5/22/12
The NATO summit is over. While we had no major “incidents,” thank God, during the brief bout of pomp and circumstance that plagued our fair city, the central business district was virtually a ghost town. Businesses lost trade and travelers and commuters were horribly inconvenienced, as were cops and other security personnel who had to exchange time with their families or other pursuits for putting up with abuse from loutish and logorrheaic lark seekers while patrolling in 90 degree plus heat in what amounted to heavy armor. The economic ledger, so far, is decidedly in the negative. But Mayor Emanuel had his day in the sun, and so the consanguineous and breathless media are delighted, agog, really, at the splendidness of the Summit. The Mayor, for his part, apologized for the “inconvenience” suffered by the citizens and businesses of Chicago and proclaimed that, through the summit and his skillful working of the world leaders who attended, Chicago will enjoy a $120mm net benefit from the summit.
So many thoughts come to mind.
First, weren’t the economic benefits we were supposed to reap from this supposed confab among the justifications for what would have been a complete fiasco had it not been for the efforts of the Chicago Police Department? How does closing businesses benefit the city? What economic benefit does the city, and business owners, derive when the city is effectively closed down? The mayor says that the showcasing of the city that the NATO summit provided will result in future economic benefits to the city, especially since the leaders here loved him so much. (Apparently, he mistook the heads of state for the local media, political, and politically connected business communities, but I digress.) Showcasing? As the Chicago Sun-Times, Tribune, and other media organs reported, this summit was largely ignored by media outside Chicago, including media in those countries from whom the participants hailed. That the summit that was supposed to showcase us was largely ignored overseas, and even in American cities outside about a 60 mile perimeter of our fair city, should come as no surprise. Even yours truly, who has more than a passing interest in world politics, ignores such piffles as these summits. Nothing is accomplished, other than endless exercises in self-aggrandizement (Oh…THAT’S why Rahm likes these circuses so much! But, again, I digress.) at these one or two day affairs. All the important, meaningful stuff is settled beforehand, leaving the, er, baloney, to these affairs.
So how are we supposed to derive $120mm in future economic benefits from a summit that was largely ignored? Who knows? But who can challenge this number? There are two tricks to prognostication…political, financial, economic, or otherwise: either make a lot of predictions and then remind people only of those that came true or make predictions the realization or lack thereof of which will take place so far in the future that no one currently breathing can possibly prove their accuracy or inaccuracy. Apparently, Mr. Emanuel is engaging in the latter. So far, however, given the costs of this carnival and the loss of business for downtown merchants, we, as a city, are decidedly in the red.
This party for the privileged was also supposed to help Chicago overcome the non-reputation, or reputation for being a backwater hick cow town, that Mr. Emanuel and his predecessors are convinced that our genuinely great and world renowned city has. (I suppose that if I spent almost my entire career in Washington, where people think nowhere but Washington and possibly New York is worthy of notice, I, too, would think so poorly of Chicago. So Mr. Emanuel clearly has an excuse for his low opinion of Chicago. But what excuse do Richard II and Jane Byrne have? See my 5/16/12 post, “CHICAGO IS…THE UNION STOCKYARDS…CHICAGO IS…THE WRIGLEY BUILDING…CHICAGO IS…ONE TOWN THAT WON’T LET YOU DOWN…” But I digress again.) But, again, if, as our media reported, no one outside a perimeter ending at, say, Peotone, noticed this summit, how did we overcome the inferiority complex the pols insist we have whenever the opportunity arises to host an event involving lots of contracts for their friends and contributors?
The Mayor apologizes for the “inconvenience” suffered by citizens and businesses. Inconvenience?! Losing a late Spring weekend’s revenue in these tough economic times transcends “inconvenience;” such a loss could make the difference between making and losing money for a quarter or a year. In a few cases, it is not too much of a stretch to say that losing a weekend’s revenue could mean the difference between staying open and closing the doors. But the mayor, who has spent his whole life either, er, nursing at the public mammary gland or making phone calls for those who would like to affix their own soup coolers to the aforementioned gland, knows nothing of the difficulties and challenges of having to run a business or meet a payroll. The only “private sector” employers he knows are part of the government/business/crony cabal that has run this city for longer than he has been alive. What is a mere weekend’s revenue for some piddling business to this titan of government and finance?
The only people who came out of this looking good, in the first instance great, are the Chicago Police Department and Rahm Emanuel. The former was completely expected; the police in this town nearly always perform spectacularly under even the most trying of circumstances. The latter was also eminently predictable; given the sycophantic nature of the local and national press, Rahm Emanuel always is made to look terrific, infallible, fantastic, wonderful, tough, decisive, etc., etc., etc.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
PIPING THE MAN’S TUNE
5/18/12
Both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune reported in their 5/18/12 editions that Mayor Rahm Emanuel is “livid” about the work Ricketts family patriarch Joe Ricketts is doing with a Super Pac called the Ending Spending Action Fund. Apparently, depending on who is telling the story, Joe Ricketts is actively working with the Fund, or merely listened to a proposal from the Fund, to run ads that remind voters of the tirades of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barrack Obama’s pastor before the aspiring president through the Reverend under the bus during the 2008 campaign. Mr. Emanuel apparently doesn’t like that voters in this year’s presidential election might be reminded of the less savory aspects of President Obama’s background and, as a consequence, is not taking phone calls from Joe Ricketts’ kids (Tom, Laura, et al.) who own the Chicago Cubs and are looking for a taxpayer handout to enhance the value of the toy they bought with the trust fund their father left them. So it looks like negotiations regarding a substantial contribution by you, the taxpayer, toward putting $300 mm in the pockets of the Ricketts family are postponed until either Joe Ricketts repents or Mayor Emanuel gets over his hissy fit.
One can decry Mayor Emanuel’s attempts to control the free speech rights of Joe Ricketts all one wants, and many are doing so today. But this would not have been an issue had the Ricketts family not lined up at the trough in order to jack up the returns on their “investment” in the Cubs and Wrigley Field. Once you take the man’s money, you have to dance to the man’s tune. The Ricketts family, despite protests to the contrary when they bought the team, has come to Mr. Emanuel hat in hand and now has to submit to whatever the Mayor demands unless they somehow summon the courage to say something like “No. We value our liberty more than the hundreds of millions of dollars we want to leech off the taxpayers to make ourselves even richer than our daddy has made us.” Don’t count on that. The Ricketts will just have to suck it up and behave if they want their spot at the trough, which they apparently value far more than such quaint notions as the liberty to express one’s self. What’s freedom when an ultra-luxury lifestyle is at stake? In this sense, the Ricketts family will do what those members of the our city’s “private sector,” and political community, whom Mr. Emanuel publicly extols but privately takes for the meretricious stooges they are, have done: shut up, roll over, and beg for the bones the people who run this town can hand out. (See, inter alia, my 5/13/12 post, HOW DO I LOVE THEE, OH MIGHTY AND WISE RAHM? LET ME COUNT THE WAYS.) This behavior towards the butt smoochee on the Fifth Floor did not start with Mr. Emanuels’ ascension to his latest stepping stone, but you already knew that.
One would make a better, but still not very good, argument, were one to advance the notion that Joe Ricketts doesn’t own the team; his kids do. But he provided the spondulicks that enabled his progeny to go off on this particular lark. And Joe should know as well as anybody else that politicians like Mr. Emanuel have a difficult time making fine distinctions between, say, fathers and sons and daughters. Further, to the extent that Joe Ricketts is involved here, he is showing the blatant hypocrisy that has infuriated people as ideologically diverse as the Tea Party and Occupy movements: Joe Ricketts is against federal spending, but he really seems to like the type of spending, and other raids on the bank account of the average guy, that makes his family even richer.
Both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune reported in their 5/18/12 editions that Mayor Rahm Emanuel is “livid” about the work Ricketts family patriarch Joe Ricketts is doing with a Super Pac called the Ending Spending Action Fund. Apparently, depending on who is telling the story, Joe Ricketts is actively working with the Fund, or merely listened to a proposal from the Fund, to run ads that remind voters of the tirades of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barrack Obama’s pastor before the aspiring president through the Reverend under the bus during the 2008 campaign. Mr. Emanuel apparently doesn’t like that voters in this year’s presidential election might be reminded of the less savory aspects of President Obama’s background and, as a consequence, is not taking phone calls from Joe Ricketts’ kids (Tom, Laura, et al.) who own the Chicago Cubs and are looking for a taxpayer handout to enhance the value of the toy they bought with the trust fund their father left them. So it looks like negotiations regarding a substantial contribution by you, the taxpayer, toward putting $300 mm in the pockets of the Ricketts family are postponed until either Joe Ricketts repents or Mayor Emanuel gets over his hissy fit.
One can decry Mayor Emanuel’s attempts to control the free speech rights of Joe Ricketts all one wants, and many are doing so today. But this would not have been an issue had the Ricketts family not lined up at the trough in order to jack up the returns on their “investment” in the Cubs and Wrigley Field. Once you take the man’s money, you have to dance to the man’s tune. The Ricketts family, despite protests to the contrary when they bought the team, has come to Mr. Emanuel hat in hand and now has to submit to whatever the Mayor demands unless they somehow summon the courage to say something like “No. We value our liberty more than the hundreds of millions of dollars we want to leech off the taxpayers to make ourselves even richer than our daddy has made us.” Don’t count on that. The Ricketts will just have to suck it up and behave if they want their spot at the trough, which they apparently value far more than such quaint notions as the liberty to express one’s self. What’s freedom when an ultra-luxury lifestyle is at stake? In this sense, the Ricketts family will do what those members of the our city’s “private sector,” and political community, whom Mr. Emanuel publicly extols but privately takes for the meretricious stooges they are, have done: shut up, roll over, and beg for the bones the people who run this town can hand out. (See, inter alia, my 5/13/12 post, HOW DO I LOVE THEE, OH MIGHTY AND WISE RAHM? LET ME COUNT THE WAYS.) This behavior towards the butt smoochee on the Fifth Floor did not start with Mr. Emanuels’ ascension to his latest stepping stone, but you already knew that.
One would make a better, but still not very good, argument, were one to advance the notion that Joe Ricketts doesn’t own the team; his kids do. But he provided the spondulicks that enabled his progeny to go off on this particular lark. And Joe should know as well as anybody else that politicians like Mr. Emanuel have a difficult time making fine distinctions between, say, fathers and sons and daughters. Further, to the extent that Joe Ricketts is involved here, he is showing the blatant hypocrisy that has infuriated people as ideologically diverse as the Tea Party and Occupy movements: Joe Ricketts is against federal spending, but he really seems to like the type of spending, and other raids on the bank account of the average guy, that makes his family even richer.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
“CHICAGO IS…THE UNION STOCKYARDS…CHICAGO IS…THE WRIGLEY BUILDING…CHICAGO IS…ONE TOWN THAT WON’T LET YOU DOWN…”
5/16/12
The NATO summit is just about upon us. The first demonstrations having taken place first at the reelection headquarters of President Obama and then along a route that took the legions of lark seekers to the police station at the corner of 35th and Lowe, a few doors down from the home once owned by Richard J. Daley and now owned by his grandson, soon to be Water Reclamation District Commissioner Patrick Daley Thompson. No one knows whether there will be trouble in our great city if one defines “trouble” as violent demonstrations with bodily injury, or worse, and great destruction of property. But there has already been trouble if one defines “trouble” as many of the city’s vital organs virtually shutting down to accommodate the heads of states and the overindulged miscreants who will protest their presence. From traffic tie-ups to street closings to business “holidays” to street shut-downs to the virtual sealing off of a large portion of the most beautiful lakefront in the world, Mayor Emanuel has asked a lot of city residents to accommodate what he hopes will be a big boost to his national and international prestige.
One has to believe that there is, on Rahm Emanuel’s part, a large measure of political calculation, beyond the obvious, at work here; to wit, many, if not most, of those inconvenienced, to say the least, will be suburbanites who cannot register their anger at the ballot box that will not be open, in any case, for another three years. So any immediate political downside will be limited for Mr. Emanuel. The upside for someone of Mr. Emanuel’s towering ego could be huge; those few people in obscure corners of the world who have not heard of this upstart will soon know of him; that enough is probably sufficient reward for the solipsist who occupies the Fifth Floor. If everything goes right, the talk of something bigger for Mr. Emanuel will fill the air, which seems to be the manna that sustains this portrait of portentousness. If things go wrong? Mr. Emanuel and his supplicants in Chicago’s media and political worlds probably cannot imagine that anything can go wrong when he is in charge. What could go wrong with WonderRahm in charge?
But let’s imagine for just a moment that the welfare of the city and its residents have somehow worked their way into Mr. Emanuel’s calculations. What exactly is the upside for Chicago and its good people? Well, the Emanuel people have hired a consultant who says that the economic benefits of the NATO summit will reach $128.2 mm. Not $128.1 mm or $128.3 mm, but $128.3 mm. But no one believes that figure. Rahm Emanuel doesn’t believe that figure. But he does know, as does any sentient human being, that a consultant will tell you anything you want to hear for the right price. That is largely how the consulting game works. “You pay me enough, I’ll come up with whatever outlandish figures you need. Got it?” As I tell my students, if you ever harbor a doubt regarding the outcome of a study done by a consultant, find out who paid for the study and the mystery will be removed. But I digress.
Just as an aside, besides endless harping on such ephemeral concepts as “ripple effects” (“Ripple effects” are much like “multiplier effects.” Just as dollars only seem to “multiply” when spent by the government, money “ripples” only when spent on things favored by the politicians. But once again I digress.), such studies that tell us of the big money in store for us if only we pursue the latest boondoggle foisted upon us by the politicians must assume that dining, lodging, and entertainment purveyors in Chicago have at least $100 mm or so of spare capacity, that these establishments, at which no one can seem to get a table on any given weekend, can suddenly handle all this new business (in this case, $128.2 mm worth) that will flood into town as numerous notables from overseas attempt to get a taste of what Mr. Emanuel and his consanguineous devotees (See my 5/13/12 post, HOW DO I LOVE THEE, OH MIGHTY AND WISE RAHM? LET ME COUNT THE WAYS.) consider the “real Chicago.” So do these places otherwise sit empty all the time? How do they stay in business? But, again, no one, not even Rahm Emanuel, believes these studies.
So what is the real upside for Chicago? We keep hearing that this NATO summit will establish Chicago as a “world class city.” Every time a mayor of our great city wants to spend millions (or more) of your money, s/he trots out this “world class city” drivel. Jane Byrne talked about a desire to make us a “world class city” when she wanted a world’s fair in our fair city. Richard II employed the same drivel in his (thankfully) ill-fated attempt at getting the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. And now Wise and Wonderful Rahm says that NATO will show us to be a “world class city.”
Such manifestations of this perennial and ongoing inferiority complex, or disingenuous and shameless reaches deep into our pockets and egos, amaze me. Since when has Chicago not been a world class city? Why is Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport such a world transportation hub? Why do, when I wear a Chicago Bears cap on the many overseas excursions on which my wife drags me (See one of my best posts ever, my 7/11/11 masterpiece ODYSSEUS, AENEAS, AND ME), people randomly stop me and tell me what a great city Chicago is? (It can’t be because of the Bears, but I digress again.) Why does a British Prime Minister (David Cameron) compare one of China’s fastest growing cities (Chongqing) to Chicago? Okay, maybe that one was because of the corruption endemic to both cities’ governments, but let’s hope that wasn’t what Mr. Cameron had in mind. Why is the Chicago Symphony Orchestra considered the best symphony orchestras in the United States and one of the best in the world? Why did the likes of, to name just a few, Queen Elizabeth II, Mikhail Gorbachev, Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa, Princess Diana, and the Dalai Lama, choose to visit Chicago, in some cases repeatedly? Because we are some kind of economic, cultural, and political backwater? Since at least 1893, Chicago has been on the world stage, and not just for Al Capone, Michael Jordan, Dick Butkus, Richard J. Daley, Barack Obama, and Oprah Winfrey. I believe, or at least hope, that Mr. Emanuel knows that, as did Mrs. Byrne and Mr. Daley II. But feeding the badly misplaced inferiority complex that seems to come with being a Chicagoan is yet another way to grab a hefty hunk of your hard earned dollars to fortify their ever hungry egos.
Let’s hope and pray that most of the damage of the NATO summit has already been done, that no one will be seriously hurt, that there is not widespread property destruction, and that our wonderful worldwide image is not besmirched as a result of a politician’s ego trip.
The NATO summit is just about upon us. The first demonstrations having taken place first at the reelection headquarters of President Obama and then along a route that took the legions of lark seekers to the police station at the corner of 35th and Lowe, a few doors down from the home once owned by Richard J. Daley and now owned by his grandson, soon to be Water Reclamation District Commissioner Patrick Daley Thompson. No one knows whether there will be trouble in our great city if one defines “trouble” as violent demonstrations with bodily injury, or worse, and great destruction of property. But there has already been trouble if one defines “trouble” as many of the city’s vital organs virtually shutting down to accommodate the heads of states and the overindulged miscreants who will protest their presence. From traffic tie-ups to street closings to business “holidays” to street shut-downs to the virtual sealing off of a large portion of the most beautiful lakefront in the world, Mayor Emanuel has asked a lot of city residents to accommodate what he hopes will be a big boost to his national and international prestige.
One has to believe that there is, on Rahm Emanuel’s part, a large measure of political calculation, beyond the obvious, at work here; to wit, many, if not most, of those inconvenienced, to say the least, will be suburbanites who cannot register their anger at the ballot box that will not be open, in any case, for another three years. So any immediate political downside will be limited for Mr. Emanuel. The upside for someone of Mr. Emanuel’s towering ego could be huge; those few people in obscure corners of the world who have not heard of this upstart will soon know of him; that enough is probably sufficient reward for the solipsist who occupies the Fifth Floor. If everything goes right, the talk of something bigger for Mr. Emanuel will fill the air, which seems to be the manna that sustains this portrait of portentousness. If things go wrong? Mr. Emanuel and his supplicants in Chicago’s media and political worlds probably cannot imagine that anything can go wrong when he is in charge. What could go wrong with WonderRahm in charge?
But let’s imagine for just a moment that the welfare of the city and its residents have somehow worked their way into Mr. Emanuel’s calculations. What exactly is the upside for Chicago and its good people? Well, the Emanuel people have hired a consultant who says that the economic benefits of the NATO summit will reach $128.2 mm. Not $128.1 mm or $128.3 mm, but $128.3 mm. But no one believes that figure. Rahm Emanuel doesn’t believe that figure. But he does know, as does any sentient human being, that a consultant will tell you anything you want to hear for the right price. That is largely how the consulting game works. “You pay me enough, I’ll come up with whatever outlandish figures you need. Got it?” As I tell my students, if you ever harbor a doubt regarding the outcome of a study done by a consultant, find out who paid for the study and the mystery will be removed. But I digress.
Just as an aside, besides endless harping on such ephemeral concepts as “ripple effects” (“Ripple effects” are much like “multiplier effects.” Just as dollars only seem to “multiply” when spent by the government, money “ripples” only when spent on things favored by the politicians. But once again I digress.), such studies that tell us of the big money in store for us if only we pursue the latest boondoggle foisted upon us by the politicians must assume that dining, lodging, and entertainment purveyors in Chicago have at least $100 mm or so of spare capacity, that these establishments, at which no one can seem to get a table on any given weekend, can suddenly handle all this new business (in this case, $128.2 mm worth) that will flood into town as numerous notables from overseas attempt to get a taste of what Mr. Emanuel and his consanguineous devotees (See my 5/13/12 post, HOW DO I LOVE THEE, OH MIGHTY AND WISE RAHM? LET ME COUNT THE WAYS.) consider the “real Chicago.” So do these places otherwise sit empty all the time? How do they stay in business? But, again, no one, not even Rahm Emanuel, believes these studies.
So what is the real upside for Chicago? We keep hearing that this NATO summit will establish Chicago as a “world class city.” Every time a mayor of our great city wants to spend millions (or more) of your money, s/he trots out this “world class city” drivel. Jane Byrne talked about a desire to make us a “world class city” when she wanted a world’s fair in our fair city. Richard II employed the same drivel in his (thankfully) ill-fated attempt at getting the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. And now Wise and Wonderful Rahm says that NATO will show us to be a “world class city.”
Such manifestations of this perennial and ongoing inferiority complex, or disingenuous and shameless reaches deep into our pockets and egos, amaze me. Since when has Chicago not been a world class city? Why is Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport such a world transportation hub? Why do, when I wear a Chicago Bears cap on the many overseas excursions on which my wife drags me (See one of my best posts ever, my 7/11/11 masterpiece ODYSSEUS, AENEAS, AND ME), people randomly stop me and tell me what a great city Chicago is? (It can’t be because of the Bears, but I digress again.) Why does a British Prime Minister (David Cameron) compare one of China’s fastest growing cities (Chongqing) to Chicago? Okay, maybe that one was because of the corruption endemic to both cities’ governments, but let’s hope that wasn’t what Mr. Cameron had in mind. Why is the Chicago Symphony Orchestra considered the best symphony orchestras in the United States and one of the best in the world? Why did the likes of, to name just a few, Queen Elizabeth II, Mikhail Gorbachev, Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa, Princess Diana, and the Dalai Lama, choose to visit Chicago, in some cases repeatedly? Because we are some kind of economic, cultural, and political backwater? Since at least 1893, Chicago has been on the world stage, and not just for Al Capone, Michael Jordan, Dick Butkus, Richard J. Daley, Barack Obama, and Oprah Winfrey. I believe, or at least hope, that Mr. Emanuel knows that, as did Mrs. Byrne and Mr. Daley II. But feeding the badly misplaced inferiority complex that seems to come with being a Chicagoan is yet another way to grab a hefty hunk of your hard earned dollars to fortify their ever hungry egos.
Let’s hope and pray that most of the damage of the NATO summit has already been done, that no one will be seriously hurt, that there is not widespread property destruction, and that our wonderful worldwide image is not besmirched as a result of a politician’s ego trip.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
HOW DO I LOVE THEE, OH MIGHTY AND WISE RAHM? LET ME COUNT THE WAYS.
5/13/12
I genuinely tried to read the articles in today’s Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times on Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s being about to conclude his first year in office. But I couldn’t. Even considering that such retrospectives are nearly always intended to be puff pieces, these love letters were intolerably obsequious. The only thing that one would learn from reading this drivel is that no one, absolutely no one, gets better press than Rahm Emanuel.
We are left then with a question: Why does Rahm Emanuel inspire such devotion on the part of Chicago’s, and, to a lesser extent, and only because he is not as saliently on their radar screen, the nation’s, press corps?
It seems to yours truly that the Mayor’s good press springs from his consanguinity with the press corps. Just as most of the press in the greatest city in the world is composed of what in a simpler time would be called yuppies, Mr. Emanuel is the ultimate yuppie pol. Indeed, he is the yuppie standard-bearer against the (to Mr. Emanuel and his cheerleaders) rude, crude political denizens of the south and southwest sides. Like much, probably most, of his adoring press, he did not grow up in the city, comes from a wealthy background, and never had to spend a heck of a lot of time in the trenches…any trenches. He has spent his life in and around public office with no experience in the actual private sector, unless one counts selling public sector access “private sector experience.” He grew up on the north shore and lives on the north side. He gives the impression that, like most of the press, he is not very comfortable once he gets south of Congress unless he is being driven down south Lake Shore to Hyde Park. Like most of the press in our town, he considers a trip to even my beloved Beverly and its environs, one of the most beautiful, safe, and civil neighborhoods in the city, if not the world, an urban adventure. Like many of our press denizens, he was well, and expensively, educated at an exclusive eastern school (in his case, Sarah Lawrence) before returning to Northwestern for what people in his stratum of society consider a “Chicago” experience. Like most of our press, he believes deeply in the wisdom of government and is devoted to the notion that government can solve all of society’s ills if only it is in the hands of the right people, a belief rooted in Plato’s notion of the philosopher king, and there is no doubt in the minds of either Rahm or his admirers whom Plato must have presciently had in mind when expostulating on this notion some 2,400 years ago. While ceaselessly praising “the private sector,” Rahm and his devotees in the press consider the “private sector” as merely an appendage of the government, there to pay the bills and do the bidding of the estimables who have managed, with the help of the “private sector’s” money, to hoodwink enough of an apathetic and largely clueless electorate into putting these thoroughly entitled wise men in office. The “private sector,” or at least those portions of it which Rahm and his compatriots would deign to deal with, has completely bought into this program, by the way; what’s principle when a place at the trough with plenty of elbow room on either side is at stake? No wonder Mr. Emanuel thinks he is completely in tune with Chicago’s “private sector;” he has surrounded himself with sycophants, from both the private and public sectors, who are completely dependent on his largesse with the taxpayers’ money for their prosperity or, in some cases, their very survival. This explains the other great emotion, besides devotion, that Mr. Emanuel inspires: Fear. But that is another post.
Despite my philosophical differences with Mr. Emanuel, there are many (well, maybe several) of his initiatives with which I agree. It is curious, though, that he is able to get away with some of these when he would be leading the hoots of derision if identical moves were initiated by a Republican, but I digress. Mr. Emanuel has done a good job as mayor, especially in light of the fiscal equivalent of a neutron bomb attack left him by his predecessor. And I congratulate Mayor Emanuel and wish him well; after all, he is a capable man and my home town is in his hands. But note that I do so without a hint of either consanguinity or sycophancy.
I genuinely tried to read the articles in today’s Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times on Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s being about to conclude his first year in office. But I couldn’t. Even considering that such retrospectives are nearly always intended to be puff pieces, these love letters were intolerably obsequious. The only thing that one would learn from reading this drivel is that no one, absolutely no one, gets better press than Rahm Emanuel.
We are left then with a question: Why does Rahm Emanuel inspire such devotion on the part of Chicago’s, and, to a lesser extent, and only because he is not as saliently on their radar screen, the nation’s, press corps?
It seems to yours truly that the Mayor’s good press springs from his consanguinity with the press corps. Just as most of the press in the greatest city in the world is composed of what in a simpler time would be called yuppies, Mr. Emanuel is the ultimate yuppie pol. Indeed, he is the yuppie standard-bearer against the (to Mr. Emanuel and his cheerleaders) rude, crude political denizens of the south and southwest sides. Like much, probably most, of his adoring press, he did not grow up in the city, comes from a wealthy background, and never had to spend a heck of a lot of time in the trenches…any trenches. He has spent his life in and around public office with no experience in the actual private sector, unless one counts selling public sector access “private sector experience.” He grew up on the north shore and lives on the north side. He gives the impression that, like most of the press, he is not very comfortable once he gets south of Congress unless he is being driven down south Lake Shore to Hyde Park. Like most of the press in our town, he considers a trip to even my beloved Beverly and its environs, one of the most beautiful, safe, and civil neighborhoods in the city, if not the world, an urban adventure. Like many of our press denizens, he was well, and expensively, educated at an exclusive eastern school (in his case, Sarah Lawrence) before returning to Northwestern for what people in his stratum of society consider a “Chicago” experience. Like most of our press, he believes deeply in the wisdom of government and is devoted to the notion that government can solve all of society’s ills if only it is in the hands of the right people, a belief rooted in Plato’s notion of the philosopher king, and there is no doubt in the minds of either Rahm or his admirers whom Plato must have presciently had in mind when expostulating on this notion some 2,400 years ago. While ceaselessly praising “the private sector,” Rahm and his devotees in the press consider the “private sector” as merely an appendage of the government, there to pay the bills and do the bidding of the estimables who have managed, with the help of the “private sector’s” money, to hoodwink enough of an apathetic and largely clueless electorate into putting these thoroughly entitled wise men in office. The “private sector,” or at least those portions of it which Rahm and his compatriots would deign to deal with, has completely bought into this program, by the way; what’s principle when a place at the trough with plenty of elbow room on either side is at stake? No wonder Mr. Emanuel thinks he is completely in tune with Chicago’s “private sector;” he has surrounded himself with sycophants, from both the private and public sectors, who are completely dependent on his largesse with the taxpayers’ money for their prosperity or, in some cases, their very survival. This explains the other great emotion, besides devotion, that Mr. Emanuel inspires: Fear. But that is another post.
Despite my philosophical differences with Mr. Emanuel, there are many (well, maybe several) of his initiatives with which I agree. It is curious, though, that he is able to get away with some of these when he would be leading the hoots of derision if identical moves were initiated by a Republican, but I digress. Mr. Emanuel has done a good job as mayor, especially in light of the fiscal equivalent of a neutron bomb attack left him by his predecessor. And I congratulate Mayor Emanuel and wish him well; after all, he is a capable man and my home town is in his hands. But note that I do so without a hint of either consanguinity or sycophancy.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
HAIL TO THE HOOSIERS!!!
5/9/12
Dick Lugar, whose name would lead one to conclude he is a character in a Mickey Spillane novel rather than a U.S. Senator, was soundly trounced last night by State Treasurer Richard Mourdock (himself something of a hack, ever desperate for a spot on the public payroll, but that is another issue) in the Indiana GOP primary for his Senate seat, which nominally represents the Hoosier State but, for about 34 of the 35 years Mr. Lugar has held it, has represented Washington, D.C. and the nation’s defense contractors. Good riddance/
My joy at the defenestration of Mr. Lugar has little to do with our philosophical differences, but at least two are worth mentioning here. First, as one of the most salient members of and spokesmen for what I like to call the War Party, Mr. Lugar apparently has never met a war he didn’t like. Second, Mr. Lugar is also one of the most salient members of and spokesmen for the “moderate” wing of the GOP, a group that appears to have little or no problem with the substance of the welfare/nanny/super state, the growth of which has picked up rapidly, perhaps not coincidentally, during Mr. Lugar’s very long tenure in Washington. Mr. Lugar and his fellow “moderate” GOPers like that government grows; they would just like to see it grow a tad more slowly and more in the direction of those Mr. Lugar and his compadres seems to favor and those who, again not coincidentally, seem to favor the likes of Mr. Lugar at election time, such as defense contractors, insurance companies, Wall Street types looking to socialize their losses…the usual suspects who wear their “moderation” generously accessorized with thick doses of self-imagined moral and ethical superiority.
As deep as those philosophical differences are, they are not what lead me to be so happy about Mr. Lugar’s demise. His age, frequently mentioned by the mainstream media, does not bother me, either. 80 is not too old to be a Senator; I know plenty, or at least several, 80+ year olds have the physical stamina and intellectual heft to be a U.S. Senator. (Admittedly, this is not a very high bar; why does one have to display physical and intellectual vigor to make one’s living having one’s hindquarters smooched? But I digress.) Mr. Lugar was in the Senate for 35 years, and will have been in the Senate for 36 years by the time he moves back to his home in the suburbs of Washington early next year. No one should be in the Senate for 36 years; heck, no one should be in the Senate more than, say, 12 years at the most. When people hold public office too long they tend to think like rulers, members of a governing class. Their attitudes seem to be something like “Go ahead and pass it; we, comfortably ensconced in our cocoon in Washington (or Springfield or Indianapolis or in the Chicago City Council), will never have to live with its consequences, let alone pay for it.” They become something akin to denizens of their own self-imagined Mt. Olympus, surrounded by sycophants and endlessly congratulating themselves on their willingness to condescendingly favor the prolies (i.e., us) with the magnificence of their eminent presences and visages.
Those of us who have been aware of this tendency of career politicians to lose touch with those they nominally represent have long pushed for term limits as the solution to not only this problem but to the legions of maladies that arise from it. We are, as a consequence, endlessly castigated by our better brethren, who smirkingly shake their heads, or fingers, at us and tell us that we can impose our own term limits on the estimables who condescend to us by simply voting these patheticos out of office. Now that the good people of Indiana have followed the advice who find term limits so reprehensible, these brave Hoosiers are being scolded by the mainstream press and other elements of the establishment for having turned out one of the last Senators capable of what the ruling class in New York and Washington reverently refer to as “bipartisanship.” It would seem ironic if these people were not so transparent.
And speaking of the “bipartisanship” that the establishment seems to treat with the same reverence we Catholics reserve for things like the Trinity and the Communion of Saints, why should we be ashamed of defying one of its few remaining acolytes? The Democrats and Republicans for at least the last 35 years or so have bipartisanly conspired to pick our pockets, usurp our freedoms, install and foster a hegemonic upper class of people with access to the levers of supergovernment, destroy federalism, and, worst of all, send our kids off to fight, and die in, wars they had no business fighting. While “bipartisanship” on very rare occasions is useful, and partisanship and politics should never get in the way of friendship or, barring that, at least treating people with kindness, politeness, and consideration, “bipartisanship” has gone a long way toward sinking us in the quagmire from which the Republic will be lucky, blessed, or both to emerge. Bipartisan enthusiasms, like near universal homeownership, international busybodiness, fiat currency, easy credit, deficit spending, therapeutic government, and never having to be accountable for one’s actions, have helped steer the Republic ever closer to the edge of the cliff; ceaseless paeans to “bipartisanship” will insure that we go over that cliff.
Dick Lugar, whose name would lead one to conclude he is a character in a Mickey Spillane novel rather than a U.S. Senator, was soundly trounced last night by State Treasurer Richard Mourdock (himself something of a hack, ever desperate for a spot on the public payroll, but that is another issue) in the Indiana GOP primary for his Senate seat, which nominally represents the Hoosier State but, for about 34 of the 35 years Mr. Lugar has held it, has represented Washington, D.C. and the nation’s defense contractors. Good riddance/
My joy at the defenestration of Mr. Lugar has little to do with our philosophical differences, but at least two are worth mentioning here. First, as one of the most salient members of and spokesmen for what I like to call the War Party, Mr. Lugar apparently has never met a war he didn’t like. Second, Mr. Lugar is also one of the most salient members of and spokesmen for the “moderate” wing of the GOP, a group that appears to have little or no problem with the substance of the welfare/nanny/super state, the growth of which has picked up rapidly, perhaps not coincidentally, during Mr. Lugar’s very long tenure in Washington. Mr. Lugar and his fellow “moderate” GOPers like that government grows; they would just like to see it grow a tad more slowly and more in the direction of those Mr. Lugar and his compadres seems to favor and those who, again not coincidentally, seem to favor the likes of Mr. Lugar at election time, such as defense contractors, insurance companies, Wall Street types looking to socialize their losses…the usual suspects who wear their “moderation” generously accessorized with thick doses of self-imagined moral and ethical superiority.
As deep as those philosophical differences are, they are not what lead me to be so happy about Mr. Lugar’s demise. His age, frequently mentioned by the mainstream media, does not bother me, either. 80 is not too old to be a Senator; I know plenty, or at least several, 80+ year olds have the physical stamina and intellectual heft to be a U.S. Senator. (Admittedly, this is not a very high bar; why does one have to display physical and intellectual vigor to make one’s living having one’s hindquarters smooched? But I digress.) Mr. Lugar was in the Senate for 35 years, and will have been in the Senate for 36 years by the time he moves back to his home in the suburbs of Washington early next year. No one should be in the Senate for 36 years; heck, no one should be in the Senate more than, say, 12 years at the most. When people hold public office too long they tend to think like rulers, members of a governing class. Their attitudes seem to be something like “Go ahead and pass it; we, comfortably ensconced in our cocoon in Washington (or Springfield or Indianapolis or in the Chicago City Council), will never have to live with its consequences, let alone pay for it.” They become something akin to denizens of their own self-imagined Mt. Olympus, surrounded by sycophants and endlessly congratulating themselves on their willingness to condescendingly favor the prolies (i.e., us) with the magnificence of their eminent presences and visages.
Those of us who have been aware of this tendency of career politicians to lose touch with those they nominally represent have long pushed for term limits as the solution to not only this problem but to the legions of maladies that arise from it. We are, as a consequence, endlessly castigated by our better brethren, who smirkingly shake their heads, or fingers, at us and tell us that we can impose our own term limits on the estimables who condescend to us by simply voting these patheticos out of office. Now that the good people of Indiana have followed the advice who find term limits so reprehensible, these brave Hoosiers are being scolded by the mainstream press and other elements of the establishment for having turned out one of the last Senators capable of what the ruling class in New York and Washington reverently refer to as “bipartisanship.” It would seem ironic if these people were not so transparent.
And speaking of the “bipartisanship” that the establishment seems to treat with the same reverence we Catholics reserve for things like the Trinity and the Communion of Saints, why should we be ashamed of defying one of its few remaining acolytes? The Democrats and Republicans for at least the last 35 years or so have bipartisanly conspired to pick our pockets, usurp our freedoms, install and foster a hegemonic upper class of people with access to the levers of supergovernment, destroy federalism, and, worst of all, send our kids off to fight, and die in, wars they had no business fighting. While “bipartisanship” on very rare occasions is useful, and partisanship and politics should never get in the way of friendship or, barring that, at least treating people with kindness, politeness, and consideration, “bipartisanship” has gone a long way toward sinking us in the quagmire from which the Republic will be lucky, blessed, or both to emerge. Bipartisan enthusiasms, like near universal homeownership, international busybodiness, fiat currency, easy credit, deficit spending, therapeutic government, and never having to be accountable for one’s actions, have helped steer the Republic ever closer to the edge of the cliff; ceaseless paeans to “bipartisanship” will insure that we go over that cliff.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
LOOK WHO’S PULLING THE RICKSHAW NOW, PART II
5/3/12
One of the big international stories over the last few weeks has been the tale of Chen Guangcheng, the blind self-taught Chinese lawyer and dissident who has been under house arrest in Shandong province for most of the last seven years primarily for his protests against forced abortions under China’s “one child” policy. In a story fully worthy of Hollywood, Mr. Chen escaped from house arrest on April 23, making it to the U.S. embassy in Beijing where he was put, in the vague words of diplomacy, under the Ambassador’s protection. The story seemed to have come to a culmination yesterday as Mr. Chen “voluntarily” left the embassy under a deal that would allow him and his family to relocate to a college town away from Shandong where he could continue his studies while the Chinese regime refrained from punishing his family and those who helped him escape and would investigate the officials who Mr. Chen claimed had mistreated him and his family. Given the lessons of history, the chances of the Chinese regime holding up its part of the “bargain” are slim; according to this morning’s (Thursday, 5/3/12’s, page A10, a follow-up page from a page A1 story) Wall Street Journal, international human rights groups have warned of the obvious: the U.S. can do little to help Mr. Chen while he remains in China. They were saying more than they thought they were saying; more on this later.
There is much that is murky about this “deal.” U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke stated “unequivocally” (Note: Diplomats don’t speak unequivocally; their job is to avoid speaking unequivocally, but I digress.) that Chen was never pressured to leave the embassy. Further, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland stated
“At no point during his time in the embassy did Chen ever request political asylum in the U.S.”
But, according to the Journal, human rights activist Zeng Jingyan stated, after speaking to Mr. Chen’s wife, Yuan Weijing
“Guangcheng wasn’t willing to leave the embassy, but he didn’t have a choice.”
Then there is the question of why Mr. Chen did not have a choice. It may have been, as reports have stated, that Chinese authorities threatened to beat his wife if he stayed in the embassy or left the country. Or it may be that, as the Journal reported, in what may be a case of diplomats failing to stick to Mr. Locke’s story,
U.S. officials said they repeatedly asked Mr. Chen if he was willing to leave the embassy and agree to a deal to move with his family with assurances of safety from Chinese officials.
So was Mr. Chen never pressured to leave the embassy, as Mr. Locke contends, or was he repeatedly asked if he were willing to leave, as Mr. Locke’s minions say? I don’t know about you, but if I were at somebody’s house too long (strictly hypothetical; we make it a practice to be the first, or among the first, to leave a party) and s/he repeatedly ask me if I were willing to leave, I would take that as pressure to leave.
And as of this morning, the story got even more murky…and shameful for the United States. Mr. Chen now reportedly claims that he wants to leave China because, among other things, no U.S. embassy staff had stayed with him to assure his protection after his release to a Beijing hospital. What Mr. Chen doesn’t realize is that even if the entire embassy staff stayed behind, his protection couldn’t be assured once he left the embassy, or maybe even if he stayed in the embassy. As the human rights groups quoted in the first paragraph of this post said, the U.S. can do little to help Mr. Chen if he remains in China. But one suspects that neither Mr. Chen nor the human rights activists know why.
We cannot protect Mr. Chen, and probably did not have the option of spiriting him out of China, even if he had wanted to leave his home country, not because of geography and not because, as the Republicans would have you believe, the Obama Administration is weak on foreign policy; despite the bluff and bluster of the GOPers, a Republican administration would have handled this situation no differently. We simply have no, or very little, leverage with China. Why? The U.S. Treasury owes the Chinese $1.18 trillion and American citizens owe the Chinese who knows how many scores or hundreds of billions more in mortgage backed and other asset backed securities. In the never-ending bout of silliness that is American consumerism, we have borrowed our way into servitude to the Chinese and thus are forced to ignore their abominable human rights record and other less savory aspects of their regime. We have no choice because we need their money, and we need their money because we feel compelled by our own collective silliness to indulge ourselves with trendy piffles and other manifestations of our lame-brained consumerism. And we do so with borrowed money. We have done this to ourselves, and the Chen Guangchengs of the world, and their families, have to suffer because we lack the character to say no to our more inane and childish impulses.
NOTE: THE ORIGINAL LOOK WHO’S PULLING THE RICKSHAW NOW was posted on 6/21/10.
One of the big international stories over the last few weeks has been the tale of Chen Guangcheng, the blind self-taught Chinese lawyer and dissident who has been under house arrest in Shandong province for most of the last seven years primarily for his protests against forced abortions under China’s “one child” policy. In a story fully worthy of Hollywood, Mr. Chen escaped from house arrest on April 23, making it to the U.S. embassy in Beijing where he was put, in the vague words of diplomacy, under the Ambassador’s protection. The story seemed to have come to a culmination yesterday as Mr. Chen “voluntarily” left the embassy under a deal that would allow him and his family to relocate to a college town away from Shandong where he could continue his studies while the Chinese regime refrained from punishing his family and those who helped him escape and would investigate the officials who Mr. Chen claimed had mistreated him and his family. Given the lessons of history, the chances of the Chinese regime holding up its part of the “bargain” are slim; according to this morning’s (Thursday, 5/3/12’s, page A10, a follow-up page from a page A1 story) Wall Street Journal, international human rights groups have warned of the obvious: the U.S. can do little to help Mr. Chen while he remains in China. They were saying more than they thought they were saying; more on this later.
There is much that is murky about this “deal.” U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke stated “unequivocally” (Note: Diplomats don’t speak unequivocally; their job is to avoid speaking unequivocally, but I digress.) that Chen was never pressured to leave the embassy. Further, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland stated
“At no point during his time in the embassy did Chen ever request political asylum in the U.S.”
But, according to the Journal, human rights activist Zeng Jingyan stated, after speaking to Mr. Chen’s wife, Yuan Weijing
“Guangcheng wasn’t willing to leave the embassy, but he didn’t have a choice.”
Then there is the question of why Mr. Chen did not have a choice. It may have been, as reports have stated, that Chinese authorities threatened to beat his wife if he stayed in the embassy or left the country. Or it may be that, as the Journal reported, in what may be a case of diplomats failing to stick to Mr. Locke’s story,
U.S. officials said they repeatedly asked Mr. Chen if he was willing to leave the embassy and agree to a deal to move with his family with assurances of safety from Chinese officials.
So was Mr. Chen never pressured to leave the embassy, as Mr. Locke contends, or was he repeatedly asked if he were willing to leave, as Mr. Locke’s minions say? I don’t know about you, but if I were at somebody’s house too long (strictly hypothetical; we make it a practice to be the first, or among the first, to leave a party) and s/he repeatedly ask me if I were willing to leave, I would take that as pressure to leave.
And as of this morning, the story got even more murky…and shameful for the United States. Mr. Chen now reportedly claims that he wants to leave China because, among other things, no U.S. embassy staff had stayed with him to assure his protection after his release to a Beijing hospital. What Mr. Chen doesn’t realize is that even if the entire embassy staff stayed behind, his protection couldn’t be assured once he left the embassy, or maybe even if he stayed in the embassy. As the human rights groups quoted in the first paragraph of this post said, the U.S. can do little to help Mr. Chen if he remains in China. But one suspects that neither Mr. Chen nor the human rights activists know why.
We cannot protect Mr. Chen, and probably did not have the option of spiriting him out of China, even if he had wanted to leave his home country, not because of geography and not because, as the Republicans would have you believe, the Obama Administration is weak on foreign policy; despite the bluff and bluster of the GOPers, a Republican administration would have handled this situation no differently. We simply have no, or very little, leverage with China. Why? The U.S. Treasury owes the Chinese $1.18 trillion and American citizens owe the Chinese who knows how many scores or hundreds of billions more in mortgage backed and other asset backed securities. In the never-ending bout of silliness that is American consumerism, we have borrowed our way into servitude to the Chinese and thus are forced to ignore their abominable human rights record and other less savory aspects of their regime. We have no choice because we need their money, and we need their money because we feel compelled by our own collective silliness to indulge ourselves with trendy piffles and other manifestations of our lame-brained consumerism. And we do so with borrowed money. We have done this to ourselves, and the Chen Guangchengs of the world, and their families, have to suffer because we lack the character to say no to our more inane and childish impulses.
NOTE: THE ORIGINAL LOOK WHO’S PULLING THE RICKSHAW NOW was posted on 6/21/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
