8/13/10
Yesterday’s (i.e., Thursday, 8/12’s) Chicago Sun-Times contained the tale of young Will Lytle of Elgin, IL who successfully kayaked all 2,340 miles of the Mississippi this summer. He started at the Minnesota headwaters on June 13 and reached the Gulf of Mexico on August 5, his mother’s birthday.
This is a great story, and it attracted me because it sounds like something I would like to do. I don’t mean by this that I want to kayak or canoe the Mississippi because my talents at any kind of boating are sub-minimal and to say that I am not much of a camper ludicrously understates the case, but I like to explore different places, perhaps off the beaten path kinds of places, meet new people, and explore and experience things most people would find boring (“What? No shaking rooms with 3-D films? No explosions? No lines? No restaurants with unpronounceable names that feature prices that bear a strong inverse relationship with the size of the portions? What kind of fun can that be?”) but that a student of history and geography would find intriguing. And Mr. Lytle is to be congratulated first for conceiving of such an adventure and second for completing it. My hat is off to him.
But I do have a question. The Sun-Times reports
“And he did it with six days to spare and no maps or bug spray to stave off mosquitoes that attacked him and his brother, Joe, 26, as they slept. His brother drove a support van and camped out with him.”
The lack of a map does not seem like much of a problem; one would think that paddling down a river would not require a map. Perhaps his brother would require a map if he were trying to stay on roads closest to the river, but it would not seem like Will would need a map to stay on the river; it’s big, it’s wide, and it was right in front of him, beneath him, behind him, and next to him throughout the journey.
It would seem though, that lack of bug spray might be a big problem, but a problem easily solvable. The Mighty Mississip’ is not exactly out in the middle of nowhere; it passes through populated, in some cases heavily populated, areas. If the Lytle Brothers discovered after shoving off from Minneapolis that they didn’t have any bug spray, why didn’t they go into town (whatever town) and buy a can? One imagines that in many Mississippi river towns there is a town center, or at least a neighborhood, walking distance from the water. And the Lytle brothers had a van if visiting the nearest Walgreen's required a drive. Why couldn’t they just buy from bug spray? And, if they felt the need, pick up a map while they were at it?
Perhaps there is a macho element to kayaking the Father of Waters without bug spray, just like Father Marquette and Louis Joliet (if those two intrepid travelers ever made it to the Mississippi; my French colonial history is wanting). Perhaps there are separate Guinness Book of World Records (Would that the Almighty have mercy on us and strike any remembrance of that abomination from the face of the earth, but that is another issue.) records for kayaking the Mississippi with and without bug spray.
In any case, I am mystified by the Lytle’s failure to purchase, or pack, bug spray. Their, and especially Will’s, accomplishment would have been in no way minimized by this easy precaution. And I suspect Will, his brother Joe, and their mother, would be much happier, and more comfortable, right now had they packed, or purchased, the deet.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
WHO NEEDS FRESH THINKING WHEN YOU CAN HAVE A CLICHÉ MACHINE?
8/11/10
Today’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that Desiree Rogers, former White House social secretary, wife of investment impresario John Rogers, and serial corporate bigwig, has landed the job of CEO of Johnson Publishing in Chicago, nice work if one can get it. Ms. Roger’s complete lack of experience in the publishing business is no problem; as Ms. Rogers explains:
“I’ve been a generalist all of my career, focused on taking brands to the next level and integrating all of a company’s functional expertise under one roof to move forward.”
In my many years of reading and listening to such corporate logorrhea (Remember I once worked for a major Chicago bank the management of which consisted almost entirely of McKinsey alums.), I have never heard anyone pack so many meaningless clichés into one sentence.
I used to think that Ms. Rogers, whose talents in any functional area are decidedly limited, got every big time post she has gotten solely because of her connections. But I am apparently wrong; not only does Ms. Rogers know everybody, she is the undisputed master of corporate gobbledygook. What more does one need in today’s corporate world?
Today’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that Desiree Rogers, former White House social secretary, wife of investment impresario John Rogers, and serial corporate bigwig, has landed the job of CEO of Johnson Publishing in Chicago, nice work if one can get it. Ms. Roger’s complete lack of experience in the publishing business is no problem; as Ms. Rogers explains:
“I’ve been a generalist all of my career, focused on taking brands to the next level and integrating all of a company’s functional expertise under one roof to move forward.”
In my many years of reading and listening to such corporate logorrhea (Remember I once worked for a major Chicago bank the management of which consisted almost entirely of McKinsey alums.), I have never heard anyone pack so many meaningless clichés into one sentence.
I used to think that Ms. Rogers, whose talents in any functional area are decidedly limited, got every big time post she has gotten solely because of her connections. But I am apparently wrong; not only does Ms. Rogers know everybody, she is the undisputed master of corporate gobbledygook. What more does one need in today’s corporate world?
“I FOUND IT ALL…ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO…”
8/11/10
Yesterday, I talked with Patrick Thomas, editor of The Beverly Review, about my novel, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, its upcoming sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, and Chicago politics in general. The interview was conducted in preparation for an upcoming article Pat will write in the Review.
Appearing in The Beverly Review is especially gratifying for me because the Review is the paper of the neighborhood in which I grew up and a paper I delivered in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. Clearly, it is one of the best neighborhood papers in Chicago, or in the country, and serves a community packed with politically powerful and attuned people, a group that would have especially intense interest in my books. The article should run in the next few weeks. Some of my readers get the Review, but, for those of you who don’t, here is its link:
http://www.beverlyreview.net/
Speaking of the sequel, it should be out late this month or early next. The only misgiving I have about this (if I can say so myself) terrific novel is its price, which is the minimum set by Stafford, the publisher. The paperback will sell for $19.99 and the hardcover (Yes, we have a hardcover this time, primarily in response to those readers who weren’t happy with the quality of the cover of The Chairman; that is another reason I changed publishers for the sequel.) for $29.99, which I think is expensive and for which I apologize in advance. The minimum price was completely out of my hands. On the bright side, the book is definitely worth every penny, especially for those of you who liked The Chairman and wonder what happens next in the life of its dauntless protagonist, Eamon DeValera Collins. But even those who haven’t read The Chairman or found it perhaps a bit too weighty will like the tighter, faster moving plot of The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics. The vocabulary has been toned down a notch or seven and the sequel has a character glossary, which applies to both novels. Further, those of you who have Kindles or other electronic reading devices can buy the sequel at $9.99, only a dollar or so more than the electronic version of The Chairman.
Thanks; I’ll put up post as soon as the sequel is released, but you will hear from me before then.
Yesterday, I talked with Patrick Thomas, editor of The Beverly Review, about my novel, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, its upcoming sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, and Chicago politics in general. The interview was conducted in preparation for an upcoming article Pat will write in the Review.
Appearing in The Beverly Review is especially gratifying for me because the Review is the paper of the neighborhood in which I grew up and a paper I delivered in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. Clearly, it is one of the best neighborhood papers in Chicago, or in the country, and serves a community packed with politically powerful and attuned people, a group that would have especially intense interest in my books. The article should run in the next few weeks. Some of my readers get the Review, but, for those of you who don’t, here is its link:
http://www.beverlyreview.net/
Speaking of the sequel, it should be out late this month or early next. The only misgiving I have about this (if I can say so myself) terrific novel is its price, which is the minimum set by Stafford, the publisher. The paperback will sell for $19.99 and the hardcover (Yes, we have a hardcover this time, primarily in response to those readers who weren’t happy with the quality of the cover of The Chairman; that is another reason I changed publishers for the sequel.) for $29.99, which I think is expensive and for which I apologize in advance. The minimum price was completely out of my hands. On the bright side, the book is definitely worth every penny, especially for those of you who liked The Chairman and wonder what happens next in the life of its dauntless protagonist, Eamon DeValera Collins. But even those who haven’t read The Chairman or found it perhaps a bit too weighty will like the tighter, faster moving plot of The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics. The vocabulary has been toned down a notch or seven and the sequel has a character glossary, which applies to both novels. Further, those of you who have Kindles or other electronic reading devices can buy the sequel at $9.99, only a dollar or so more than the electronic version of The Chairman.
Thanks; I’ll put up post as soon as the sequel is released, but you will hear from me before then.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
“THERE ARE MORE THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH, HORATIO, THAN ARE DREAMT OF IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY.”
8/10/10
I can take little credit, beyond the stylistic, for this particular blog post. I am merely reporting on an idea conveyed to me last week. The curious thing about this idea is that it was expressed on two consecutive days by two old friends of mine who don’t know and, as far as I know, have never met each other. One is a practicing Catholic. The other is what we used to call, no longer call, but, the way the Church is going, soon will be required to once again call, a “fallen Catholic.”
On both occasions, we were discussing (Surprise!) politics and various candidates, some of whom we like and some of whom we don’t, who hold fundamentalist Christian views, most saliently, in this case, creationism and/or its supposedly less controversial and more reasonable variant, intelligent design. It’s easy to ridicule the notion that the world was created 6,000 years ago according to the precise formula outlined in the first two chapters of Genesis. But, both my friends pointed out, as Catholics, we believe that, in the Eucharist, simple bread and wine are transformed into the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Anyone looking at this contention from a purely rational perspective would say that the entire notion is absurd, certainly at least as absurd as the idea that the world was created 6,000 years ago and nothing became everything in seven days. Once outside the bounds of faith, transubstantiation, and its mainline Protestant variant, consubstantiation, for that matter, is a beyond a tough sell. It simply does not stand up to the test of reason; it requires faith. The same can just as easily, if not more easily, be said for creationism.
There are plenty of people (most people, really), who do not believe in creationism, transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, and they are certainly entitled to their beliefs; after all, their beliefs on this subject are more rational than ours. But Catholics who believe in transubstantiation, and even mainline Protestants who believe in consubstantiation, should have a very difficult time ridiculing the fundamentalist doctrine of creationism while not looking awfully hypocritical.
This is not to say that I believe in creationism; I don’t. I believe in evolution and, like my Church, see no contradiction between the theory of evolution and a firm belief in a loving and caring Creator. Further, I don’t expect fundamentalist Protestants to believe in transubstantiation or pure rationalists to believe in either. But the notion expressed by my two buddies, completely independently of each other, is worth contemplating before dismissing ideas that, on the surface, make little sense to those who don’t hold them.
I can take little credit, beyond the stylistic, for this particular blog post. I am merely reporting on an idea conveyed to me last week. The curious thing about this idea is that it was expressed on two consecutive days by two old friends of mine who don’t know and, as far as I know, have never met each other. One is a practicing Catholic. The other is what we used to call, no longer call, but, the way the Church is going, soon will be required to once again call, a “fallen Catholic.”
On both occasions, we were discussing (Surprise!) politics and various candidates, some of whom we like and some of whom we don’t, who hold fundamentalist Christian views, most saliently, in this case, creationism and/or its supposedly less controversial and more reasonable variant, intelligent design. It’s easy to ridicule the notion that the world was created 6,000 years ago according to the precise formula outlined in the first two chapters of Genesis. But, both my friends pointed out, as Catholics, we believe that, in the Eucharist, simple bread and wine are transformed into the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Anyone looking at this contention from a purely rational perspective would say that the entire notion is absurd, certainly at least as absurd as the idea that the world was created 6,000 years ago and nothing became everything in seven days. Once outside the bounds of faith, transubstantiation, and its mainline Protestant variant, consubstantiation, for that matter, is a beyond a tough sell. It simply does not stand up to the test of reason; it requires faith. The same can just as easily, if not more easily, be said for creationism.
There are plenty of people (most people, really), who do not believe in creationism, transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, and they are certainly entitled to their beliefs; after all, their beliefs on this subject are more rational than ours. But Catholics who believe in transubstantiation, and even mainline Protestants who believe in consubstantiation, should have a very difficult time ridiculing the fundamentalist doctrine of creationism while not looking awfully hypocritical.
This is not to say that I believe in creationism; I don’t. I believe in evolution and, like my Church, see no contradiction between the theory of evolution and a firm belief in a loving and caring Creator. Further, I don’t expect fundamentalist Protestants to believe in transubstantiation or pure rationalists to believe in either. But the notion expressed by my two buddies, completely independently of each other, is worth contemplating before dismissing ideas that, on the surface, make little sense to those who don’t hold them.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
MR. GRUMPY BACK AT THE KEYBOARD
8/8/10
A friend of mine sent an e-mail soliciting some thoughts in response to an e-mail I sent him. I haven’t posted anything in awhile, and thought a version of my return e-mail might make a good post:
As de Tocqueville said, and Wynn quoted, democracy in America will work until the politicians figure out that they can bribe the people with their own money. We reached that point a long time ago.
It's hard to be optimistic.
On specifics, Daley will run unless his wife's illness prevents it. If that situation remains status quo, he's a go. And he'll win if he runs.
Quinn's, well, not a buffoon (He’s an intelligent man.), just a showboater and a preening poltroon. Brady's a good man, a businessman who knows how to run something with his heart in the right place. The problem is that people don't look at what he's saying and think about it. Why do that when you can just react and luxuriate in the syrupy flattery other politicians, and especially Pat Quinn, are so eager to dish out. "Nothing is your fault; you've been exploited all your life. All your problems are caused by someone else. Vote for me and we'll get those bad guys, like Brady, who wants to deny women health care coverage and lower the minimum wage because he just hates ordinary people, like you." I still think Brady can win, but only because Quinn is such a failure, not because of Brady's rationality. Rationality doesn’t sell with the American electorate; shameless, treacly flattery does.
On the bright, or somewhat less dark, side, I have come around to the idea that this will be a big Republican year, more than the usual 20-25 House seats the incumbent party loses in the off year election of a president's first term. They may not take the House, but they likely will come close. On the Senate side, it will be tougher—10 or 11 seats is a lot of seats. And if they do, the Republicans will be in charge, so how good can that be? A pox on both their houses, I’ve always said. But at least we'll have divided government, which served this country so well from 1994 until 2000.
A friend of mine sent an e-mail soliciting some thoughts in response to an e-mail I sent him. I haven’t posted anything in awhile, and thought a version of my return e-mail might make a good post:
As de Tocqueville said, and Wynn quoted, democracy in America will work until the politicians figure out that they can bribe the people with their own money. We reached that point a long time ago.
It's hard to be optimistic.
On specifics, Daley will run unless his wife's illness prevents it. If that situation remains status quo, he's a go. And he'll win if he runs.
Quinn's, well, not a buffoon (He’s an intelligent man.), just a showboater and a preening poltroon. Brady's a good man, a businessman who knows how to run something with his heart in the right place. The problem is that people don't look at what he's saying and think about it. Why do that when you can just react and luxuriate in the syrupy flattery other politicians, and especially Pat Quinn, are so eager to dish out. "Nothing is your fault; you've been exploited all your life. All your problems are caused by someone else. Vote for me and we'll get those bad guys, like Brady, who wants to deny women health care coverage and lower the minimum wage because he just hates ordinary people, like you." I still think Brady can win, but only because Quinn is such a failure, not because of Brady's rationality. Rationality doesn’t sell with the American electorate; shameless, treacly flattery does.
On the bright, or somewhat less dark, side, I have come around to the idea that this will be a big Republican year, more than the usual 20-25 House seats the incumbent party loses in the off year election of a president's first term. They may not take the House, but they likely will come close. On the Senate side, it will be tougher—10 or 11 seats is a lot of seats. And if they do, the Republicans will be in charge, so how good can that be? A pox on both their houses, I’ve always said. But at least we'll have divided government, which served this country so well from 1994 until 2000.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
“AW, C’MON…YOU DESERVE IT!”
8/4/10
This morning’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that a record 786,162 Illinois households are now participating in the food stamp program, now euphemistically referred to as the SNAP program. Marielle Sainvilus, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Human Services, gushes
“A lot of the stigma is starting to go away with one out of every six Americans on SNAP benefits. More and more are applying, from seniors to students to middle class families.”
How wonderful is that? No one should feel the least bit bad about taking a handout from their fellow taxpayers, many of whom are facing their own struggles, and we are legally responsible for all those newly non-stigmatized at the federal trough.
I realize that people need help, maybe just once, maybe from time to time. But shouldn’t there be at least a little bit of stigma attached to not being able to support one’s self and family and thus relying on the forced “generosity” of the taxpayers, many, maybe most, of whom would rather die than bear the ignominy of having to take a handout? Shouldn’t there be at least sufficient stigma that, even when one has no alternative and must turn to food stamps, one will do everything in one’s power to get back on one’s feet and thus no longer need, or even want, to be on such a program? Or are we being told that one should be proud to be perpetually dependent on others for the necessities of life?
I also realize that we are indeed responsible for the welfare of our fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters and children of God. That is why charities exist and that is why we should all be overly generous to charities that help people with the necessities of life and that at least try to put people on a path toward being able to no longer be dependent on the charity of others, many of whom are having a hard time putting food on their own tables. Charities can make demands on the recipients of their, and our, largesse. Those demands, in any well run charity, involve helping people to help themselves. Such efforts deserve our support.
The government, though, apparently can’t make such demands but, instead, tells people that there is no shame in being dependent. A limited food stamp, and more general, welfare, program is necessary and commendable in a civilized and compassionate society. But a welfare system that its “beneficiaries” see as a way of life is contemptible in such a society.
Okay, so I’m old-fashioned, curmudgeonly, and perhaps a bit misanthropic, but not as misanthropic as I have been, and will be, called when I express opinions such as the above. But our country, and our world, is in big trouble, and not just fiscal trouble, when people are being taught that there is no shame, indeed, a measure of pride, in extracting the fruits of the labor of others.
This morning’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that a record 786,162 Illinois households are now participating in the food stamp program, now euphemistically referred to as the SNAP program. Marielle Sainvilus, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Human Services, gushes
“A lot of the stigma is starting to go away with one out of every six Americans on SNAP benefits. More and more are applying, from seniors to students to middle class families.”
How wonderful is that? No one should feel the least bit bad about taking a handout from their fellow taxpayers, many of whom are facing their own struggles, and we are legally responsible for all those newly non-stigmatized at the federal trough.
I realize that people need help, maybe just once, maybe from time to time. But shouldn’t there be at least a little bit of stigma attached to not being able to support one’s self and family and thus relying on the forced “generosity” of the taxpayers, many, maybe most, of whom would rather die than bear the ignominy of having to take a handout? Shouldn’t there be at least sufficient stigma that, even when one has no alternative and must turn to food stamps, one will do everything in one’s power to get back on one’s feet and thus no longer need, or even want, to be on such a program? Or are we being told that one should be proud to be perpetually dependent on others for the necessities of life?
I also realize that we are indeed responsible for the welfare of our fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters and children of God. That is why charities exist and that is why we should all be overly generous to charities that help people with the necessities of life and that at least try to put people on a path toward being able to no longer be dependent on the charity of others, many of whom are having a hard time putting food on their own tables. Charities can make demands on the recipients of their, and our, largesse. Those demands, in any well run charity, involve helping people to help themselves. Such efforts deserve our support.
The government, though, apparently can’t make such demands but, instead, tells people that there is no shame in being dependent. A limited food stamp, and more general, welfare, program is necessary and commendable in a civilized and compassionate society. But a welfare system that its “beneficiaries” see as a way of life is contemptible in such a society.
Okay, so I’m old-fashioned, curmudgeonly, and perhaps a bit misanthropic, but not as misanthropic as I have been, and will be, called when I express opinions such as the above. But our country, and our world, is in big trouble, and not just fiscal trouble, when people are being taught that there is no shame, indeed, a measure of pride, in extracting the fruits of the labor of others.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
GIMME THAT NEW AGE RELIGION
8/3/10
This morning’s (i.e., Tuesday, 8/3/10’s, page A1) Wall Street Journal reports that the Fed is considering purchasing more treasuries and mortgage bonds, or at least maintaining its inventory of said bonds by reinvesting the proceeds from matured bonds in the treasury and mortgage markets. The Fed is thus, out of a concern that the economy still is not strong enough to sustain even a gradual withdrawal of monetary stimulus, reconsidering its prior decision to let its inventory of mortgages and treasuries, acquired in the “emergency” of a few years ago, run down.
I’m not the first person to say this, but does the Fed really think that continuing its presence in the bond market is the wisest course of action in the midst of what some are calling a bond bubble that has brought the two year to 53 basis points and the ten year to 2.90%, resulted in the lowest mortgage rates in history, and allowed, for example, Charles Schwab a few weeks ago to sell ten year paper at 150 over treasuries? Does the Fed think that it is the level of interest rates that is stifling economic growth? If so, just how much lower does the Fed think rates will have to go before things turn around? How does the Fed justify continuing to punish savers and reward spenders in an economy that, despite a savings rate that has returned to its historic levels of about 6%, still lags most of the world in savings and that was nearly driven over the figurative cliff not two years ago as a result of its ingrained profligate spending habits? Has the fed chugged and guzzled the deflationary kool-aid at a clip that would impress a 22 year old out for a big Saturday night at a Western Avenue gin mill?
Or does the Fed’s “considering” (read “deciding on”) maintaining its inventory of treasuries and mortgage bonds really an admission that it has no idea what to do with an economy that just won’t seem to budge?
This morning’s (i.e., Tuesday, 8/3/10’s, page A1) Wall Street Journal reports that the Fed is considering purchasing more treasuries and mortgage bonds, or at least maintaining its inventory of said bonds by reinvesting the proceeds from matured bonds in the treasury and mortgage markets. The Fed is thus, out of a concern that the economy still is not strong enough to sustain even a gradual withdrawal of monetary stimulus, reconsidering its prior decision to let its inventory of mortgages and treasuries, acquired in the “emergency” of a few years ago, run down.
I’m not the first person to say this, but does the Fed really think that continuing its presence in the bond market is the wisest course of action in the midst of what some are calling a bond bubble that has brought the two year to 53 basis points and the ten year to 2.90%, resulted in the lowest mortgage rates in history, and allowed, for example, Charles Schwab a few weeks ago to sell ten year paper at 150 over treasuries? Does the Fed think that it is the level of interest rates that is stifling economic growth? If so, just how much lower does the Fed think rates will have to go before things turn around? How does the Fed justify continuing to punish savers and reward spenders in an economy that, despite a savings rate that has returned to its historic levels of about 6%, still lags most of the world in savings and that was nearly driven over the figurative cliff not two years ago as a result of its ingrained profligate spending habits? Has the fed chugged and guzzled the deflationary kool-aid at a clip that would impress a 22 year old out for a big Saturday night at a Western Avenue gin mill?
Or does the Fed’s “considering” (read “deciding on”) maintaining its inventory of treasuries and mortgage bonds really an admission that it has no idea what to do with an economy that just won’t seem to budge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
