5/26/11
It is amazing how remiss I was in my last batch of posts in not writing ANYTHING about the passing of Randy Mario Poffo, better known as Randy “Macho Man” Savage. Equally amazing is that, after I sent my weekly (or bi-weekly sometimes) e-mail informing my regular readers of recent goings-on in the Pontificator, two guys with whom I worked at Kemper long, long ago almost immediately and simultaneously expressed their flabbergastedness (a word I just made up) at my omission. I can only say that I must have been awfully busy last Friday, the day when another friend from the money business, who goes back with me almost as far as my two aforementioned Kemper colleagues, called to inform me of the untimely death of the Macho Man. How else could I not have opined on the Randy Savage and taken the opportunity to reflect on the evolution of pro wrestling? Maybe I was trying to spare my readers from what should prove to be a long post, but one that I hope will be entertaining, insightful, and perhaps a bit poignant, all the while generously fertilized with the type of cynicism you can find nowhere else but here.
What most of my readers don’t know, but those who’ve known me for a long time do, is that pro wrestling has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. Before I started writing this commentary, I used to write a political and financial newsletter called The Insightful Irregular Commentary and, before that, The Insightful Weekly Commentary. One of the best of those commentaries was written when World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) went public. That seminal, but now lost, piece was an extensive study of pro wrestling and its evolution, of its many near death experiences that abruptly ended with the emergence of a new medium that needed programming. Wrestling’s several golden ages coincided with the advent of, in order, television, UHF television, closed circuit broadcasts (a minor medium, at least as far as wrestling goes), cable television, and pay per view television. The last of these two go hand-in-hand, of course, and Savage was part of the 1980s golden age that drew its strength from cable television’s attaining truly national stature and thus needing plenty of programming both for its “no extra charge” extravaganzas and its pay per view mega-extravaganzas. More on this later.
What I didn’t realize until I had a moment to reflect on the Macho Man’s death is the ongoing, if minor, part he played, indirectly or directly, in my near lifetime of observing his “sport.” When UHF television was first making its debut in the mid to late 1960s, the new channels (WCIU channel 26 and WFLD channel 32 in Chicago, followed a bit later by channel 44, the call letters of which I don’t recall) needed programming desperately. The obvious choice, besides Red Hot and Blue (with your host Arkansas Big Bill Hill, featuring world famous blues guitar legend Otis Rush and sponsored by Don’s Cedar Club and Dell’s Discount Furniture Mart) and the very oddly juxtaposed Amos and Andy, was All-Star Championship Professional Bob Luce Wrestling. It was watching those grainy broadcasts with my brother in our room (Our parents were not pro wrestling fans so we couldn’t watch wrestling on the color set downstairs, but that made no difference because wrestling was in black and white anyway.), while trying to get remotely decent reception from the special UHF aerial on the back of our portable Zenith, that I developed my love of wrestling which, albeit almost exclusively in memory form, remains to this day.
Back in the mid to late ‘60s, wrestling remained a regional business in which the stars and scenarios were jealously, and often aggressively and violently, guarded by local promoters who were by no means unfamiliar with business tactics that approximated those displayed by their properties in the ring. In Chicago, the promoter was the aforementioned Bob Luce (though I heard recently, but have never been able to verify, that Mr. Luce was little more than a front man for Richard Afflis (mentioned in this same sentence under his real name for those of you paying close attention), who really ran the promotion around here) and the big stars were Moose Cholak, Wilbur Snyder, Verne Gagne, Mad Dog Vachon, Johnny Valentine, the Assassins, the Kangaroos, Big Cat Ernie Ladd, Pretty Boy Larry Hennig and Handsome Harley Race, along with their inimitable manager then known as Beautiful Bobby Heenan, the Crusher (occasionally called “Crusher Lisowski” in order to distinguish him from Crusher poseurs), and, towering (figuratively, by no means literally) above the others, Dick the Bruiser, who may have been able to, as they said, pack any arena in the country, but, given the disjointed nature of the “sport” at the time, rarely got the chance to do so outside the Midwest.
About this time, one of the many strokes of good luck that have seemed to characterize my life took place. One of my dad’s friends from the meat business, who obviously had some political clout, got the job of Wrestling Commissioner for the state of Illinois, which involved little more than collecting a pay check and getting free tickets to the matches at the old International Amphitheater on 42nd and Halsted, almost literally around the corner from the meat packing plant that my dad and his partners operated on the outskirts of the stock yards. The Amphitheater may have been the scene of four national political conventions by then (with the most infamous, the ’68 Democratic convention, still to come), but to me it became famous because it was the place where my dad, my brother, and I could sit ring side and watch Dick the Bruiser get his just revenge on the likes of Johnny Valentine, Mad Dog Vachon, and the various minions of Beautiful Bobby Heenan. The stories I have from those early years of watching wrestling are legion, and if I ever write another book that does not involve Chairman Eamon DeValera Collins, I will record them all. But for purposes of this post, I will only note that a mid-card figure (not the first match, where the aspiring palookas recruited largely from street corners, barrooms, loading docks, or, occasionally, college or high school wrestling programs, took up time while the crowds filed in, but not the main or even the preliminary main match, either. Hence, the description “mid-card figure.”) at those events was a guy named Angelo Poffo, who, at the time, and unbeknownst to me or anyone else in the arena, for that matter, had two sons a few years older than I named Randy and Lanny.
It is amazing the things one remembers when one gets older. To the point of this post, I remember patiently standing at ringside (a few steps from our seats, actually) before a match waiting for Angelo Poffo to autograph my program when some kid in the crowd asked “How do you like Downers Grove, Angelo?” Being from the rather insular far south side of Chicago, I had no idea, at the age of eight or nine, where Downers Grove was; it sounded like a farm community somewhere in downstate Illinois, which may not have been all that far from the truth circa 1966. Angelo just nodded his head and said “It’s alright; my family likes it there.” Now I live two suburbs west of Downers Grove in a town (a city, really) called Naperville, which, I can assure you, might as well have been called Hooterville for all I knew about it back then. Life takes such turns, but I digress.
Even as I got older, supposedly matured, and got dangerously close to being somebody in life, my interest in pro wrestling continued on and off. Let’s fast forward about 17 or 18 years from the night I heard Angelo Poffo opine on the virtues of his new home of Downers Grove. I was by that time a junk bond analyst at Kemper and, as part of my work, would talk frequently with sell side analysts and salesmen about upcoming issues, about developments at companies in which we had invested, and, as is inevitable when people who work together and enjoy each other’s company talk, about other things that interested us. On one occasion, I was speaking with a bond salesman about my age with whom I had grown quite friendly. Knowing my affinity for pro wrestling, he asked me if I had heard the name “Macho Man.” I hadn’t. He reported that he had been downstate that weekend (maybe in Carbondale; that detail I don’t remember) and that he and his buddies and I think his wife had gone to see wrestling and the featured performer was a guy named Macho Man. My friend and colleague was surprised I hadn’t heard of Macho Man, but, at that time, the guy whose stage name was, as I would later learn, Randy “Macho Man” Savage, had not quite made the big time. My friend assured me that I would soon be seeing and hearing a lot of the Macho Man and, as usual, he was right.
A couple years later, I was in one of the institutional broker’s luxury boxes at what was then called the Rosemont Horizon, courtesy of another of my favorite bond salesmen who bravely tolerated my enthusiasm for pro wrestling, an enthusiasm that I managed to spread to a goodly number of my colleagues in the money management business. That night Hulk Hogan was at the top of the card but had wrestled earlier in New York and had jumped on a private plane to fly to Chicago to appear at the top, or end, of the card at the Horizon. The penultimate match of the evening was a contest for the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship between Randy Savage and Tito Santana, two of the most athletic performers in the WWE. The match, as did any match involving Santana and most matches involving Savage, included aerial escapades, leaps off the top rope, flying body slams, and any number of physically demanding and skill requiring “holds” that, while perhaps not as entertaining as a simple folding chair to the back of the head (the aforementioned Crusher’s signature hold), were, to say the least, thrilling for the fans and exhausting for the wrestlers. The really interesting thing about this match was that Hogan’s plane was delayed by bad weather, and so the Santana-Savage contest, originally scheduled to go twenty, maybe thirty, minutes, about the limit of anyone’s physical abilities, given how these guys practiced their craft, had to go on and on and on until Hulk could make it to the Horizon, which, thank the good Lord, is only minutes from O’Hare. So an astute observer could notice that, each time one of the combatants found himself tossed out of the ring, he would look, exhaustedly, to the ref or to the timekeeping or announcer table as if to ask “Is he here yet? Can we wrap this thing up?” After getting a shake of the head or a shrug of the shoulders, the look of pure agony, exhaustion, and disappointment would be intensified on the face of Santana or Savage as he would reluctantly climb back into the ring for more aerobatics and two-counts. The match went over an hour. From the standpoint of sheer athleticism, showmanship, and a pure “I’m getting paid well, so I’ll do what they ask me to do” attitude, that Randy Savage/Tito Santana match was perhaps the greatest athletic event I have ever seen.
Years have passed, and wrestling has gone from pure sport (way before my time) to quasi-sport of tough guys who led hard lives to an exhibition of well paid guys who were, or made themselves, physical freaks of nature and national celebrities to the silly and pathetic soap opera that so disgraces this piece of Americana today. (I will write more on this if the aforementioned book gets written or if I merely get inspired to write a similarly themed Pontificator piece.) Randy “Macho Man” Savage was a man who spanned all those eras of pro wrestling (except the first), not temporally but stylistically. He was not a tough, brawling guy who, even while having the good fortune of having found a home and a career in pro wrestling, still led something of a hardscrabble life, like his father or other lesser lights of the Dick the Bruiser/Bruno Samartino era. Yet Savage’s life certainly had its tragic elements; witness the death by drug overdose of his former wife and stage “valet” and manager “Miss” Elizabeth Hulette in the home she shared with her lover, wrestler Lex Luger. Macho Man was also a consummate showman in his era of showmen, that of Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, Ric Flair, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Jesse “The Body” Ventura, and the managerial career of Classy Freddie Blassie. And one wonders what he thought of what wrestling has become. Maybe he thought the current offerings from Vince McMahon were just fine, another way for the boys to make some substantial dough. But one would hope that, somewhere in the back of his mind, he thought that things had gone way too far, that a physical contest with many elements of a circus had become a circus with few elements of a physical contest.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
“HELLO, OLD FRIEND…”
5/25/11
In the wake of the untimely death of CNBC anchor Mark Haines, a fellow curmudgeon with a libertarian streak who, over the years, has come to be one of those friends I never met, the best tribute I can deliver is to repost an item I put up three years ago, almost to the day.
All of us, and not only us curmudgeons, will miss Mr. Haines. I am praying for this wonderful man and especially for his family.
CURMUDGEONS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!
5/30/08
On CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning, kindred spirit Mark Haines, who, like yours truly, has watched the financial markets, and generally been around, a long time and thus usually has the presence and the knowledge to step back and call nonsense what it is, was discussing the issue of the economic books’ being cooked, if you will. For example, a few weeks ago, we were told that the price of gasoline was down in April because of the idiosyncrasies of seasonal adjustment. This morning, we were told that inflation was well under control as measured by the personal consumption expenditures index. I’ve written on government statistics, especially the inflation statistics, on numerous occasions. The gist of my argument is that the books must be being cooked because of the government’s tremendous conflict of interest that arises from its both measuring inflation (in this case the CPI) and being on the hook to social security recipients for the adjustments to their checks for those very same CPI numbers. A less quantitatively tremendous conflict arises from the government’s measurement of the CPI and its having to adjust the principal value of its Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (“TIPS,” which are currently, and have been for some time, my favorite investment, but that is another topic). My conclusion is that either the government is cooking the books or that those who come up with such whoppers as a currently relatively stable CPI and the Wall Street wunderkinds who so glibly depend on those fantasies are so insulated from the real world that they haven’t the slightest hope for accuracy in generating such quantitative fairy tales. For example, if “transportation” means getting around New York or Washington in a price controlled cab and “food” meant eating in restaurants at which the actual price of the food itself is an almost immeasurable percentage of the cost of the “dining experience,” well, then, I guess that one could say with a straight face that the prices of gasoline and food don’t really matter and that, therefore, inflation is under control as long as the prices of, say, jewelry, luxury cars, and yachts remain stable, but I digress.
However, this entry is not about the substance of the discussion Mr. Haines was having with economists Steve Liesman and Michele Girard (both of whom I respect), another economist whose name I didn’t catch, and his co-host, the comely, witty, and well informed Erin Burnett. What made me want to stand up and cheer for Mark Haines was his rhetorical question in response to Ms. Burnett’s, and the other panelists’, contention that he is a curmudgeon:
“Why is it that when I get fed up with stupidity, I’m a curmudgeon?”
This statement so perfectly encapsulates my approach to life that even I, with all my skills with the written and spoken word, could not possibly improve on it.
Mr. Haines went on to utter a statement only slightly less profound:
“Standing up and saying something makes no sense is not curmudgeonly, it’s common sensical.” (sic)
As someone who still trades relatively actively, I am tuned into CNBC, albeit usually with the sound muted, throughout the day and, like most watchers, have come to, in a sense, know and like many of the hosts on its shows. (They are, by the way, quite an accomplished lot with, in most cases, considerable experience and genuinely useful books under figuratively under their belts. While one can see, judging from the appearance of most of the hosts (Messrs. Haines and Liesman excluded) how people can argue that one gets a job on CNBC from physical attractiveness alone, a look at the background of its on the air personnel quickly dispels that notion. But I digress.) I have, except for years ago when I first started watching CNBC (and was much younger), always liked the way Mr. Haines thinks. I’ve always gotten the sense that his approach to nonsense and snake oil was similar to mine. I also have long had the idea that his frustration with cheerleading and groundless, gormless optimism passing for thought and insight was, like mine, growing on a daily basis. But his observations today were so perfect that I felt compelled to break my long absence from these pages to draw your attention to them.
One more thing: I don’t mind being tagged with monikers like “curmudgeon” and don’t even mind “misanthrope” occasionally, even when such descriptives not preceded by adjectives like “lovable.” I take them as badges of honor in today’s world that is characterized mostly by silliness and idiocy being accepted, indeed celebrated, as long as enough people engage in such silliness and idiocy I suspect, but have no means of knowing, that Mr. Haines feels the same way.
In the wake of the untimely death of CNBC anchor Mark Haines, a fellow curmudgeon with a libertarian streak who, over the years, has come to be one of those friends I never met, the best tribute I can deliver is to repost an item I put up three years ago, almost to the day.
All of us, and not only us curmudgeons, will miss Mr. Haines. I am praying for this wonderful man and especially for his family.
CURMUDGEONS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!
5/30/08
On CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning, kindred spirit Mark Haines, who, like yours truly, has watched the financial markets, and generally been around, a long time and thus usually has the presence and the knowledge to step back and call nonsense what it is, was discussing the issue of the economic books’ being cooked, if you will. For example, a few weeks ago, we were told that the price of gasoline was down in April because of the idiosyncrasies of seasonal adjustment. This morning, we were told that inflation was well under control as measured by the personal consumption expenditures index. I’ve written on government statistics, especially the inflation statistics, on numerous occasions. The gist of my argument is that the books must be being cooked because of the government’s tremendous conflict of interest that arises from its both measuring inflation (in this case the CPI) and being on the hook to social security recipients for the adjustments to their checks for those very same CPI numbers. A less quantitatively tremendous conflict arises from the government’s measurement of the CPI and its having to adjust the principal value of its Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (“TIPS,” which are currently, and have been for some time, my favorite investment, but that is another topic). My conclusion is that either the government is cooking the books or that those who come up with such whoppers as a currently relatively stable CPI and the Wall Street wunderkinds who so glibly depend on those fantasies are so insulated from the real world that they haven’t the slightest hope for accuracy in generating such quantitative fairy tales. For example, if “transportation” means getting around New York or Washington in a price controlled cab and “food” meant eating in restaurants at which the actual price of the food itself is an almost immeasurable percentage of the cost of the “dining experience,” well, then, I guess that one could say with a straight face that the prices of gasoline and food don’t really matter and that, therefore, inflation is under control as long as the prices of, say, jewelry, luxury cars, and yachts remain stable, but I digress.
However, this entry is not about the substance of the discussion Mr. Haines was having with economists Steve Liesman and Michele Girard (both of whom I respect), another economist whose name I didn’t catch, and his co-host, the comely, witty, and well informed Erin Burnett. What made me want to stand up and cheer for Mark Haines was his rhetorical question in response to Ms. Burnett’s, and the other panelists’, contention that he is a curmudgeon:
“Why is it that when I get fed up with stupidity, I’m a curmudgeon?”
This statement so perfectly encapsulates my approach to life that even I, with all my skills with the written and spoken word, could not possibly improve on it.
Mr. Haines went on to utter a statement only slightly less profound:
“Standing up and saying something makes no sense is not curmudgeonly, it’s common sensical.” (sic)
As someone who still trades relatively actively, I am tuned into CNBC, albeit usually with the sound muted, throughout the day and, like most watchers, have come to, in a sense, know and like many of the hosts on its shows. (They are, by the way, quite an accomplished lot with, in most cases, considerable experience and genuinely useful books under figuratively under their belts. While one can see, judging from the appearance of most of the hosts (Messrs. Haines and Liesman excluded) how people can argue that one gets a job on CNBC from physical attractiveness alone, a look at the background of its on the air personnel quickly dispels that notion. But I digress.) I have, except for years ago when I first started watching CNBC (and was much younger), always liked the way Mr. Haines thinks. I’ve always gotten the sense that his approach to nonsense and snake oil was similar to mine. I also have long had the idea that his frustration with cheerleading and groundless, gormless optimism passing for thought and insight was, like mine, growing on a daily basis. But his observations today were so perfect that I felt compelled to break my long absence from these pages to draw your attention to them.
One more thing: I don’t mind being tagged with monikers like “curmudgeon” and don’t even mind “misanthrope” occasionally, even when such descriptives not preceded by adjectives like “lovable.” I take them as badges of honor in today’s world that is characterized mostly by silliness and idiocy being accepted, indeed celebrated, as long as enough people engage in such silliness and idiocy I suspect, but have no means of knowing, that Mr. Haines feels the same way.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
RABBIT HOLE ECONOMICS
5/24/11
The Wall Street Journal’s Katy Burne reported today (Tuesday, 5/24/11, page C24) that yields on five year callable CDs, at 2.4%, are now trading 76 basis points under the CPI at 3.16%.
There are, of course, many conventional explanations for the negative real yield on what are among the highest paying CDs, to wit: flight to quality, lack of loan demand, people’s not believing the inflation numbers, preferring instead to believe that the real danger remains not inflation but deflation, a lack of alternatives, etc. There is doubtless much to these explanations. But step back for a moment and think about it. The financial crisis from which we are supposedly currently emerging had its origins in, simply, too much debt. It was called a “housing crisis” but, as loyal and long time readers know, for years I have been saying, correctly, that this was a housing crisis only in the sense that, in many cases, houses were used as the ultimate collateral for the debt that was accumulated by the financially clueless at the urging of the financially clueless. The problem we encountered was not a housing problem but a debt problem. (I digress, but I do so for a reason beyond pure entertainment.) Further, even if one believes that the problems that spawned the near financial meltdown (too much drama in that oft-used description, but, again, I digress) are behind us, one has to admit that the world still suffers from too much debt, government, household, and, maybe, commercial.
So in a world characterized by too much debt, people are still willing to lend their money for five years, and to give the borrower a call option on that debt, at a rate 76 basis points under inflation! This is amazing, even when one considers that CDs are de facto (de jure for that matter) U.S. treasury debt. (Note, though, that the issuer of treasury debt has been far from immune to the popular impulse to spend one’s self into oblivion that is (was?) the origin of the aforementioned debt crisis.) If there is too much borrowing, why can people still borrow still cheaply? The least one can say about this is that there is a bubble in the debt markets. But what would someone with no special expertise in finance or economics say if s/he were confronted with a situation in which there is too much debt yet that debt is priced so richly? S/he would say that something has gone haywire, that there is something wrong with the financial system, and maybe with the world. Yours truly, who at least purports to have more than a passing familiarity with the way the financial world works, would go so far as to say that the world has gone, in the immortal words of Group Commander Lionel Mandrake, "as mad as a bloody March hare," but such an assertion on my part would be not at all new.
The Wall Street Journal’s Katy Burne reported today (Tuesday, 5/24/11, page C24) that yields on five year callable CDs, at 2.4%, are now trading 76 basis points under the CPI at 3.16%.
There are, of course, many conventional explanations for the negative real yield on what are among the highest paying CDs, to wit: flight to quality, lack of loan demand, people’s not believing the inflation numbers, preferring instead to believe that the real danger remains not inflation but deflation, a lack of alternatives, etc. There is doubtless much to these explanations. But step back for a moment and think about it. The financial crisis from which we are supposedly currently emerging had its origins in, simply, too much debt. It was called a “housing crisis” but, as loyal and long time readers know, for years I have been saying, correctly, that this was a housing crisis only in the sense that, in many cases, houses were used as the ultimate collateral for the debt that was accumulated by the financially clueless at the urging of the financially clueless. The problem we encountered was not a housing problem but a debt problem. (I digress, but I do so for a reason beyond pure entertainment.) Further, even if one believes that the problems that spawned the near financial meltdown (too much drama in that oft-used description, but, again, I digress) are behind us, one has to admit that the world still suffers from too much debt, government, household, and, maybe, commercial.
So in a world characterized by too much debt, people are still willing to lend their money for five years, and to give the borrower a call option on that debt, at a rate 76 basis points under inflation! This is amazing, even when one considers that CDs are de facto (de jure for that matter) U.S. treasury debt. (Note, though, that the issuer of treasury debt has been far from immune to the popular impulse to spend one’s self into oblivion that is (was?) the origin of the aforementioned debt crisis.) If there is too much borrowing, why can people still borrow still cheaply? The least one can say about this is that there is a bubble in the debt markets. But what would someone with no special expertise in finance or economics say if s/he were confronted with a situation in which there is too much debt yet that debt is priced so richly? S/he would say that something has gone haywire, that there is something wrong with the financial system, and maybe with the world. Yours truly, who at least purports to have more than a passing familiarity with the way the financial world works, would go so far as to say that the world has gone, in the immortal words of Group Commander Lionel Mandrake, "as mad as a bloody March hare," but such an assertion on my part would be not at all new.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
“I SEEN MY OPPORTUNITIES AND I TOOK ‘EM”
5/21/11
Yesterday, the Democratic (Speaker Mike Madigan, really) controlled Illinois House released its decennial remap of its districts. What is not surprising is that Mike Madigan, who, in addition to being the most effective Illinois politician since the death of Richard J. Daley, has proven to be one of the world’s foremost cartographers, went a long way toward insuring continued Democratic dominance of the state House for the next ten years by repeatedly lumping incumbent Republicans into the same districts. What is especially remarkable is the reason that Mr. Madigan was able to once again exercise his considerable map making skills: he managed to maintain control of the House despite the Republican tidal wave that swept the country, and, at least regarding the U.S. House, the state of Illinois, in 2010. Say what you will about the man, he is very good at what he does. But I digress.
While it is not a surprise the Mr. Madigan and his many minions were able to manufacture a map that maintains their majority in the House, the reaction of at least one Republican was a surprise. Representative Mike Fortner (R., West Chicago), the GOP’s point man on redistricting, according to the Chicago Tribune (Saturday, 5/21, page A4), questioned whether packing together so many GOP incumbent lawmakers was “reasonable.” What a silly question. Of course it wasn’t reasonable; it was politics.
Mr. Fortner himself was placed in a district with one of his fellow GOP incumbents, Tim Schmitz of Batavia. In response, Mr. Fortner said he wants “to find out why they (Speaker Madigan and his sycophants (my words, not Mr. Fortners)) did the things they did.” Even though I have never attained the lofty post of point man for the GOP remap or even that of a lowly Illinois State House backbencher (or much of anything else, for that matter), I can answer that questions for Representative Fortner: Because they can. Or, as Mr. Fortners’s GOP colleague, Sidney Mathias (R., Buffalo Grove) a man who appears to be more schooled in the ways of the world, or at least in the ways of Mr. Madigan’s world, than Mr. Fortner, put it, in a way that would make George Washington Plunkett proud, “It certainly is, to the victor goes (sic) the spoils.”
I don’t know Mike Fortner. I don’t know if he is a young man or an older man. I don’t know if he is a great guy or an insufferable curmudgeon. I don’t know if he is a smart man or dim bulb. I don’t know if he is a popinjay or a yeoman. However, judging from his statements in the wake of Mr. Madigan’s seizing his duly won spoils, one has to wonder why a man of such naiveté is in the position the House GOP has put him. Perhaps this says a great deal more about the state of the Illinois GOP than it does about Mr. Fortner.
Yesterday, the Democratic (Speaker Mike Madigan, really) controlled Illinois House released its decennial remap of its districts. What is not surprising is that Mike Madigan, who, in addition to being the most effective Illinois politician since the death of Richard J. Daley, has proven to be one of the world’s foremost cartographers, went a long way toward insuring continued Democratic dominance of the state House for the next ten years by repeatedly lumping incumbent Republicans into the same districts. What is especially remarkable is the reason that Mr. Madigan was able to once again exercise his considerable map making skills: he managed to maintain control of the House despite the Republican tidal wave that swept the country, and, at least regarding the U.S. House, the state of Illinois, in 2010. Say what you will about the man, he is very good at what he does. But I digress.
While it is not a surprise the Mr. Madigan and his many minions were able to manufacture a map that maintains their majority in the House, the reaction of at least one Republican was a surprise. Representative Mike Fortner (R., West Chicago), the GOP’s point man on redistricting, according to the Chicago Tribune (Saturday, 5/21, page A4), questioned whether packing together so many GOP incumbent lawmakers was “reasonable.” What a silly question. Of course it wasn’t reasonable; it was politics.
Mr. Fortner himself was placed in a district with one of his fellow GOP incumbents, Tim Schmitz of Batavia. In response, Mr. Fortner said he wants “to find out why they (Speaker Madigan and his sycophants (my words, not Mr. Fortners)) did the things they did.” Even though I have never attained the lofty post of point man for the GOP remap or even that of a lowly Illinois State House backbencher (or much of anything else, for that matter), I can answer that questions for Representative Fortner: Because they can. Or, as Mr. Fortners’s GOP colleague, Sidney Mathias (R., Buffalo Grove) a man who appears to be more schooled in the ways of the world, or at least in the ways of Mr. Madigan’s world, than Mr. Fortner, put it, in a way that would make George Washington Plunkett proud, “It certainly is, to the victor goes (sic) the spoils.”
I don’t know Mike Fortner. I don’t know if he is a young man or an older man. I don’t know if he is a great guy or an insufferable curmudgeon. I don’t know if he is a smart man or dim bulb. I don’t know if he is a popinjay or a yeoman. However, judging from his statements in the wake of Mr. Madigan’s seizing his duly won spoils, one has to wonder why a man of such naiveté is in the position the House GOP has put him. Perhaps this says a great deal more about the state of the Illinois GOP than it does about Mr. Fortner.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
THE SHORTEST POST IN THE HISTORY OF THE PONTIFICATOR
5/19/11
Have you ever noticed how everything—meetings, Masses, plays, concerts, recitals, ball games, phone conversations, homilies, political speeches, movies, any kind of ceremony, funerals, weddings, and, truth be told, even posts on this blog—is 30% too long?
Well, maybe not. Homilies and political speeches are usually 80% too long, but everything else is 30% too long.
Have you ever noticed how everything—meetings, Masses, plays, concerts, recitals, ball games, phone conversations, homilies, political speeches, movies, any kind of ceremony, funerals, weddings, and, truth be told, even posts on this blog—is 30% too long?
Well, maybe not. Homilies and political speeches are usually 80% too long, but everything else is 30% too long.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
“…AND IF YOU EVER LEAVE ME I WILL LOSE MY MIND…”
5/18/11
This morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 5/18’s) Chicago Tribune reports that, so far in 2011, the state of Illinois has dispensed $230 mm in tax breaks and other aid, primarily through Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) program, a moniker doubtless concocted for a princely sum by a politically connected marketing/PR firm. This is nearly the amount shoveled out during all of 2010 in connection with such efforts.
The formula the state of Illinois is following is a classic prescription for any Chicago politician, or any self-aggrandizing politician (Using “self-aggrandizing” as an adjective with “politician” is the portrait of redundancy, but I digress.) for that matter: make life intolerable for business through a combination of high taxes, busybody regulation, and indecipherable and onerous workers’ compensation rules, but then make life easier for those businesses that come to the politicians on bended knee asking for relief. Then remind those beneficiaries of the pols’ beneficence at fundraising (i.e., all of the) time. Legions of gangsters have gone to jail for similar behavior conducted on a much smaller scale.
Don’t be surprised when it is the same “populist” Pat Quinn types who piously decry the cost, and very existence, of “corporate welfare” when election time rolls around, adding hypocrisy to extortion on their list of what would be crimes in any civilized society in which the citizenry paid attention.
One could argue that Illinois must engage in such “incentivizing” to either attract business to the state or keep business in the state, and there is doubtless something to that. But one wonders the degree to which states that are fiscally sound, low tax polities that treat businesses and people who work fairly have to bribe businesses to stay or locate within their borders. One would hope that, rather than compete with each other for the juiciness of the tax breaks the politicasters can dispense to those who are expected to return the favors at election time, states would compete for businesses and residents by working to make themselves the types of places businesses, and the people who work for them, would like to reside. By this I have in mind low taxes and efficient delivery of basic services rather than, as the politicians would interpret it, adding to the public payroll in order to “address the concerns of the business, educational, and non-profit communities” and to “meet the (ever growing) needs of those who work pay check to pay check” or some such drivelous politico-speak.
This morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 5/18’s) Chicago Tribune reports that, so far in 2011, the state of Illinois has dispensed $230 mm in tax breaks and other aid, primarily through Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) program, a moniker doubtless concocted for a princely sum by a politically connected marketing/PR firm. This is nearly the amount shoveled out during all of 2010 in connection with such efforts.
The formula the state of Illinois is following is a classic prescription for any Chicago politician, or any self-aggrandizing politician (Using “self-aggrandizing” as an adjective with “politician” is the portrait of redundancy, but I digress.) for that matter: make life intolerable for business through a combination of high taxes, busybody regulation, and indecipherable and onerous workers’ compensation rules, but then make life easier for those businesses that come to the politicians on bended knee asking for relief. Then remind those beneficiaries of the pols’ beneficence at fundraising (i.e., all of the) time. Legions of gangsters have gone to jail for similar behavior conducted on a much smaller scale.
Don’t be surprised when it is the same “populist” Pat Quinn types who piously decry the cost, and very existence, of “corporate welfare” when election time rolls around, adding hypocrisy to extortion on their list of what would be crimes in any civilized society in which the citizenry paid attention.
One could argue that Illinois must engage in such “incentivizing” to either attract business to the state or keep business in the state, and there is doubtless something to that. But one wonders the degree to which states that are fiscally sound, low tax polities that treat businesses and people who work fairly have to bribe businesses to stay or locate within their borders. One would hope that, rather than compete with each other for the juiciness of the tax breaks the politicasters can dispense to those who are expected to return the favors at election time, states would compete for businesses and residents by working to make themselves the types of places businesses, and the people who work for them, would like to reside. By this I have in mind low taxes and efficient delivery of basic services rather than, as the politicians would interpret it, adding to the public payroll in order to “address the concerns of the business, educational, and non-profit communities” and to “meet the (ever growing) needs of those who work pay check to pay check” or some such drivelous politico-speak.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
“STEP RIGHT UP, FOLKS, STEP RIGHT UP…”
5/17/11
The Chicago and national news media insist on continuing their, if reports are to be believed, unrequited love affair with now Mayor Rahm Emanuel. This morning, the news radio stations were all agog about Mr. Emanuel “hitting the ground running” on his first day in office. And what was Mr. Emanuel doing this morning? Shaking hands with commuters at the CTA station at 95th and the Dan Ryan.
This is “hitting the ground running”? Mr. Mayor, the campaign is over and it’s not the morning after the election; it’s the day after inauguration. Now the governing begins, and there is plenty to be done. Shaking the voters’ hands is not going to do anything about our fair city’s gaping budget deficit, horrific schools, or crumbling infrastructure. It’s time to get to work on the less glamorous aspects of the job.
How Mr. Emanuel spent his first day in office provides a stark illustration of one of my fears about Mr. Emanuel; i.e., that he is perhaps the archetype of the new politician who cannot distinguish between style and substance, between campaigning and governing. Further, having made his bones in fundraising, Mr. Emanuel shows no compunction about continuing to shake down businesses (and, having spent no time, beyond an influence peddling stint before running for Congress, in the private sector, sees no bottom to the pockets of business people) in order to finance this permanent campaign (See my 3/28/11 post HEY, THE BOYS NEED A LITTLE LUNCH MONEY…), this triumph of style over substance that his mayoralty may turn out to be.
The permanent campaign, financed by people who want something from government or who simply want to be able to conduct business without too much government harassment, is by no means a new approach to government; it is one of the reasons our society is fast heading toward the footnotes of history. What frightens some about Mr. Emanuel is the extent to which he engages in this approach to governance. And while famous pols of the past who paid close attention to style, sometimes at the expense of substance, knew what they were doing, one sometimes wonders if Mr. Emanuel and his ilk are capable of making the distinction.
The Chicago and national news media insist on continuing their, if reports are to be believed, unrequited love affair with now Mayor Rahm Emanuel. This morning, the news radio stations were all agog about Mr. Emanuel “hitting the ground running” on his first day in office. And what was Mr. Emanuel doing this morning? Shaking hands with commuters at the CTA station at 95th and the Dan Ryan.
This is “hitting the ground running”? Mr. Mayor, the campaign is over and it’s not the morning after the election; it’s the day after inauguration. Now the governing begins, and there is plenty to be done. Shaking the voters’ hands is not going to do anything about our fair city’s gaping budget deficit, horrific schools, or crumbling infrastructure. It’s time to get to work on the less glamorous aspects of the job.
How Mr. Emanuel spent his first day in office provides a stark illustration of one of my fears about Mr. Emanuel; i.e., that he is perhaps the archetype of the new politician who cannot distinguish between style and substance, between campaigning and governing. Further, having made his bones in fundraising, Mr. Emanuel shows no compunction about continuing to shake down businesses (and, having spent no time, beyond an influence peddling stint before running for Congress, in the private sector, sees no bottom to the pockets of business people) in order to finance this permanent campaign (See my 3/28/11 post HEY, THE BOYS NEED A LITTLE LUNCH MONEY…), this triumph of style over substance that his mayoralty may turn out to be.
The permanent campaign, financed by people who want something from government or who simply want to be able to conduct business without too much government harassment, is by no means a new approach to government; it is one of the reasons our society is fast heading toward the footnotes of history. What frightens some about Mr. Emanuel is the extent to which he engages in this approach to governance. And while famous pols of the past who paid close attention to style, sometimes at the expense of substance, knew what they were doing, one sometimes wonders if Mr. Emanuel and his ilk are capable of making the distinction.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
“WELL, I LOVE THAT DIRTY WATER…”
5/15/11
I have mixed thoughts on this latest federal EPA demand that the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District clean up the Chicago River to a point at which that formerly open sewer would be sufficiently pristine for swimming. On the one hand, the cost of the clean-up project, estimated at $7 per month for an average Cook County homeowner, seems awfully steep. EPA officials console us with their observation that, in the past, most of the District’s large sewer projects have been funded with federal money. This is the type of thinking engaged in with a straight face only by political types and their constituents and potential constituents who think of “democracy” as a system that somehow entitles them to other people’s money, and it is the type of thinking that has contributed so mightily to the accumulation of the fiscal sewage in which we are now swimming. Who do those who engage in such argumentation think pays the federal government’s bills? Do people think that federal money comes from some disembodied money machine? (Well, of late, that might be true, but to delve into Mr. Bernanke and his fabulous money machine would be a digression within a digression.) Do they think that the people of Cook County do not pay federal taxes? Further, to the extent that some of the “federal” money that would finance such a project comes from sources other than Cook County and the downstream communities that would benefit from a scouring of the Chicago River, why is it somehow just for the taxpayers of, say, Arizona or Oregon to pay to clean up the Chicago River? But I digress. $84 per year per household seems like a lot of money to clean up a river that few people yearn to use for swimming and other such forms of recreation. That the Chicago River has been dirty (and a lot dirtier than it has been in recent years) has been an accepted fact for most of the city’s history, and few have felt put out by this reality.
On the other hand, why should Chicago be the only city that doesn’t clean up its river, or, as the Tribune put it today, “…skips an important germ killing step before pumping partially treated human and industrial waste into the (river)…”? Chicago’s not being required to engage in the river cleansing steps other cities are required to perform is doubtless testimony to the enormous clout that Chicago mayors since the implementation of the relevant EPA rules in 1972 have had in Washington. There is little indication that such clout is going to diminish any time soon, but, still, if other cities are made to clean up their rivers, why shouldn’t Chicago do the same?
What really amazes me about the whole issue of sanitizing the Chicago River is that it hasn’t been done yet, i.e., why have the mayors of Chicago, especially the outgoing one, resisted this massive public works project? Think if the projects, think of the jobs, think of the federal money. (Rich Daley, like his father, was an enthusiastic acolyte of the “federal money as manna from heaven” school of public finance.) Surely, Richard II had plenty of friends in the river sanitation business, or who could easily enter that business, if only as “consultants” or silent, and, when necessary, nowhere listed or named, partners. Just as surely, such friends would, as has always been their practice, been willing to fulsomely express their gratitude in monetary ways for yet another opportunity to perform public service.
Given that the incoming Mayor made his bones in fundraising and fundraising is greatly facilitated when there are plenty of grateful contractors around to shake down, one can anticipate that this Mayor will use his clout with Messrs. Obama, Axelrod, et. al. to complete, rather than avoid, the massive clean-up project for the Chicago River.
I have mixed thoughts on this latest federal EPA demand that the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District clean up the Chicago River to a point at which that formerly open sewer would be sufficiently pristine for swimming. On the one hand, the cost of the clean-up project, estimated at $7 per month for an average Cook County homeowner, seems awfully steep. EPA officials console us with their observation that, in the past, most of the District’s large sewer projects have been funded with federal money. This is the type of thinking engaged in with a straight face only by political types and their constituents and potential constituents who think of “democracy” as a system that somehow entitles them to other people’s money, and it is the type of thinking that has contributed so mightily to the accumulation of the fiscal sewage in which we are now swimming. Who do those who engage in such argumentation think pays the federal government’s bills? Do people think that federal money comes from some disembodied money machine? (Well, of late, that might be true, but to delve into Mr. Bernanke and his fabulous money machine would be a digression within a digression.) Do they think that the people of Cook County do not pay federal taxes? Further, to the extent that some of the “federal” money that would finance such a project comes from sources other than Cook County and the downstream communities that would benefit from a scouring of the Chicago River, why is it somehow just for the taxpayers of, say, Arizona or Oregon to pay to clean up the Chicago River? But I digress. $84 per year per household seems like a lot of money to clean up a river that few people yearn to use for swimming and other such forms of recreation. That the Chicago River has been dirty (and a lot dirtier than it has been in recent years) has been an accepted fact for most of the city’s history, and few have felt put out by this reality.
On the other hand, why should Chicago be the only city that doesn’t clean up its river, or, as the Tribune put it today, “…skips an important germ killing step before pumping partially treated human and industrial waste into the (river)…”? Chicago’s not being required to engage in the river cleansing steps other cities are required to perform is doubtless testimony to the enormous clout that Chicago mayors since the implementation of the relevant EPA rules in 1972 have had in Washington. There is little indication that such clout is going to diminish any time soon, but, still, if other cities are made to clean up their rivers, why shouldn’t Chicago do the same?
What really amazes me about the whole issue of sanitizing the Chicago River is that it hasn’t been done yet, i.e., why have the mayors of Chicago, especially the outgoing one, resisted this massive public works project? Think if the projects, think of the jobs, think of the federal money. (Rich Daley, like his father, was an enthusiastic acolyte of the “federal money as manna from heaven” school of public finance.) Surely, Richard II had plenty of friends in the river sanitation business, or who could easily enter that business, if only as “consultants” or silent, and, when necessary, nowhere listed or named, partners. Just as surely, such friends would, as has always been their practice, been willing to fulsomely express their gratitude in monetary ways for yet another opportunity to perform public service.
Given that the incoming Mayor made his bones in fundraising and fundraising is greatly facilitated when there are plenty of grateful contractors around to shake down, one can anticipate that this Mayor will use his clout with Messrs. Obama, Axelrod, et. al. to complete, rather than avoid, the massive clean-up project for the Chicago River.
Friday, May 13, 2011
RON IS BACK; BACK RON!!!
5/13/11
Congressman Ron Paul announced today that he will run for president yet again and, as most of you may suspect, I will be supporting him again; I have only once failed to vote for Dr. Paul whenever I have had the opportunity, and that was one of the votes I most sincerely regret.
Do I have some misgivings about once again supporting Ron Paul for president? Certainly, but not the big misgiving that people assume I would have, i.e., that I am “throwing away” my vote. The way I, and most clear thinking people, see it, we are confronted in this country with a choice between one party that has never seen a foreign quagmire into which we should not insert ourselves and would like to make 50% of the American citizenry wards of the state and another party that perhaps might see one or two quagmires into which we should not insert ourselves and would like to make 75% of the citizenry wards of the state. The American voter today, if s/he insists on not “throwing away” his or her vote, is confronted with an opportunity to change the direction of the growth of government by, at most, three or four degrees. Choosing between two parties, both of which have views of government that are diametrically opposed to mine, would indeed be “throwing away” my vote. Voting for a guy who agrees me on most (not all) issues is standing for principle and showing respect for the vote for which so many people gave their lives.
But why are the almost indetectible differences between the two parties an issue, since Dr. Paul is running in the GOP primary? Dr. Paul remembers his showing in the 1988 presidential race (0.5% of the popular vote, still the second highest percentage ever for a Libertarian candidate) and has concluded that a Third Party candidate has no chance of winning a presidential election. That is why he is running as a GOPer. In the Republican contest, he is running against a flock of candidates, with some fringe exceptions, who pledge loyalty, with narrowly varying degrees of adhesion, to the GOP “big government on a global scale” approach to public policy. So a vote for Dr. Paul remains a vote against the two party system that, of late, has led our country to the door step of financial, moral, and societal dystopia.
My misgivings on Dr. Paul are two-fold. First, he has been in Congress for over twenty years. It becomes increasingly difficult to make the argument that one is opposed to the further insertion of government into our lives when one has been on the public payroll for twenty years. One starts to suspect that if Dr. Paul really believes what he says, he would make like Cincinnatus and return to the plow or, in Dr. Paul’s case, to the practice of obstetrics and gynecology in Texas. His reluctance to do so, and the increasingly growing disparity between his background and that of Herman Cain is one of the reasons I find Mr. Cain’s candidacy so attractive, but that is another issue.
Despite this misgiving, I will adhere to the wisdom of Frank Raispis, the greatest Latin/Greek teacher in the history of St. Ignatius (and therefore, of the world) and write, regarding Dr. Paul,
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.
Translation for those of you who did not have the good fortune, as did yours truly, of learning the language of the saints and scholars from the likes of Frank Raispis, Sister Florence Marie Gerdes, Father Florian (“Ridicule his first name to his face, I dare you!” was a common taunt for three decades at Ignatius involving that former amateur boxing champ from St. Pius Parish, God rest his soul.) Zimecki, and Don Hoffman (But do I digress here or what?):
What is allowed for Jupiter is not allowed for an ox.
My second misgiving involves a question regarding whether it is too late for a small government approach. According to those who hold this view, things have gotten so bad, with the citizenry, preferring to figuratively excrete away its time on such trendy piffles and cotton candy for the mind as television, ignoring its responsibilities under a system of self-government and thus turning over its governance to the highest bidder, that a system that puts more responsibility into the hands of an addle-brained electorate would result merely in expediting the inevitable…the utter ruin of our society due to our own indifference, self-indulgence, and sense of entitlement. Therefore, with the overwhelming majority of our population having at most a vague familiarity with the Constitution yet possessing a healthy disdain for its provisions and obligations when they impinge on their comfort or desire to take from others to give to themselves, a stronger, perhaps authoritarian, system is needed at this stage to right things, to return us to a point at which Constitutional government would once again be viable.
While I have some sympathy for this view, I adhere to the wisdom of Milton Friedman who said (paraphrasing) that he was not in favor of limited government and freedom because he was sure he was right but, rather, because he was constantly aware that he could be wrong. If I am wrong and everything is going wonderfully in this country, that our best years are ahead of us, and that Americans are at least as hard-working, insightful, and wise as they have ever been, letting such Olympians have a larger role in their government would only intensify these salubrious trends. If I am right and we are headed straight into the crapper, limited government would make it glaringly obvious that the American people will have only themselves to blame for the smoking and odoriferous wreck of the inheritance our forefathers left us that will remain.
So I will be voting for Dr. Paul…again.
Congressman Ron Paul announced today that he will run for president yet again and, as most of you may suspect, I will be supporting him again; I have only once failed to vote for Dr. Paul whenever I have had the opportunity, and that was one of the votes I most sincerely regret.
Do I have some misgivings about once again supporting Ron Paul for president? Certainly, but not the big misgiving that people assume I would have, i.e., that I am “throwing away” my vote. The way I, and most clear thinking people, see it, we are confronted in this country with a choice between one party that has never seen a foreign quagmire into which we should not insert ourselves and would like to make 50% of the American citizenry wards of the state and another party that perhaps might see one or two quagmires into which we should not insert ourselves and would like to make 75% of the citizenry wards of the state. The American voter today, if s/he insists on not “throwing away” his or her vote, is confronted with an opportunity to change the direction of the growth of government by, at most, three or four degrees. Choosing between two parties, both of which have views of government that are diametrically opposed to mine, would indeed be “throwing away” my vote. Voting for a guy who agrees me on most (not all) issues is standing for principle and showing respect for the vote for which so many people gave their lives.
But why are the almost indetectible differences between the two parties an issue, since Dr. Paul is running in the GOP primary? Dr. Paul remembers his showing in the 1988 presidential race (0.5% of the popular vote, still the second highest percentage ever for a Libertarian candidate) and has concluded that a Third Party candidate has no chance of winning a presidential election. That is why he is running as a GOPer. In the Republican contest, he is running against a flock of candidates, with some fringe exceptions, who pledge loyalty, with narrowly varying degrees of adhesion, to the GOP “big government on a global scale” approach to public policy. So a vote for Dr. Paul remains a vote against the two party system that, of late, has led our country to the door step of financial, moral, and societal dystopia.
My misgivings on Dr. Paul are two-fold. First, he has been in Congress for over twenty years. It becomes increasingly difficult to make the argument that one is opposed to the further insertion of government into our lives when one has been on the public payroll for twenty years. One starts to suspect that if Dr. Paul really believes what he says, he would make like Cincinnatus and return to the plow or, in Dr. Paul’s case, to the practice of obstetrics and gynecology in Texas. His reluctance to do so, and the increasingly growing disparity between his background and that of Herman Cain is one of the reasons I find Mr. Cain’s candidacy so attractive, but that is another issue.
Despite this misgiving, I will adhere to the wisdom of Frank Raispis, the greatest Latin/Greek teacher in the history of St. Ignatius (and therefore, of the world) and write, regarding Dr. Paul,
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.
Translation for those of you who did not have the good fortune, as did yours truly, of learning the language of the saints and scholars from the likes of Frank Raispis, Sister Florence Marie Gerdes, Father Florian (“Ridicule his first name to his face, I dare you!” was a common taunt for three decades at Ignatius involving that former amateur boxing champ from St. Pius Parish, God rest his soul.) Zimecki, and Don Hoffman (But do I digress here or what?):
What is allowed for Jupiter is not allowed for an ox.
My second misgiving involves a question regarding whether it is too late for a small government approach. According to those who hold this view, things have gotten so bad, with the citizenry, preferring to figuratively excrete away its time on such trendy piffles and cotton candy for the mind as television, ignoring its responsibilities under a system of self-government and thus turning over its governance to the highest bidder, that a system that puts more responsibility into the hands of an addle-brained electorate would result merely in expediting the inevitable…the utter ruin of our society due to our own indifference, self-indulgence, and sense of entitlement. Therefore, with the overwhelming majority of our population having at most a vague familiarity with the Constitution yet possessing a healthy disdain for its provisions and obligations when they impinge on their comfort or desire to take from others to give to themselves, a stronger, perhaps authoritarian, system is needed at this stage to right things, to return us to a point at which Constitutional government would once again be viable.
While I have some sympathy for this view, I adhere to the wisdom of Milton Friedman who said (paraphrasing) that he was not in favor of limited government and freedom because he was sure he was right but, rather, because he was constantly aware that he could be wrong. If I am wrong and everything is going wonderfully in this country, that our best years are ahead of us, and that Americans are at least as hard-working, insightful, and wise as they have ever been, letting such Olympians have a larger role in their government would only intensify these salubrious trends. If I am right and we are headed straight into the crapper, limited government would make it glaringly obvious that the American people will have only themselves to blame for the smoking and odoriferous wreck of the inheritance our forefathers left us that will remain.
So I will be voting for Dr. Paul…again.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
MY (SO FAR) TWO CENTS ON BIN LADEN’S LONG DELAYED DEMISE
5/4/11
As one who tries to comment on the pertinent news of the day, I feel obligated to write something on the bin Laden killing. It hasn’t been easy to comment on this story for several reasons. First, I try to say something unique or especially insightful (hence the name of this blog) about the events or statements on which I comment. The most salient, and important, things about the bin Laden episode have already been said numerous times, to wit, that this was a gutsy, heroic move on the part of the SEALS, and all military and intelligence personnel, involved in the operation and on the part of the President. If this operation had not gone as smoothly (Actually, it didn’t go all that smoothly; note the loss of a helicopter, but SEALS are taught to improvise and think on their feet, thank God. But I digress.) as it did, at least some of the SEALS would have been dead and the President would have been figuratively drawn and quartered. Brave men did brave things and are to be commended.
Second, it’s hard to comment on the bin Laden situation because the story keeps changing. First bin Laden was armed and then he wasn’t armed. First one of his wives was killed and then she wasn’t killed. First there were no high tech items in the compound, no internet service, no telephones, in the compound, then the place was bristling with computers and other high tech gear of various levels of sophistication. First the downed helicopter clipped a wall of the compound, then it got caught in a vortex. The story seems to be fluid. This is at least partially understandable. The SEALS who conducted the operation didn’t have time to take notes and record accurately every step of the raid. Most of the witnesses are now in Pakistani custody and are doubtless telling tales that serve their, and doubtless the Pakistani intelligence service’s, motivations, motivations radically different from ours. But, regardless of the justification or the reasons behind the ever evolving nature of the story, it does make one, especially those of us who are predisposed toward distrusting government, suspicious about our government’s motivations for couching the story in what can be described as flexible terms. It will be easier to comment intelligently on this story when the story clears up, and that might never happen.
What is worth noting, though, even at this stage, is just how quickly three utterly predictable reactions to the long overdue demise of Mr. bin Laden unfolded. These reactions can be encapsulated in three news stories:
First, in yesterday’s (i.e., Tuesday, May 3’s, page A3) Wall Street Journal:
Governments around the world, warning against complacency in fighting terrorism, prepared for the chance of retaliatory attacks in the wake of bind Laden’s death….
The State Department warned Americans around the world of the “enhanced potential for anti-American violence given recent counter-terrorism activity in Pakistan.”…
Al Qaeda may within days launch a large-scale or several smaller attacks “as a vehicle to introduce its new leadership” (Raphael) Perl (head of something called Action Against Terrorism Unit at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) said.
One of my first thoughts after learning that we got bin Laden was that our government, and governments throughout the world, will have to find a new boogey man. Government always need boogey men to keep their populations cowed, willing to turn to government for security, and eager to endure such otherwise out of the question silliness as strip-teases at airports in front of ill-trained and indifferent government employees and to support wars that have at the very best only extremely tentative connections to their ostensible purpose. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the elimination of the Red Scare that served this purpose so well, Western governments, and especially, the U.S. government, have searched desperately for a plausible substitute. None has worked as nicely as bin Laden; if he never existed, the government would have had to invent him. Now that he’s gone, the government needs a new bad guy lurking under the bed. I’m amazed how quickly it found one.
Second, in today’s (Wednesday, May 4’s) online edition of the Chicago Tribune:
U.S. acknowledgment on Tuesday that bin Laden was unarmed when shot dead had raised accusations Washington had violated international law. Exact circumstances of his death remained unclear and could yet fuel controversy, especially in the Muslim world.
This is insane, but you knew somebody, somewhere, when learning these latest circumstances of bin Laden’s demise, was going to question the justification for shooting and killing an unarmed man. One can almost see the tears streaming down the faces of those questioning what they deem the extreme cruelty of the soldiers who committed such a heinous act. Let’s just hope these complaints against our brave SEALS are coming from overseas quarters sympathetic to al Qaeda in general and to bin Laden in particular and not from, say, the faculty lounges at Yale and Harvard, the editorial offices of the New York Times, or the overeducated and underemployed busybodies at the ACLU. Given the sad history of American political correctness, though, I suspect that those hopes are in vain.
Third, from today’s (Wednesday, May 4’s) online edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:
Meanwhile, the top staff member for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is objecting to the U.S. military’s use of “Geronimo” as bin Laden’s code name.
Geronimo was an Apache leader in the 19th century who spent many years fighting the Mexican and U.S. armies until his surrender in 1886.
Loretta Tuell, staff director and chief counsel for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Tuesday that it was inappropriate to link Geronimo, whom she called “one of the greatest Native American heroes,” with one of the most hated enemies of the United States.
“These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating,” Tuell said.
All one can say about such silliness is that it provides further evidence of the strong positive correlation between one’s hyper-sensitivity and the amount of time one has on one’s hands.
As one who tries to comment on the pertinent news of the day, I feel obligated to write something on the bin Laden killing. It hasn’t been easy to comment on this story for several reasons. First, I try to say something unique or especially insightful (hence the name of this blog) about the events or statements on which I comment. The most salient, and important, things about the bin Laden episode have already been said numerous times, to wit, that this was a gutsy, heroic move on the part of the SEALS, and all military and intelligence personnel, involved in the operation and on the part of the President. If this operation had not gone as smoothly (Actually, it didn’t go all that smoothly; note the loss of a helicopter, but SEALS are taught to improvise and think on their feet, thank God. But I digress.) as it did, at least some of the SEALS would have been dead and the President would have been figuratively drawn and quartered. Brave men did brave things and are to be commended.
Second, it’s hard to comment on the bin Laden situation because the story keeps changing. First bin Laden was armed and then he wasn’t armed. First one of his wives was killed and then she wasn’t killed. First there were no high tech items in the compound, no internet service, no telephones, in the compound, then the place was bristling with computers and other high tech gear of various levels of sophistication. First the downed helicopter clipped a wall of the compound, then it got caught in a vortex. The story seems to be fluid. This is at least partially understandable. The SEALS who conducted the operation didn’t have time to take notes and record accurately every step of the raid. Most of the witnesses are now in Pakistani custody and are doubtless telling tales that serve their, and doubtless the Pakistani intelligence service’s, motivations, motivations radically different from ours. But, regardless of the justification or the reasons behind the ever evolving nature of the story, it does make one, especially those of us who are predisposed toward distrusting government, suspicious about our government’s motivations for couching the story in what can be described as flexible terms. It will be easier to comment intelligently on this story when the story clears up, and that might never happen.
What is worth noting, though, even at this stage, is just how quickly three utterly predictable reactions to the long overdue demise of Mr. bin Laden unfolded. These reactions can be encapsulated in three news stories:
First, in yesterday’s (i.e., Tuesday, May 3’s, page A3) Wall Street Journal:
Governments around the world, warning against complacency in fighting terrorism, prepared for the chance of retaliatory attacks in the wake of bind Laden’s death….
The State Department warned Americans around the world of the “enhanced potential for anti-American violence given recent counter-terrorism activity in Pakistan.”…
Al Qaeda may within days launch a large-scale or several smaller attacks “as a vehicle to introduce its new leadership” (Raphael) Perl (head of something called Action Against Terrorism Unit at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) said.
One of my first thoughts after learning that we got bin Laden was that our government, and governments throughout the world, will have to find a new boogey man. Government always need boogey men to keep their populations cowed, willing to turn to government for security, and eager to endure such otherwise out of the question silliness as strip-teases at airports in front of ill-trained and indifferent government employees and to support wars that have at the very best only extremely tentative connections to their ostensible purpose. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the elimination of the Red Scare that served this purpose so well, Western governments, and especially, the U.S. government, have searched desperately for a plausible substitute. None has worked as nicely as bin Laden; if he never existed, the government would have had to invent him. Now that he’s gone, the government needs a new bad guy lurking under the bed. I’m amazed how quickly it found one.
Second, in today’s (Wednesday, May 4’s) online edition of the Chicago Tribune:
U.S. acknowledgment on Tuesday that bin Laden was unarmed when shot dead had raised accusations Washington had violated international law. Exact circumstances of his death remained unclear and could yet fuel controversy, especially in the Muslim world.
This is insane, but you knew somebody, somewhere, when learning these latest circumstances of bin Laden’s demise, was going to question the justification for shooting and killing an unarmed man. One can almost see the tears streaming down the faces of those questioning what they deem the extreme cruelty of the soldiers who committed such a heinous act. Let’s just hope these complaints against our brave SEALS are coming from overseas quarters sympathetic to al Qaeda in general and to bin Laden in particular and not from, say, the faculty lounges at Yale and Harvard, the editorial offices of the New York Times, or the overeducated and underemployed busybodies at the ACLU. Given the sad history of American political correctness, though, I suspect that those hopes are in vain.
Third, from today’s (Wednesday, May 4’s) online edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:
Meanwhile, the top staff member for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is objecting to the U.S. military’s use of “Geronimo” as bin Laden’s code name.
Geronimo was an Apache leader in the 19th century who spent many years fighting the Mexican and U.S. armies until his surrender in 1886.
Loretta Tuell, staff director and chief counsel for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Tuesday that it was inappropriate to link Geronimo, whom she called “one of the greatest Native American heroes,” with one of the most hated enemies of the United States.
“These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating,” Tuell said.
All one can say about such silliness is that it provides further evidence of the strong positive correlation between one’s hyper-sensitivity and the amount of time one has on one’s hands.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
OF GEESE AND GANDERS
5/1/11
The latest brouhaha surrounding Father Mike Pfleger’s suspension by the Cardinal in the wake of Pfleger’s going on the public airwaves and questioning whether he will remain in the Church has prompted some thinking about the rule that stipulates that a pastor in the Archdiocese of Chicago can serve only two six year terms at his parish.
Despite what some readers seem to have somehow read into it, my first post on the Pfleger/George standoff (TIME FOR A COUNCIL OF CHICAGO?, 4/28/11)
took no stand on what we will call the twelve year rule. The second post (“WHO TOLD YOU TO PICK UP YOUR MAT AND WALK (ON THE SABBATH)?,” 4/28/11) similarly took no stand on the rule, but pointed out that sometimes good and holy things can result, perhaps by Divine intervention, when rules are not followed. More subtly, and primarily through its title, that post argued that when we as Catholics argue in favor of rigid adherence to the rules rather than focus on trying to achieve the ultimate goals of our Savior, we are taking the side of the Pharisees in the ongoing Jesus vs. the Pharisees battle that runs throughout the four gospels, but especially that of John. I know whose side I would rather be on, but I digress.
Neither of the two aforementioned posts addressed the merits of the twelve year rule simply because I am ambivalent about the rule. Yes, it’s not a good thing when parishioners start to identify more with their pastor than with the Church and therefore a changing of the guard might be merited. On the other hand, there are scores of beloved pastors who have done a wonderful job with their flocks, have no delusions about who they are and what they are there to do, and will be sorely missed when they are forced to move on. To remove them simply because twelve years has gone by and, after all, rules are rules, would be gratuitously cruel to both the parishioners and to their pastors, especially when neither the pastors nor the parishioners are allowed any say in the pastors’ successors.
I can see both sides of the argument. But no one has asked what I think is a very logical question: If a pastor has to leave after twelve years, for fear of people getting confused about where their loyalty lies, why shouldn’t the archbishop, whoever he may be, be subject to the same rule? Isn’t there a similar danger that the people of the Archdiocese (any archdiocese, for that matter) will get attached to their archbishop to such a point that their loyalty will lie with him rather than with the Church? Shouldn’t he who made the rule (or whose predecessors, in the case of Cardinal George, who has been Archbishop for fourteen years) be subject to the same rule? The logic behind the rule would seem to apply, if anything, more saliently to the archbishop than to the parish priest.
I’m assuming the counter-argument is that the twelve year rule is a rule of the Archdiocese of Chicago and whatever other dioceses or archdioceses enforce a similar rule. The matter of pastoral tenure lies fully within the jurisdiction of the bishops or archbishops of the dioceses in which they serve. The tenure of bishops and archbishops, however, is a matter for the Vatican; it is up to the Pope, and not to the individual heads of dioceses, to determine how long bishops and archbishops will serve. So an archbishop could not limit his tenure even if he wanted to.
The counter to this counter is two-fold. First, this appears to be another example of the Church hierarchy hiding behind legal technicalities to do what it wants to do. While this is not necessarily a strong argument, it certainly will be made by those who notice the problems that relying on legal niceties has caused for the Church of late.
The second, and perhaps better, argument is that John Cardinal Cody, who instituted the 12 year rule, and his two successors, never made any effort to convince the Popes they served that a term limit rule like the one those Cardinals imposed for ordinary parish priests would be good for the bishops and archbishops like themselves. Perhaps (probably, really), they would not have succeeded in convincing any of the four relevant Popes of the virtue of the rule. But if Cardinals Cody, Bernadin, and George believed so strongly in the dangers of letting pastors stay in place for too long, surely the same logic applied to the pastors of the Archdiocese, if you will. Therefore, one would have thought these men, all of whom had plenty of clout in the universal Church, would have tried to convince their Popes of the wisdom of expanding the twelve year rule to include archbishops. One wonders why they did not.
One could, of course, expand this logic to suggest that perhaps the role of Cardinal should be limited to twelve years, after which the red hat would have to be passed to others. If one were bold enough, one could even make the same argument for Popes. Yes, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, but he is also a man subject to the same temptations and limitation to which any man is subject. In order to avoid the problems that naturally come with entrenchment, can’t Christ choose successive Vicars? Is only one man, and then for his entire lifetime, capable of being His Vicar? The authority of any particular Pope flows from Christ; isn’t Christ’s sanctity and authority sufficiently strong to flow into others He might choose to succeed His Vicar? Why do we insist on limiting Christ’s latitude in this area?
The latest brouhaha surrounding Father Mike Pfleger’s suspension by the Cardinal in the wake of Pfleger’s going on the public airwaves and questioning whether he will remain in the Church has prompted some thinking about the rule that stipulates that a pastor in the Archdiocese of Chicago can serve only two six year terms at his parish.
Despite what some readers seem to have somehow read into it, my first post on the Pfleger/George standoff (TIME FOR A COUNCIL OF CHICAGO?, 4/28/11)
took no stand on what we will call the twelve year rule. The second post (“WHO TOLD YOU TO PICK UP YOUR MAT AND WALK (ON THE SABBATH)?,” 4/28/11) similarly took no stand on the rule, but pointed out that sometimes good and holy things can result, perhaps by Divine intervention, when rules are not followed. More subtly, and primarily through its title, that post argued that when we as Catholics argue in favor of rigid adherence to the rules rather than focus on trying to achieve the ultimate goals of our Savior, we are taking the side of the Pharisees in the ongoing Jesus vs. the Pharisees battle that runs throughout the four gospels, but especially that of John. I know whose side I would rather be on, but I digress.
Neither of the two aforementioned posts addressed the merits of the twelve year rule simply because I am ambivalent about the rule. Yes, it’s not a good thing when parishioners start to identify more with their pastor than with the Church and therefore a changing of the guard might be merited. On the other hand, there are scores of beloved pastors who have done a wonderful job with their flocks, have no delusions about who they are and what they are there to do, and will be sorely missed when they are forced to move on. To remove them simply because twelve years has gone by and, after all, rules are rules, would be gratuitously cruel to both the parishioners and to their pastors, especially when neither the pastors nor the parishioners are allowed any say in the pastors’ successors.
I can see both sides of the argument. But no one has asked what I think is a very logical question: If a pastor has to leave after twelve years, for fear of people getting confused about where their loyalty lies, why shouldn’t the archbishop, whoever he may be, be subject to the same rule? Isn’t there a similar danger that the people of the Archdiocese (any archdiocese, for that matter) will get attached to their archbishop to such a point that their loyalty will lie with him rather than with the Church? Shouldn’t he who made the rule (or whose predecessors, in the case of Cardinal George, who has been Archbishop for fourteen years) be subject to the same rule? The logic behind the rule would seem to apply, if anything, more saliently to the archbishop than to the parish priest.
I’m assuming the counter-argument is that the twelve year rule is a rule of the Archdiocese of Chicago and whatever other dioceses or archdioceses enforce a similar rule. The matter of pastoral tenure lies fully within the jurisdiction of the bishops or archbishops of the dioceses in which they serve. The tenure of bishops and archbishops, however, is a matter for the Vatican; it is up to the Pope, and not to the individual heads of dioceses, to determine how long bishops and archbishops will serve. So an archbishop could not limit his tenure even if he wanted to.
The counter to this counter is two-fold. First, this appears to be another example of the Church hierarchy hiding behind legal technicalities to do what it wants to do. While this is not necessarily a strong argument, it certainly will be made by those who notice the problems that relying on legal niceties has caused for the Church of late.
The second, and perhaps better, argument is that John Cardinal Cody, who instituted the 12 year rule, and his two successors, never made any effort to convince the Popes they served that a term limit rule like the one those Cardinals imposed for ordinary parish priests would be good for the bishops and archbishops like themselves. Perhaps (probably, really), they would not have succeeded in convincing any of the four relevant Popes of the virtue of the rule. But if Cardinals Cody, Bernadin, and George believed so strongly in the dangers of letting pastors stay in place for too long, surely the same logic applied to the pastors of the Archdiocese, if you will. Therefore, one would have thought these men, all of whom had plenty of clout in the universal Church, would have tried to convince their Popes of the wisdom of expanding the twelve year rule to include archbishops. One wonders why they did not.
One could, of course, expand this logic to suggest that perhaps the role of Cardinal should be limited to twelve years, after which the red hat would have to be passed to others. If one were bold enough, one could even make the same argument for Popes. Yes, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, but he is also a man subject to the same temptations and limitation to which any man is subject. In order to avoid the problems that naturally come with entrenchment, can’t Christ choose successive Vicars? Is only one man, and then for his entire lifetime, capable of being His Vicar? The authority of any particular Pope flows from Christ; isn’t Christ’s sanctity and authority sufficiently strong to flow into others He might choose to succeed His Vicar? Why do we insist on limiting Christ’s latitude in this area?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
