago. The last thing that the Mayor wants is for the city to become a less attractive place, and Mr. Stroger’s tax increase did just that. Further, given the state of political literacy of the average voter, the Mayor is bound to continue to get some of the blame for this increase in taxes.
While there is certainly an element of truth in the argument that the Mayor is upset with the County Board president because of the blatant corruption and fiscal mismanagement leading to increased taxes at the County under Mr. Stroger’s tutelage, the true source of the Daleys’ displeasure with Mr. Stroger lies in a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago that found that Finance Committee Chairman John Daley voted with Board President Stroger on only half of fourteen votes the study considered pivotal. If this study understood the direction of power in this County or, more likely, were not striving so hard to be politically correct, it would have stated that Board President Stroger supported Finance Committee Chairman Daley only half the time on fourteen pivotal votes. Make no mistake—John Daley, almost certainly with the help of or at the behest of his brothers, runs the County Board and has done so for a long, long time. Apparently, young Mr. Stroger, unlike his politically more astute father, fails to understand this. The Stroger family exists politically to do the Daley family’s bidding. (See my 9/19/09 post “OF THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT”) This has been the case ever since Richard J. Daley took a liking to a young law student named John Stroger and effectively made him committeeman of the 8th Ward in 1968. Todd Stroger simply forgot, or was never told, who the boss is, and that is why the boss is angry with him.
Ironically, one of the sources of Mr. Stroger’s anger with the Daleys’ failure to endorse him (Again, see my other 12/16 post “DON’T MAKE NO WAVES, DON’T BACK NO LOSERS.”) is that Mr. Stroger feels he is owed for all the loyalty the Strogers have shown the Daleys over the years, including the senior Mr. Stroger’s backing Richard M. Daley for mayor in 1983 over Harold Washington. So one would suspect that, somewhere about halfway through that argument, the light would go off in Mr. Stroger’s head and he would realize who’s in charge. But apparently it hasn’t. And it also hasn’t dawned upon Mr. Stroger that politicians, and especially the Daleys, have short memories.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
LOOK SLOVENLY, FEEL SLOVENLY, BE SLOVENLY
12/12/09
Two pieces of commercial advertising, the 21st century equivalent of the papal bull or royal decree, that are, or were, prominent during the Christmas season highlight several annoying modern cultural trends. Both these commercials do, or did, appear regularly on the network that I watch most (almost exclusively), CNBC, but I assume they appear with some degree of frequency on other networks, so my readers have probably seen them.
One commercial is for a credit card company that apparently features a very generous rewards program for those it snares in its death trap of perpetual financial obligation. This commercial, which always manages to catch my attention for obvious reasons, features a very comely young woman wearing an extremely fetching gown and reporting to (please let it be) her husband that she has used all their rewards points on the aforementioned gown but that there is clearly something in it for him. This commercial message highlights a number of cultural trends, and one is conveyed by the appearance of this very sharply dressed and coiffed young woman’s (please let it be her) husband. He has about three days growth of beard, is dressed in an old t-shirt, and looks very much like Richard Nixon at home as depicted in Mad magazine, circa 1972. It seems to be very popular of late for men to look like refugees from a Cook County Forest Preserve outhouse while women are expected to look like Grace Kelly in Rear Window. Especially curious is the beard phenomenon. I am not speaking of a full ZZ Top beard, a stylish goatee, or some degree of hirsuteness between the two. Such a beard can look very good on some men, though, in the case of yours truly, it only served to make me look at least ten years older, not a look for which a guy in his forties, which I was at the time, strives. No, we are talking not about a full beard, but rather an “I haven’t shaved in several days” stubble. Apparently, people find this attractive. However, those of us of a certain age and standard of personal grooming find it slovenly, bordering on dirty and unhygienic. Would one go to a job interview with three day’s growth of beard, assuming that one wasn’t applying for a job at, say, ACORN?
Perhaps young women find this particular manifestation of, if you will, disheveledness sexy. But, as the kids are fond of saying lately, “Really?” Perhaps young women like looking at men who have apparently lost their razors, or their will to live, but, once things move to the next level, do they really enjoy having their skin scratched, scraped, and otherwise ravaged by kissing a man who, out of lack of personal hygiene or a burning desire to signal his nonconformity by fitting in with the latest fashion trends, refuses to shave?
The next commercial, which, in addition to a being a clarion call of the debasement of our culture, is a blatant manifestation of many of the things that are wrong with “Christmas,” as currently celebrated, is for an outfit that will ship pajamas to (please let it be your) wife as a present. While this advertiser sells pajamas, one gets the feeling that most of its profits are not generated from the sale of flannels. This commercial seems to promise a man that if he buys his (please let it be) wife pajamas for Christmas, he will fulfill her seemingly never ending desire to prance around the room to titillate him for hours on end. The man featured in this ad gives us a knowing “I’m (finally, apparently) going to get mine” look as his woman, whose stunning physical beauty is, upon a not even all that close look, exceeded only, and vastly, by her rather addle-brained appearance, gazes curiously away from him, seemingly concocting in her rather compact brain imaginative ways to please the man who has so generously purchased her some provocative pjs. He is, you guessed it, sporting a three day stubble. So this fetching, but not exactly executive material, young woman gets the chance not only to please her bindlestiff resembling husband but to get her face and (presumably, if one follows the drift of the commercial, other areas of her body) ravaged in the process. What a thoughtful gift!
A sensible and not overly self consumed observer supposes that it is fine for a man to buy his wife provocative undergarments for Christmas, her birthday, or their anniversary as long as he understands that such a present is a gift to himself, rather than to his wife, and that he better, in addition to the aforementioned piffle, buy her something that she will really like or his objective in purchasing the aforementioned “gift” will never be realized. The previously discussed credit card commercial, for all its shortcomings, at least seems to recognize this apparently utterly manifest truth.
Two pieces of commercial advertising, the 21st century equivalent of the papal bull or royal decree, that are, or were, prominent during the Christmas season highlight several annoying modern cultural trends. Both these commercials do, or did, appear regularly on the network that I watch most (almost exclusively), CNBC, but I assume they appear with some degree of frequency on other networks, so my readers have probably seen them.
One commercial is for a credit card company that apparently features a very generous rewards program for those it snares in its death trap of perpetual financial obligation. This commercial, which always manages to catch my attention for obvious reasons, features a very comely young woman wearing an extremely fetching gown and reporting to (please let it be) her husband that she has used all their rewards points on the aforementioned gown but that there is clearly something in it for him. This commercial message highlights a number of cultural trends, and one is conveyed by the appearance of this very sharply dressed and coiffed young woman’s (please let it be her) husband. He has about three days growth of beard, is dressed in an old t-shirt, and looks very much like Richard Nixon at home as depicted in Mad magazine, circa 1972. It seems to be very popular of late for men to look like refugees from a Cook County Forest Preserve outhouse while women are expected to look like Grace Kelly in Rear Window. Especially curious is the beard phenomenon. I am not speaking of a full ZZ Top beard, a stylish goatee, or some degree of hirsuteness between the two. Such a beard can look very good on some men, though, in the case of yours truly, it only served to make me look at least ten years older, not a look for which a guy in his forties, which I was at the time, strives. No, we are talking not about a full beard, but rather an “I haven’t shaved in several days” stubble. Apparently, people find this attractive. However, those of us of a certain age and standard of personal grooming find it slovenly, bordering on dirty and unhygienic. Would one go to a job interview with three day’s growth of beard, assuming that one wasn’t applying for a job at, say, ACORN?
Perhaps young women find this particular manifestation of, if you will, disheveledness sexy. But, as the kids are fond of saying lately, “Really?” Perhaps young women like looking at men who have apparently lost their razors, or their will to live, but, once things move to the next level, do they really enjoy having their skin scratched, scraped, and otherwise ravaged by kissing a man who, out of lack of personal hygiene or a burning desire to signal his nonconformity by fitting in with the latest fashion trends, refuses to shave?
The next commercial, which, in addition to a being a clarion call of the debasement of our culture, is a blatant manifestation of many of the things that are wrong with “Christmas,” as currently celebrated, is for an outfit that will ship pajamas to (please let it be your) wife as a present. While this advertiser sells pajamas, one gets the feeling that most of its profits are not generated from the sale of flannels. This commercial seems to promise a man that if he buys his (please let it be) wife pajamas for Christmas, he will fulfill her seemingly never ending desire to prance around the room to titillate him for hours on end. The man featured in this ad gives us a knowing “I’m (finally, apparently) going to get mine” look as his woman, whose stunning physical beauty is, upon a not even all that close look, exceeded only, and vastly, by her rather addle-brained appearance, gazes curiously away from him, seemingly concocting in her rather compact brain imaginative ways to please the man who has so generously purchased her some provocative pjs. He is, you guessed it, sporting a three day stubble. So this fetching, but not exactly executive material, young woman gets the chance not only to please her bindlestiff resembling husband but to get her face and (presumably, if one follows the drift of the commercial, other areas of her body) ravaged in the process. What a thoughtful gift!
A sensible and not overly self consumed observer supposes that it is fine for a man to buy his wife provocative undergarments for Christmas, her birthday, or their anniversary as long as he understands that such a present is a gift to himself, rather than to his wife, and that he better, in addition to the aforementioned piffle, buy her something that she will really like or his objective in purchasing the aforementioned “gift” will never be realized. The previously discussed credit card commercial, for all its shortcomings, at least seems to recognize this apparently utterly manifest truth.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN’S PROGRESS
12/10/09
Yesterday (Wednesday, 12/9), I was interviewed by Becky Anderson of Anderson’s Bookshop in Naperville for a segment of “Authors Revealed,” her show on Naperville Community Television (“NCTV”). Becky is a great interviewer and the segment went very well. I don’t yet know when it will be aired, but I do know that there will be multiple airings and I will keep you posted. For those of you who don’t have access to NCTV on the air, I will find out if NCTV streams any of its programs on the internet.
Thanks, everybody.
Mark
Yesterday (Wednesday, 12/9), I was interviewed by Becky Anderson of Anderson’s Bookshop in Naperville for a segment of “Authors Revealed,” her show on Naperville Community Television (“NCTV”). Becky is a great interviewer and the segment went very well. I don’t yet know when it will be aired, but I do know that there will be multiple airings and I will keep you posted. For those of you who don’t have access to NCTV on the air, I will find out if NCTV streams any of its programs on the internet.
Thanks, everybody.
Mark
“DOIN’ WHAT COMES NATURALLY…”
12/10/09
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that Pepsi is dropping a Gatorade drink (something called “Focus”) named after Tiger Woods. Pepsi protests that this was part of a long planned product repositioning and had nothing to due with Mr. Woods’ marital, er, transgressions. Apparently, Pepsi really expects us to believe this.
Why do people in politics and big business feel compelled to lie? Why couldn’t Pepsi just say “We’re dropping Tiger Woods’ sponsorship because…
(Choose one here.)
…we are lily-livered Lilliputians, like most big businesses, afraid that somewhere, somehow, we might offend someone and thus lose even a dollar of revenue”
or, more likely, or at least more acceptable to the general public, even if further from the truth…
…we think Mr. Woods’ inability to control his putter reflects an image inconsistent with the wholesome image Pepsi seeks to convey.”?
Is it just that big businesses and politicians find it easier, and more natural, to lie than to tell the truth? One supposes so; a whole industry that calls itself “public relations” exists to help big corporations and full of themselves celebrities artfully lie. But judging from Pepsi’s performance here, perhaps such entities need no further help doing what comes naturally.
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that Pepsi is dropping a Gatorade drink (something called “Focus”) named after Tiger Woods. Pepsi protests that this was part of a long planned product repositioning and had nothing to due with Mr. Woods’ marital, er, transgressions. Apparently, Pepsi really expects us to believe this.
Why do people in politics and big business feel compelled to lie? Why couldn’t Pepsi just say “We’re dropping Tiger Woods’ sponsorship because…
(Choose one here.)
…we are lily-livered Lilliputians, like most big businesses, afraid that somewhere, somehow, we might offend someone and thus lose even a dollar of revenue”
or, more likely, or at least more acceptable to the general public, even if further from the truth…
…we think Mr. Woods’ inability to control his putter reflects an image inconsistent with the wholesome image Pepsi seeks to convey.”?
Is it just that big businesses and politicians find it easier, and more natural, to lie than to tell the truth? One supposes so; a whole industry that calls itself “public relations” exists to help big corporations and full of themselves celebrities artfully lie. But judging from Pepsi’s performance here, perhaps such entities need no further help doing what comes naturally.
“SMOKE AND FIRE UPON THE SEA…”
12/10/09
The UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen is very much in the news of late. Progress is being made on a number of fronts, but, being the Insightful Pontificator, what I consider progress is usually not what the strutting popinjays in politics and the media consider progress.
First, the eminent conferees have finally faced reality and determined that, if curbing greenhouse emissions, rather than bashing the developed world, is one’s true goal, one must do something about such emissions from the developing world. Virtually all the growth of greenhouse emissions from here on out will come from the developing world, and half of that will come from China. If we are going to cut greenhouse emissions, there will clearly be some price to pay in economic growth, and most of that price will be borne by those struggling on the first few rungs of the long climb to prosperity. This is a truth that such climate and environmental conferences have tried to avoid, and it doesn’t, as some would argue, by any means destroy the argument for cleaning up the environment. But honest debate must proceed from honest facts.
Second, the Bush/Obama administration has finally shown some backbone and refused to give in to Chinese demands that the “wealthy nations” foot the entire bill for cleaning up the developing world. The administration has come up with $10 billion for such purposes, but large developing nations, and China in particular, not wanting to be seen dipping into that pool at the expense of far poorer developing nations, have demanded more.
Hopefully, the administration’s refusal (so far, at least) to come up with more dough arises from its realization of the utter absurdity of the Chinese demand. Where will the U.S. come up with any more money to help China clean up its emissions? Where, indeed, will it come up with the $10 billion it has already pledged? You guessed it; given the state of our budget after 9 years of Bush/Obama, the government will have to borrow the money to give to China to clean up its environment. And from whom will we borrow the money? You guessed this one, too…China. So we’ll borrow money from China to give to China to clean up its industry, which exists primarily to meet U.S. demand for consumer products. The logic is either completely absurd or compellingly perverse.
The UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen is very much in the news of late. Progress is being made on a number of fronts, but, being the Insightful Pontificator, what I consider progress is usually not what the strutting popinjays in politics and the media consider progress.
First, the eminent conferees have finally faced reality and determined that, if curbing greenhouse emissions, rather than bashing the developed world, is one’s true goal, one must do something about such emissions from the developing world. Virtually all the growth of greenhouse emissions from here on out will come from the developing world, and half of that will come from China. If we are going to cut greenhouse emissions, there will clearly be some price to pay in economic growth, and most of that price will be borne by those struggling on the first few rungs of the long climb to prosperity. This is a truth that such climate and environmental conferences have tried to avoid, and it doesn’t, as some would argue, by any means destroy the argument for cleaning up the environment. But honest debate must proceed from honest facts.
Second, the Bush/Obama administration has finally shown some backbone and refused to give in to Chinese demands that the “wealthy nations” foot the entire bill for cleaning up the developing world. The administration has come up with $10 billion for such purposes, but large developing nations, and China in particular, not wanting to be seen dipping into that pool at the expense of far poorer developing nations, have demanded more.
Hopefully, the administration’s refusal (so far, at least) to come up with more dough arises from its realization of the utter absurdity of the Chinese demand. Where will the U.S. come up with any more money to help China clean up its emissions? Where, indeed, will it come up with the $10 billion it has already pledged? You guessed it; given the state of our budget after 9 years of Bush/Obama, the government will have to borrow the money to give to China to clean up its environment. And from whom will we borrow the money? You guessed this one, too…China. So we’ll borrow money from China to give to China to clean up its industry, which exists primarily to meet U.S. demand for consumer products. The logic is either completely absurd or compellingly perverse.
LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU SPEND AND I’LL REIMBURSE YOU
12/10/09
As regular readers know, I have a lot of problems with the proposed health care (health insurance, really) legislation in either its House or Senate variations. In addition to general philosophical objections, these problems center around the legislations’ reinforcing, rather than severing, the tie between health insurance and employment, the proposals’ not forcing consumers to put more “skin in the game” in the form of meaningful deductibles and co-pays, and our public servants’ continued silly insistence that we are somehow going to insure 30 million or so additional people while cutting costs. If we are going to dramatically expand coverage, it’s going to cost us something. Any honest debate must proceed from that premise. (See my already seminal 10/13/09 piece “I TOLD YA I WAS SICK.”) However, to expect our public servants, who live in a fantasyland, literally and figuratively, and who are convinced, perhaps with some justification, that the American public is too benighted to comprehend or deal with such things as costs and benefits, to engage in honest debate is wishful thinking on yours truly’s part. But I digress.
Yet another problem has emerged as the Senate bill winds its way toward passage, and its not that expansion of Medicare is a transparent back door method of achieving the long held liberal dream of a single payer health care system; I’ll leave that one to the usual cast of yahoo drones on the right. The shortcoming that I choose to address is setting the medical loss ratio, the percentage of premium income that health insurance companies must spend on actually providing health care, as opposed to administration and profit, at 90%, or at any fixed ratio, for that matter. Setting such a ratio provides perverse incentives to keep costs and premia high rather than seeking ways to reduce costs and premia.
Think about it. If an insurance company derives revenue of $100 (Put as many zeroes after that number as necessary; we’ll keep the numbers small to enhance and simplify the analysis.), under the Senate legislation, it must spend $90 on health care and can spend $10 on profit and administration. If the insurance company somehow finds ways to reduce health care costs to, say, $81, or by 10%, it can then only derive premium income of $90, reducing its profit/administrative margin to $9, or by 10%. If, however, the insurance company spends, say, $100 on health care, it can then increase premia to $111.11, and increase of 11.1% from its original $10 profit/administration margin. Such an arrangement is very much akin to the “cost plus” contracts that so enhanced the profitability of defense contractors at the expense of taxpayers in the Cold War era. One can easily see collusion between health care providers and insurance companies to increase health care costs, thus enhancing profitability for both. Thus, setting and mandating a medical loss ratio at 90%, or at any percentage, for that matter, works to increase, rather than cut, medical costs. Since the insurance company would derive no benefit from cutting costs, but would derive plenty of benefit from increasing costs, should we be surprised of health care costs increase dramatically under such a regime?
Once we start telling supposedly private, profit seeking insurance companies whom they must insure, how they can underwrite, and what their profit margins can be, we will have effectively nationalized health care, or at least we will have made delivery of health care very much akin to delivery of electricity or heat, effectively “utilitizing” health insurance. If we are going to do that, why maintain the ruse of a private sector health insurance system? Why not just go ahead and nationalize health care?
As regular readers know, I have a lot of problems with the proposed health care (health insurance, really) legislation in either its House or Senate variations. In addition to general philosophical objections, these problems center around the legislations’ reinforcing, rather than severing, the tie between health insurance and employment, the proposals’ not forcing consumers to put more “skin in the game” in the form of meaningful deductibles and co-pays, and our public servants’ continued silly insistence that we are somehow going to insure 30 million or so additional people while cutting costs. If we are going to dramatically expand coverage, it’s going to cost us something. Any honest debate must proceed from that premise. (See my already seminal 10/13/09 piece “I TOLD YA I WAS SICK.”) However, to expect our public servants, who live in a fantasyland, literally and figuratively, and who are convinced, perhaps with some justification, that the American public is too benighted to comprehend or deal with such things as costs and benefits, to engage in honest debate is wishful thinking on yours truly’s part. But I digress.
Yet another problem has emerged as the Senate bill winds its way toward passage, and its not that expansion of Medicare is a transparent back door method of achieving the long held liberal dream of a single payer health care system; I’ll leave that one to the usual cast of yahoo drones on the right. The shortcoming that I choose to address is setting the medical loss ratio, the percentage of premium income that health insurance companies must spend on actually providing health care, as opposed to administration and profit, at 90%, or at any fixed ratio, for that matter. Setting such a ratio provides perverse incentives to keep costs and premia high rather than seeking ways to reduce costs and premia.
Think about it. If an insurance company derives revenue of $100 (Put as many zeroes after that number as necessary; we’ll keep the numbers small to enhance and simplify the analysis.), under the Senate legislation, it must spend $90 on health care and can spend $10 on profit and administration. If the insurance company somehow finds ways to reduce health care costs to, say, $81, or by 10%, it can then only derive premium income of $90, reducing its profit/administrative margin to $9, or by 10%. If, however, the insurance company spends, say, $100 on health care, it can then increase premia to $111.11, and increase of 11.1% from its original $10 profit/administration margin. Such an arrangement is very much akin to the “cost plus” contracts that so enhanced the profitability of defense contractors at the expense of taxpayers in the Cold War era. One can easily see collusion between health care providers and insurance companies to increase health care costs, thus enhancing profitability for both. Thus, setting and mandating a medical loss ratio at 90%, or at any percentage, for that matter, works to increase, rather than cut, medical costs. Since the insurance company would derive no benefit from cutting costs, but would derive plenty of benefit from increasing costs, should we be surprised of health care costs increase dramatically under such a regime?
Once we start telling supposedly private, profit seeking insurance companies whom they must insure, how they can underwrite, and what their profit margins can be, we will have effectively nationalized health care, or at least we will have made delivery of health care very much akin to delivery of electricity or heat, effectively “utilitizing” health insurance. If we are going to do that, why maintain the ruse of a private sector health insurance system? Why not just go ahead and nationalize health care?
“HIC CALIX NOVUM AETERNUMQUE TESTAMENTUM EST IN SANGUINE MEO…”
12/10/09
In my now classic 10/27/09 piece, ““HOC EST CORPUS MEUM,” I reported that many Catholic churches, and at least two that we attend, had temporarily ceased offering Communion under both species due to the H1N1 epidemic. Communion, at that time, at least at our churches, would be offered under the species of the Host, or in the form of Christ’s flesh. The Precious Blood would not be offered because of the obvious risks of drinking from a common cup. Further, the handshake of peace would be suspended at least one of our parishes and replaced by a similarly welcoming gesture, such as a nod or a smile, that did not bear the same risk of disease transmission as does a handshake. The gist of my post was that, while these were sensible and favorable developments that did not in any way violate Church doctrine, they fell short as long as the holy water font, which features, in most cases, stagnant water, a perfect environment for spreading disease, was still available and as long as some people insisted on taking Communion on their tongues, which usually results in potentially disease bearing saliva going from the tongue of the communicant to the fingers of the priest or Eucharistic minister to the next Host that priest or minister hands to the next communicant who places the Host in his or her mouth.
Apparently, though, that progress toward a sensible approach to disease mitigation has been halted, and, surprisingly, that progress has been stopped at the most liberal of the parishes we attend. While our more conservative parish, Sts. Peter and Paul, continues to offer Communion under only one species, the far more liberal St. Thomas the Apostle announced at Mass two weeks ago that, after consulting with “experts,” the parish had determined that it was okay to offer the Precious Blood out of a common cup.
Hmm…
I am no medical doctor or bacteriologist, so I could be wrong, as I, and most of us, have been on numerous occasions, but I have to ask just which “experts” said that scores of people drinking out of a common cup in the throes of an epidemic is a good and safe idea. I know that I will be accused of asking this question not out of a sense of genuine inquiry but, rather, out of a sense of sarcastic disagreement with what appears to be an utterly absurd decision. I plead guilty.
In my now classic 10/27/09 piece, ““HOC EST CORPUS MEUM,” I reported that many Catholic churches, and at least two that we attend, had temporarily ceased offering Communion under both species due to the H1N1 epidemic. Communion, at that time, at least at our churches, would be offered under the species of the Host, or in the form of Christ’s flesh. The Precious Blood would not be offered because of the obvious risks of drinking from a common cup. Further, the handshake of peace would be suspended at least one of our parishes and replaced by a similarly welcoming gesture, such as a nod or a smile, that did not bear the same risk of disease transmission as does a handshake. The gist of my post was that, while these were sensible and favorable developments that did not in any way violate Church doctrine, they fell short as long as the holy water font, which features, in most cases, stagnant water, a perfect environment for spreading disease, was still available and as long as some people insisted on taking Communion on their tongues, which usually results in potentially disease bearing saliva going from the tongue of the communicant to the fingers of the priest or Eucharistic minister to the next Host that priest or minister hands to the next communicant who places the Host in his or her mouth.
Apparently, though, that progress toward a sensible approach to disease mitigation has been halted, and, surprisingly, that progress has been stopped at the most liberal of the parishes we attend. While our more conservative parish, Sts. Peter and Paul, continues to offer Communion under only one species, the far more liberal St. Thomas the Apostle announced at Mass two weeks ago that, after consulting with “experts,” the parish had determined that it was okay to offer the Precious Blood out of a common cup.
Hmm…
I am no medical doctor or bacteriologist, so I could be wrong, as I, and most of us, have been on numerous occasions, but I have to ask just which “experts” said that scores of people drinking out of a common cup in the throes of an epidemic is a good and safe idea. I know that I will be accused of asking this question not out of a sense of genuine inquiry but, rather, out of a sense of sarcastic disagreement with what appears to be an utterly absurd decision. I plead guilty.
Friday, December 4, 2009
“DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT CLEMENCEAU SAID ABOUT WAR, MANDRAKE?”
12/4/09
In today’s (i.e., Friday, 12/4/09’s) lead editorial, the Wall Street Journal lambastes our NATO partners for what the Journal considers their miserly approach to defense and the Obama administration for continuing a long trend toward reduced defense spending as a percent of GDP. The Journal trots out its usual chart showing that the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has declined markedly since 1960 in a more or less continuous pattern.
Why does the Journal insist on defending its perennial argument for more defense spending with the canard that there is somehow an inherent and direct relationship between the size of GDP and the necessity for greater defense spending? We spend on defense when we need defending. We don’t necessarily have a greater need for defense as our GDP grows. The Journal seems to be arguing that spending on defense should be a constant share of GDP regardless of the presence or absence of foreign threats. This is nonsense. Heavy spending on defense even when threats, or at least threats that can be met and defeated by conventional military means, are quiescent lead to waste of resources. More dangerously, such spending also sustains and enhances a huge bureaucracy that, like most bureaucracies, is always looking for things to do to defend and increase its bureaucratic prerogatives. Freedom and enterprise are always in danger when government bureaucracies are looking for ways to sustain and enhance themselves, and the danger is especially great when the defense establishment is starting to feel extraneous.
Defense is, of course, government’s primary job. But spending on defense, even though it is the most important government spending, is still government spending. It still saps the private sector and citizenry of some element of its vitality, and, like any other government spending, should be done only to the extent necessary. Looking for ways to deploy money spent on defense is especially debilitating to a society. As someone once said, war is to government what fertilizer is to plants.
In today’s (i.e., Friday, 12/4/09’s) lead editorial, the Wall Street Journal lambastes our NATO partners for what the Journal considers their miserly approach to defense and the Obama administration for continuing a long trend toward reduced defense spending as a percent of GDP. The Journal trots out its usual chart showing that the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has declined markedly since 1960 in a more or less continuous pattern.
Why does the Journal insist on defending its perennial argument for more defense spending with the canard that there is somehow an inherent and direct relationship between the size of GDP and the necessity for greater defense spending? We spend on defense when we need defending. We don’t necessarily have a greater need for defense as our GDP grows. The Journal seems to be arguing that spending on defense should be a constant share of GDP regardless of the presence or absence of foreign threats. This is nonsense. Heavy spending on defense even when threats, or at least threats that can be met and defeated by conventional military means, are quiescent lead to waste of resources. More dangerously, such spending also sustains and enhances a huge bureaucracy that, like most bureaucracies, is always looking for things to do to defend and increase its bureaucratic prerogatives. Freedom and enterprise are always in danger when government bureaucracies are looking for ways to sustain and enhance themselves, and the danger is especially great when the defense establishment is starting to feel extraneous.
Defense is, of course, government’s primary job. But spending on defense, even though it is the most important government spending, is still government spending. It still saps the private sector and citizenry of some element of its vitality, and, like any other government spending, should be done only to the extent necessary. Looking for ways to deploy money spent on defense is especially debilitating to a society. As someone once said, war is to government what fertilizer is to plants.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
CHAIRMAN’S PROGRESS
12/1/09
Check out today’s (i.e., Tuesday, 12/1/09’s) Naperville Sun at
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/index.html
Click on the Lifestyle tab to see a very well written article by Heather Kryczka, who, judging by her last name, sounds like she comes from the 23rd or 32nd ward, but is from Naperville. The article concerns my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, and the very successful signing we held at Anderson’s Bookshop in Naperville on 11/21/09. The great picture of yours truly (and, believe me, great pictures of yours truly are very hard to come by; I inherited my dad’s utter inability to take a good picture) is included only in today’s print edition, however.
Last Sunday (i.e., 11/29/09), I appeared on “Socially Incorrect Radio,” hosted by Mark Huffman and fellow former 19th Warder Brian Brophy on WIMS Radio, Michigan City, IN.
http://www.wimsradio.com/
The show went very well, and it is highly likely I will be on the program again in the near future. I will let my readers know in advance of my next appearance on The Talk of the South Shore. WIMS streams live on the internet, so you can listen to it anywhere in the world.
Our promotional efforts for The Chairman continue; remember, books make great, understated Christmas gifts!
Check out today’s (i.e., Tuesday, 12/1/09’s) Naperville Sun at
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/index.html
Click on the Lifestyle tab to see a very well written article by Heather Kryczka, who, judging by her last name, sounds like she comes from the 23rd or 32nd ward, but is from Naperville. The article concerns my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, and the very successful signing we held at Anderson’s Bookshop in Naperville on 11/21/09. The great picture of yours truly (and, believe me, great pictures of yours truly are very hard to come by; I inherited my dad’s utter inability to take a good picture) is included only in today’s print edition, however.
Last Sunday (i.e., 11/29/09), I appeared on “Socially Incorrect Radio,” hosted by Mark Huffman and fellow former 19th Warder Brian Brophy on WIMS Radio, Michigan City, IN.
http://www.wimsradio.com/
The show went very well, and it is highly likely I will be on the program again in the near future. I will let my readers know in advance of my next appearance on The Talk of the South Shore. WIMS streams live on the internet, so you can listen to it anywhere in the world.
Our promotional efforts for The Chairman continue; remember, books make great, understated Christmas gifts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
