The Rush Problem

Not totally about policy, but last week Rush Limbaugh was dropped from a prospective investment team to buy the St. Louis Rams. This came after the outcry from many (especially the left) who said that he should not be able to own a team because he's a big fat idiot or something.  This of course, is crazy talk.  Limbaugh, even if you think he's an idiot, should be allowed to own a football team if he has the money.  I'm bringing this up mainly because Limbaugh defended himself in the Wall Street Journal the other day.  It's an interesting defense saying that:
a) He didn't say racist things like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have.
b) He didn't say anything that was pro-slavery.

Now, if he was misquoted, then by all means, set the record straight Rush.  But the fact that I'm sitting here thinking, 'it wouldn't surprise me if Rush Limbaugh said he was in favor of slavery' well... you have a PR problem.  And while Rush apparently didn't say that he's a fan of slavery, he has said a lot of horrible things about blacks, Obama and America.

That said, I've been thinking about Rush for a while now.  He represents the problem the Republican party has with America right now.  Because of the lack of leadership within the Republican party, Rush has almost become the unofficial mouth piece of the party (with assists from Sarah Palin (even though she's been non-existent the last few months) and Glenn "I'm going insane in front of the entire nation" Beck. To most of America, what Rush has to say—"Obama is an "angry black guy"" or "Obama's entire economic program is reparations" or that he wants Obama to fail—does not play well to most of the nation.

And that's the problem for the Republican party right now.  The party cannot separate itself from Rush.  While Rush is very good and getting the Republican base involved and excited, when his message starts to become the only thing that the country hears, it's problematic.  Rush is an entertainer.  His goal is to get high radio ratings which then lead to higher advertisement spots which then means more pills money for Rush's bank account (and the radio stations).  Rush will say things to get people to tune into his show (just as Howard Stern or your network TV drama will).  And because of the lack of leadership in the party, what Rush says suddenly becomes what the Republican party says.

The GOP can easily fix this, they just need someone from somewhere within the party to step up.  They need to have someone who will deliver a kinder, gentler, and more tactful message to America.  That person is some where (it's not Palin and it's probably not Huckabee), but the longer it takes for that person (or people) to step to the plate, the more damage Rush is going to do to the party itself.  Clearly some in the party get this: “We need more voices,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of the party’s up-and-coming leaders. “Our party’s challenge has been that we need to be more inclusive — we need to attract the middle again..."

America is changing, it's becoming more diverse and continues to become more urban.  A party that is seen as narrow minded and for white males only represented and lead by guys like Rush and Beck won't fly.  It won't work.  The GOP has to reinvent itself, even if it means pissing off the base.  The right in Europe has done this successfully by adopting "left" policy positions like being less anti-gay (or pro gay in some cases) and concerned about the environment. Those would be two easy places and positions that the Republicans could adopt today.  Immigration would be another smart move for the party to turn more to the left on.  Sure it would piss off the Rush Limbaugh's of the right, but the base isn't going to leave over issues like the environment and the party will probably pick up some votes for changing positions.    

But I don't see that leadership in the GOP right now. It's a rudderless party that's being lead by the entertainment wing.  And when it comes to winning elections, that's a bad thing, even if the first 10 months of Obama continue to be fairly unimpressive.  So the sooner Rush Limbaugh goes back to being a guy who preaches to his conservative choir, the better off the Republican party, and America, will be.

The Chicago Police Department's Image Problem

Second City Cop rips a new program/policy that the Chicago Police Department is undertaking, the “Customer Satisfaction Survey Pilot” Program.  He rips it.  To shreds.

Now, I've never been a cop.  Will never be a cop.  But I'll say this, Chicago Police Officers, for the most part are assholes.  Sorry, but they are.  I can't recount one positive encounter I've had with them. I've never been arrested, never been questioned, but I don't even bother asking them questions because they just look down their noses as if to say, 'I'm protecting you, prick.'

I get it, being a cop ain't easy.  I thank them all for what they do. But they're total jagoffs 90% of the time.  I'm sure they're good fathers and mothers and husbands and wives, but in the uniform, they're pricks.

I'm sick of Chicago Cops running red lights and stop signs because they don't want to wait.  I'm sick of them standing around as if their shit don't stink in the Loop.  I hated when they were total pricks as we ran though the city in high school for cross country practice.  I'm sick of reading headlines them treating protesters as if they were an Iraqi prisoner.  

The CPD has a major public image problem.  Second City Cop can bitch about the customer service survey, but to the law abiding, ain't causing no trouble sector of the population (aka the majority), the CPD is a bunch of jagbags.  And while we appreciate what they do for us as a whole, we also know that you guys stopped policing last year because you were upset about Weis.  We know that you racially profile.  We know all this.  And we don't always like it.

So yes, the survey might be a little misguided, but you guys also have a public image problem.  The public doesn't like you because you guys are dickheads.  We don't like you because you guys turn on your lights every single time you're at an intersection that has a red light, roll though, and then flip them off.  So you might not like the survey and other shit that's coming from 25th and Michigan, but you guys are, in part to blame for the Weis Era.

When the State Gets Local

I'd say, for the most part, I'm more of a Hamilton than Jefferson guy when it comes to the relationship between governments in our federal system.  I don't want the states to have a lot of power.  I'm not a states right guy.  But I'm also not a fan of the bigger government telling the governments bellow it what to do and how to write their constitutions or by laws (in policy speak, I like home rule over Dillon's rule).  If Cook County wants to have a four-fifths threshold to override a veto, let them have a four-fifths threshold. It's their law and the state of Illinois shouldn't tell them other wise.  Same goes for the income tax level... I'm not sure a larger government should be telling a lower government what their tax rates should be.  The Tribune disagrees with me, I guess because they don't like the Cook County tax rate and bylaws.  But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should not be.

As the Capital Fax points out, it sets a horrible precedent and pretty much invites the state to get involved in other local tax issues.  The Tribune is parading a very undemocratic view: if the people don't like the sales tax in Cook County, they'll have a chance to vote the bums out of office in February or November of 2010.  This is how democracy works.  Getting a larger governmental body just because you don't like it is stupid, short sighted, and undemocratic.

Ladies and Gentlemen... the George W. Bush years! 

Jones, who was employed by a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, which was fighting oil fires, recounts a pattern of subsequent behaviour by the company, including locking her in a container under armed guard and the loss of crucial forensic evidence, that she says amounts to a cover-up.



Halliburton/KBR used a clause in Jones's contract requiring disputes to be settled by arbitration to block legal action, a policy her lawyer says has encouraged assaults by creating a climate of impunity.

I mean come on, we really needed the Senate to get involved here? Shouldn't these guys been prosecuted without having to go to the U.S. Senate?  Isn't rape rape even if Halliburton is involved?  Why did the US government turn a blinds eye to this?  Disgusting.  Absolutely disgusting.

And to show just how far the banks have to go, Bank of America lost a cool $2.26 billion this quarter.  This shouldn't be a huge shock since we've known that the banks are in a tough spot.  We aren't out of the woods until the banks are fully deleverage (thus screwing you and me over).  It's clear that the government won't let any of the big banks fail, but also won't do anything that will piss off share holders/the market.  Thus the process is going to take longer than anyone would probably like.

While most people don't think about s...

While most people don't think about sport when contemplating policy and politics, they do matter.  A lot.  If you don't believe me, go to a local American city and check out all the new stadiums and arenas that the state (ie public tax payers) paid to build.  Those things aren't cheap (and a total waste of public money, but not going to tackle that today (did you get the pun? hahahame)).  Or look at the impact that hosting a major sporting tournament has on a city or country.  Also, as we learn more and more about the horrors of football (American) and what it does to those who play the game, there's a chance that the government may step in some day.  If you read Macolm Gladwell's piece in the New Yorker, you may be like me and consider never watching another NFL game ever again.

Anyway, I have no clue if there are any elections coming up in any of these soccer loving nations, but knowing how fickle democracies are, I'd put any government whose national teams disappointed in qualification on notice.  (Greece and Portugal just had elections and both of those teams made the EURO playoff).  At the moment, it doesn't look like any of the 'big' soccer nations are left out of the World Cup (though the playoffs may change that) so there may be no reason for concern for the major teams/democracies.  However, some of the upstart nations who qualified... maybe that will spark a major policy or political change? I wouldn't put it past a democracy.

As far as the World Cup, it's going to be held in South Africa in what will probably be one of the most followed sporting events of all time.  Not just in terms of fans watching, but also in terms of media attention since this is the great experiment in modern sport: What will a major sporting event be like in Africa?  Will it work?  Will it be wonderful?  Will it be blah?  Will it be a disaster?  It will be interesting to follow next summer.

The Trib's editorial on charter schools is puzzling just because the information on charter schools is so non-conclusive (or inconclusive if you prefer):

One rap on charter schools is that they succeed only because they draw parents and kids who are motivated to succeed. Not so fast: The Hoxby study compared the performance of charter school kids against kids who had applied to a charter but didn't gain a spot through an admissions lottery. Those kids had the same motivation to apply and the same demographic makeup.

But this is only one study.  There are other studies that show that charter schools aren't so hot.  And Hoxby is a controversial figure in education circles.  

Plus the charter schools that don't do well are simply closed—left as if they never existed.  Therefore, it's very hard to do a long term study on all charter schools.  This isn't to say that charter schools are bad, but they also aren't the answer to all our education problems. Longer school days, a longer school year, and more early childhood education would go a lot further in improving education in America than opening more charter schools.

Finally, E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post says something that I've been saying for a while: the most powerful people in American federal politics are Obama, Snowe, and Collins.  Got to love how long it takes the Beltway to figure this shit out.

Health Care Inches On

The Senate Finance Committee approved a health care bill which will now go to the Senate.  The Republicans, even with Olympia Snowe, can't filibuster the bill.  The Democrats didn't need Snowe's vote in the Finance Committee but picking her up is interesting because if the GOP does try and filibuster, I think they can now count on her to kill it. But I'm not sure the GOP will even try that at this point.  What will be interesting is to see what other GOP Senators will jump on board with this bill.  Susan Collins, also from Maine, seems like she will also support the bill.  Will other GOP Senator's follow?  That all depends on where they live and if their state supports it.  Senators from the Midwest and Northeast who are Republicans may very well join Collins and Snowe... but remember they're doing this for political reasons. The bill has already been passed at this point... their votes will just be so they can go home and tell their constituents that they supported health care reform (and there may be a few Democrats who decide that they won't vote for the bill for the same reason).

I'm surprised there is so much resistance to health care reform in the US.  When, as the Wall Street Journal points out, Massachusetts reformed health care in their state things didn't go as planned, however this isn't a reason to NOT do anything.  Why?  Because health care costs are like a cancer in this country right now.  It will eat us from the inside out.  Something has to be done, and anyone who tells you other wise is basically rooting for America to fail.  Reform is never perfect, politics gets in the way of policy, but a step in the right direct is a good thing.  It may not be exactly what the left wants, and it's probably not what the right wants at all (though if they could tell me what they wanted that would be helpful and I'd actually allow them to enter the debate), but it should help to keep costs down.  Yet as pieces like this WSJ editorial show, the conservatives have yet to say what would be a better option, because doing nothing is the worst option on the table at the moment.

It looks like the fall of the dollar is going to be the next big "story" in the months to come, which is some what interesting because politically that falls into both Bush and Obama's lap.  Conservatives are going to try and pin as much government spending as they can on Obama, but he's only going to be responsible for some of it.  Much of it Obama inherited from George W. Bush, whose cut taxes and spend money ways helped create the financial bubble and put the government into major debt to begin with.  Plus, it was W who pushed and passed his own stimulus along with the (necessary) TARP bill last year. While they both don't equal what the Obama stimulus will end up costing, a half a trillion dollars is a lot of money for a Republican President to spend and try and blame on a Democrat.

Finally, not much of a policy issue but worth the mention.

Congrats! You're Not George W. Bush! Here's the Nobel Peace Prize

The big news, of course, is that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today.  Now, I know this award isn't always given to the most awesome people (come on down Mother Teresa, Kofi Annan, Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat!) but the committee gets the award right more than they get it wrong.

Which is why Obama winning it is even more confusing.  He won "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".  Which is nice and dandy and great and I'm happy Obama is President (I voted for him in full disclosure). But Nobel Peace Prize?  Really?

But then again, maybe it makes TOTAL sense because between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009, the United States refused to listen to anyone about anything.  Obama on the campaign trail and since he has become President has said, "We're going to listen, we might not (and probably won't) do want you want us to do, but we'll listen."  And for that, for just listening, he has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  He won because he did want we should have been doing all along.  Which again, I don't think is necessarily a reason to win... but hey whatever. It's not my award.

Now the right will be pissed off.  Partisan politics will rear its petty head and people will be upset about him winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  Their anger will be something like "he's in bed with the European left" blah blah blah.  (which is hilarious because the Europeans apparently didn't like him last week when they voted for Madrid over Chicago for the Olympics; they hated him last week but love him this week go figure).  But I don't think winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a bad thing.  In fact it is a good thing, and it restores some honor to the United States and the Office of the President (our last two Presidents either cheated on their wives or decided to pick wars or fights with other countries; it hasn't been a good 16 years for the Office of the President).

So to recap:
Did Obama deserve it?  Probably not.
Why did he win?  Because he listens to other countries.
Really?  Yes.
He won because he listens?  Yes.  And he's not George W. Bush.
You're kidding?  No.
That's kind of cool?  In a fucked up way, yes.
But sort of sad?  Yes totally sad that you can now win the Nobel Peace Prize for listening.
Is Obama winning a bad thing?  No.
Should we be upset that he won?  No.
Should we dislike him more now that he won? No.
Then why will people be upset?  Because they're petty and they hate to see the other guys do well (I'll confess, I hate it when the Cubs or Red Wings win).
Does this help or hurt Obama?  I say help him.  But others will disagree. There's really no way winning the Nobel Peace Prize can hurt you.  Unless you go to war three years from now because of oil/distract the world from the fact that you let the real enemy get away.

Until later...

Healthcare and Early Childhood Education

Today should be two separate posts, and maybe if it gets long it will be... away!

Healthcare is going to get done.  And while the left is going to be upset because it's not what they voted for and how much it will control costs is iffy (which is really the main long term problem with healthcare in the USA), it looks like healthcare will get done. I'm not sure what the Republicans will bitch about considering that this bill will reduce the deficit... but I'm sure they'll find something.  Goes to show how weird and hypocritical politics are—if anyone should be upset it should be Democratic voters because what they voted for is not getting done, yet they'll cheer this on as Obama being awesome.  Meanwhile, the Republicans will be against the bill because... I don't know, they're the opposition party and that's what they have to do.  Or something lame like that.  ANYWAYS, the bill coming out of the Finance Committee will be more than cost neutral, it's going to be cost negative, which is something every American should be able to get behind.  And if they don't?  They're idiots.

The fall out from Derrion Albert's beating death on Chicago's South Side continued yesterday (this is the little story that keeps running, three week legs).  But the story is starting to change.  Instead of blaming the neighborhood this took place in, the media is getting it right and focusing on the SOCIAL breakdown and what we can do about it.  There is a parenting crisis in this country, but there is a parenting crisis in every country and has been since the dawn of time so this is nothing new.  So to fill that gap we need to put in place social networks and safeguards to help.  The government can't do all the work, but it can do some of the heavy lifting. This story from the Trib points out:

Many others point to quality early-childhood education as crucial, and President Barack Obama made it a central premise of his presidential platform and has promised to pump millions of dollars into evidence-based programs.

Striking empirical evidence from the Perry Preschool experiment in Michigan showed large differences between the arrest rates of students in the intensive preschool effort and a control group not in the program. Some have estimated that the preschool program generated $13 in benefits for every $1 spent, with most of the savings because of a reduction in the criminal behavior of boys.

Okay, a 1,200% return is pretty fucking awesome and probably a policy initiative we should look into.  And even if you don't buy the Perry Preschool experiment, there are a tons of other places were you can look and find pretty awesome success stories.  Hey, if you don't believe me, believe the Nobel Prize winner.

I'm not going to rail on and on and on about how much human capital is wasted in the Untied States, even though I should, because no one will listen because no one wants to spend money on anyone other than themselves.  I know, it's one of the awesome aspects of democracy. Sigh.  But we have so much wasted talent in the United States that we should all be ashamed.  Maybe the awareness that the Derrion Albert story is bring to early childhood education a bit more to the forefront.  And if something is done and changed, then we all benefit because the more human capital there is, then there is more capital for all of us.  

Yay.

Saturday Night Live's opening sketch ...

Saturday Night Live's opening sketch with Obama telling the right wingers to not worry about socialism since he hasn't gotten anything done... and then listed all the things he hasn't done was pretty good.  Although it does look like healthcare is going get done eventually; Obama, so far, can really only claim victory: the stimulus.

I think at this point we can all agree that the stimulus was not a bad thing.  Flawed?  Yes.  Taking too long for the money to start flowing?  Sort of (but think of it this way, wouldn't rushed projects be a bad thing?). Was it bad?  Unless you're a hard core libertarian (i.e. the government shouldn't even pave roads)—No.

But with state and local governments out of money and things not getting any better any time soon, maybe the stimulus money should have gone to the states, helping bail them out of the financial bind they're in.  It would save a lot of jobs in the short run and stimulate local economies.  Bailing out GM was nice, but couldn't the people of California use that money more?  Wouldn't it have been better served to plug those budget gaps in Chicago?  Because as the state and local governments lay off workers, roll back on projects, and stop providing services that the market usually does not provide at a low cost or at all (ie education, mental illness services, homeless services, etc.,) it hurts the local economy.  I guess what I'm saying is that wouldn't we, as a country, be better off with moral hazard problems in the state government than at GM or AIG?

Illinois does not have to offer "Choose Life" licence plate... hopefully it's because there are bumper stickers for that.  However, if I was the left, I'd respond by having my very own "Choose Life" licence plate with a falsely convicted person who is behind bars.  And can we get a ruling on when the right wants more government and when the left wants less government and how/when it's cool?  Thanks.

I don't like the new Capital Fax.

I'm sure Colbert will touch on this... but seriously, what's up with the UN?  The USA coming in 13th in best places to live?  That's 12 places too low.  Everyone knows that the USA is the best country on Earth and the best place to live.  Our healthcare is awesome, violence not as bad as South Africa's, and our Gini Index (the income gap between the rich and the poor) is on par with Ghana, Senegal and Thailand.

Swine Flu freak outs are going to happen because people love to think they're going to die. And while I would venture to guess we'll see an up tick from flu related deaths in 2009-2010 remember this: 36,000 Americans die of the flu each year.  Also, those who are older (ie, Baby Boomers and up) are much less likely to come down with H1N1 because they've/you've built up immunity towards it.  This isn't to say that we shouldn't worry or do anything about it, but take a deep breath before you start thinking that you're going to die.  So far most Americans have lived to tell about having Swine Flu.

More Olympic fall out from Second City Cop.  Don't disagree with much that he/she says here.  However a suggestion for Mayor Daley.  If the city really does have a $600 million budget shortfall, why not start by trimming all the non-Chicago residents on the City parole.

Woah. First round elimination. Even...

Woah.  First round elimination.  Even I took that as a slap in the face and punch to the stomach.  I'm shocked, just as everyone else is.  I wanted to lose to Rio in the final...

But the reality is, Chicago dodged a bullet.  The Olympics never are an economic winner.  They're an excuse used to build infrastructure and it's easier to sell spending billions on the Olympics than on just straight up infrastructure.  That's too bad that we have to find ways to lose money to spend money on quality projects.

Let's put this to rest now: Chicago losing did not hurt Obama. Sure the FoxNews types will say it did, but it's the Fox News people. They'd hate Obama if he gave them a trillion dollars and world peace. As Zorn points out, the Obama's were the only people to actually deliver on Friday. (I'm not going to post the stupid WashPost coverage... thanks for showing up about three years after the fact guys!  We really needed your opinion!  Why couldn't you know, not say anything?)  In the end this wasn't the 2016Obama Olympics, it was the 2016 Chicago Olympics.  Chicago lost because it's funding was very questionable and the USOC has pissed off the IOC.  Rio won because IOC members wanted the games there.  If Obama looks bad because Chicago didn't win, then you're a hater.  Blast him for going over there and stumping for Chicago, but don't blast him because Chicago didn't win. This was much bigger than Obama (and I'd guess 95% of Americans don't care).

If you ever needed proof that elections are unfair (all elections) and there is no such thing as a fair election, let Friday's IOC vote be a reminder.  First, it's pretty clear that Europe is highly over represented in the IOC.  Madrid would have been awarded the Olympics if they had only done one round of voting.  Yes, we don't know who voted for who, but Madrid really had no business in the final two because Europe had the games in 2004 and will have them in 2012 (not to mention Italy in 2006 and Russia in 2014).  Europe is overly represented in all international organizations, in part because when they were set up they were the richest and most powerful countries on Earth.  But it's the 21st century now, the world has and is changing. It's time to allow other organizations to reflect this (I'm looking at you, United Nations).  The G-8, sorry, G-20 has already made that move.  And it was a smart one over all.

I agree, the loss does hurt Daley: 

Daley, who had derided the Olympic selection process before throwing his weight behind a Chicago bid in 2005, was counting on a win to boost Chicago’s economy and reinvigorate his own standing.  The quick loss represents an embarrassment of international and local dimensions for a mayor who has dominated the city landscape and is used to getting what he wants.

If you don't think DC is a seedy place, check this out.  And shockingly, another Family Values Republican is caught in bed with woman who is not his wife.  Are there bigger hypocrites on Earth other than the Republican party right now?  It's like they're trying to make sure that anyone under the age of 30 never votes for them.

Detroit can't bury her dead because they're broke.  Watching this city over the last ten years is like watching an... Adverse Selection Death Spiral.  So sad.

We're not out of this recession and banks are still deleveraging... yet why does everyone keep tell us that we are okay (or will soon be?)  Getting over and past what happened last fall will take years.  Yet everyone seems to be saying, 'now that the recession is over, lets move on to the deficit.'  Only the recession isn't over and won't be
until the banks are okay. Krugman: "Look, I know more stimulus is a hard sell politically. But it’s urgently needed. The question shouldn't be whether we can afford to do more to promote recovery. It should be whether we can afford not to. And the answer is no."

The Canadian Government didn't fall last week.  But the fact that it almost did makes you wonder if it's going to be the Italy of the 21st century.  (Steven Harper also looks like he should be British, like the Tory MP from some stuck up English county).

And finally, because it's never too early to talk about 2012.  But I have nothing to say about it.

The Olympics... Tomorrow... or Today... I don't know how to feel

Okay, so the decision on the Olympics will be made later today (Copenhagen time)... so I figured I'd try and find some positive stories about hosting the Olympics.  But that's proving to be difficult.  Ben Joravsky's plea to not award Chicago the Games in the Reader was pretty good.  Seriously, everyone from and in Chicago is saying 'We Don't Want Them!  We know what will happen!  And it's not good!  The IOC, which is sort of a joke as it is, will only made to look a bigger joke!  Don't you realize there will be thousands of stories about corruption and graft and project behind schedule stories?'  I can now sort of understand why the Trib wants the games: they'll sell newspapers reporting on all the corruption and inside deals that come out of Chicago getting the games.

And it comes down to this: everyone realizes that the Olympics put cities behind the eight ball financially.  They usually don't make money.  Sydney and Barcelona are the exceptions to the rule.  The successful Olympics, now, have served as coming out parties for either cities or countries.  Barcelona worked because it was pretty much given second citizen status during Franco's regime, so people were not as aware of the city.  Beijing worked because it was China's coming out party.  But what about Calgary or Turin or Athens or Atlanta? Those are all modern Olympics and I'm not sure anyone is saying, man, I can't wait to go to Calgary!  Or Lillehammer!  Or Atlanta!  Because they had the Olympics!

I know you can make that argument for Chicago -- that even in the US it isn't that well known of a city because it's in the Midwest and L.A. and Vegas and New York and D.C. get all the press and international guests.  But that's selling Chicago short.  It's a huge huge huge financial center (second most important in the US and one of the most important in the world). It's still huge (easily the 3rd largest city in the US).  And it has tradition and arts and culture and all that you'd ever want in a city.  It's a city that most American cities would kill to be.  Outside of San Fran or L.A. or New York and maybe Seattle and Boston, Chicago has more to offer than your home town. Chicago's case is not like Barcelona's story.  And Atlanta... we don't even think of Atlanta here.

Chicago already is a world class city.  We don't need the Olympics to prove that or to become that.  I remember when I was living in England that there was this promotion at McDonald's or something that the winner when on an all expenses trip to... Chicago.  Why?  Because house music originated here.  Apparently Europeans come to Chicago to listen to house music.  Think about that.

Look, I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun to have them.  I'm not saying it would not be exciting. Getting the games would do wonders for public transit in Chicago, we might even catch up to New York and by pass DC's public transportation systems.  And I'd probably even end up making money off of the games... but I don't want the game for three reasons:

1) Corruption.  Chicago does corruption as well as New Jersey and New Orleans—maybe better.  Giving the games to us is pretty much saying, 'here people connected to Daley, here are billions of dollars for you to put in a Swiss bank account.'  Meanwhile, the average, every day tax payer is screwed.

2) Money.  The city can't afford the games right now and the Feds aren't going to bail us out because the Feds just spend about $5 trillion dollars bailing out Wall Street and another $.8 billion on a stimulus (not really exaggerating there).  Yes, in a weird way, the US government has infinity dollars but it's not going to start dropping billions on Chicago just because.  Chicago has major issues: education, crime, transportation, funding pensions, housing... and the Olympics will probably only fix one of those issues (transportation) and maybe another (housing).  Now is not the time to take on an event like the Olympics.  Three years ago?  Maybe.  Now?  No.

3) Daley's face.  I want to see the look on his face if we don't get the games.  This is a man who has gotten what he wanted for the last 20 years.  No one says no to him, and if they do, he destroys them. But the IOC can say no.  And no I hope they say just to see how he reacts.

The Olympics... Tomorrow... or Today... I don't know how to feel

Okay, so the decision on the Olympics will be made later today (Copenhagen time)... so I figured I'd try and find some positive stories about hosting the Olympics.  But that's proving to be difficult.  Ben Joravsky's plea to not award Chicago the Games in the Reader was pretty good.  Seriously, everyone from and in Chicago is saying 'We Don't Want Them!  We know what will happen!  And it's not good!  The IOC, which is sort of a joke as it is, will only made to look a bigger joke!  Don't you realize there will be thousands of stories about corruption and graft and project behind schedule stories?'  I can now sort of understand why the Trib wants the games: they'll sell newspapers reporting on all the corruption and inside deals that come out of Chicago getting the games.

And it comes down to this: everyone realizes that the Olympics put cities behind the eight ball financially.  They usually don't make money.  Sydney and Barcelona are the exceptions to the rule.  The successful Olympics, now, have served as coming out parties for either cities or countries.  Barcelona worked because it was pretty much given second citizen status during Franco's regime, so people were not as aware of the city.  Beijing worked because it was China's coming out party.  But what about Calgary or Turin or Athens or Atlanta? Those are all modern Olympics and I'm not sure anyone is saying, man, I can't wait to go to Calgary!  Or Lillehammer!  Or Atlanta!  Because they had the Olympics!

I know you can make that argument for Chicago -- that even in the US it isn't that well known of a city because it's in the Midwest and L.A. and Vegas and New York and D.C. get all the press and international guests.  But that's selling Chicago short.  It's a huge huge huge financial center (second most important in the US and one of the most important in the world). It's still huge (easily the 3rd largest city in the US).  And it has tradition and arts and culture and all that you'd ever want in a city.  It's a city that most American cities would kill to be.  Outside of San Fran or L.A. or New York and maybe Seattle and Boston, Chicago has more to offer than your home town. Chicago's case is not like Barcelona's story.  And Atlanta... we don't even think of Atlanta here.

Chicago already is a world class city.  We don't need the Olympics to prove that or to become that.  I remember when I was living in England that there was this promotion at McDonald's or something that the winner when on an all expenses trip to... Chicago.  Why?  Because house music originated here.  Apparently Europeans come to Chicago to listen to house music.  Think about that.

Look, I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun to have them.  I'm not saying it would not be exciting. Getting the games would do wonders for public transit in Chicago, we might even catch up to New York and by pass DC's public transportation systems.  And I'd probably even end up making money off of the games... but I don't want the game for three reasons:

1) Corruption.  Chicago does corruption as well as New Jersey and New Orleans—maybe better.  Giving the games to us is pretty much saying, 'here people connected to Daley, here are billions of dollars for you to put in a Swiss bank account.'  Meanwhile, the average, every day tax payer is screwed.

2) Money.  The city can't afford the games right now and the Feds aren't going to bail us out because the Feds just spend about $5 trillion dollars bailing out Wall Street and another $.8 billion on a stimulus (not really exaggerating there).  Yes, in a weird way, the US government has infinity dollars but it's not going to start dropping billions on Chicago just because.  Chicago has major issues: education, crime, transportation, funding pensions, housing... and the Olympics will probably only fix one of those issues (transportation) and maybe another (housing).  Now is not the time to take on an event like the Olympics.  Three years ago?  Maybe.  Now?  No.

3) Daley's face.  I want to see the look on his face if we don't get the games.  This is a man who has gotten what he wanted for the last 20 years.  No one says no to him, and if they do, he destroys them. But the IOC can say no.  And no I hope they say just to see how he reacts.

One Day...

One day until the big announcement on who will hold the 2016 Summer Olympics.  I have to say, I'm nervous, bad nervous, like I would imagine this is how I would feel if the Cubs were up 3-0 after seven innings, up 3 games to 2 in the NLCS... sure it'd be cool if the Cubs won, but I don't want them to.  Same thing with the Olympics, sure it'd be cool if Chicago won, but I don't want them.  And I'm not alone.  I think, going into tomorrow, it's Rio's to lose.  They've got Pele.  We've got Oprah.  I'll take Pele.

Once again, if Chicago doesn't get the Olympics, the Derrion Albert tragedy will be a major reason why.  Two Sun-Times columnists chime in this morning.  Roper states the obvious.  Mary Mitchell does her thing.  And the Trib had a chilling editorial on youth violence in Chicago.  Second City Cop chimes in about the rumors of a squad car being near the scene where Albert was beaten and not doing anything.

And then just when Daley and company in Copenhagen thought it couldn't get worse... another student is beaten, this time on the North Side.  Thankfully, this one is in the hospital.  I can't believe I just typed that.

Talks with Iran begin today.  Follow them here if you'd like.  Will Obama drop by tomorrow since he'll be in Copenhagen anyway?  

And by the way, Obama going to Copenhagen is the biggest joke in his almost nine months in office.  Really Obama?  Going to Copenhagen just to pitch Chicago?  Really?  On the U.S. tax payers dime too?  And what about all the green house gases you're releasing just for a "what's up, IOC and Danish peeps?"  What a joke.  I know your house will probably increase in value if Chicago gets the Olympics, and you going is totally rational by going to Copenhagen since you have the means and if we get it then your house will be worth more... but come on.  There are much much bigger issues going on in the world today.

I know everyone keeps telling us the economy is getting better and the stock market has reacted as such... but the last week has been nothing other than "banks continues to deleverage" and "____ was lower than expected".  Are we starting to see a drop in the market again?  There's been a lot not good news, but the market has been acting like there has been a good news.  I'm not sure what the true value of the US stock market is, I'm not expert there, but it does seem high to me for what it's worth.

Lastly, interesting editorial in the Trib today on... Cuba (I know, you'd think they would run something Olympic or Iran or health care or clout related...).  It's good, it's interesting, but just weird timing.  "U.S. businesses are eager to do business with Cuba. And Cuba has a lot to offer the U.S. market -- everything from sugar to cigars to major league pitchers."  However, Cuba doesn't have sugar to offer us because we have a stupid sugar tariff which probably costs the American consumer more than you'd ever guess.  Seriously, our sugar policy might be the second most backward policy in this country (the Cuba embargo, probably takes the cake... and I forgot about Iraq, so
maybe we'll move sugar to #3). 

Just thinking out loud, but if Chicago does get the Olympics, who runs them?  Who would Daley appoint?  Who could Daley appoint?  He only has a few options because of the 'brain drain' that has occurred with Obama taking half the city to D.C. and I'm assuming that no one there would leave D.C. to run the Olympics...

Morning Round Up

Kass thinks Olympics will make Daley King.  Hard to disagree, though isn't he already?  If we get the Olympics won't it be more like Moscow 1980 than LA 1984?

New CTA stop at Morgan and Lake on the Green line in the West Loop.  Being built with TIF money.  See TIFs aren't always bad.

Also apparently about people were protesting and ripping down Olympic stuff at Daley Plaza and then tried to burn it in the eternal flame there.  I would say most people here in Chicago either don't want them or don't care.  And when I say most, I mean like 65%.  Daley has every company (even the Tribune!) flying Chicago 2016 flags and backing the bid.  But it's the most unenthusiastic backing one could imagine. Compared to a year ago when the City had Obama fever... this is nothing.  It's all fake I'd even say.  Most of the support is coming from people who don't live in Chicago... people form the burbs.

BTW, if/when Chicago doesn't get the Olympics, the tragic and horrible beating death of a Chicago Public School student will be the reason why.  This story won't go away and went INTERNATIONAL.

And the 2016 team is literally making stuff up now about the Olympics and Chicago support for it.  They've got the media wrapped around their fingers, I know, but where is all this support they're talking about?  They have money, sure, but where is the actual support?

We're not stupid, we know how this will work.  We know that their $4.8 billion bid (the lowest of the four bids) is a pipe dream.  London is already over budget.  Vancouver, VANCOUVER, CANADA, is over budget. How is Chicago, a town that is still ripe with graft and clout, going to be on budget?

Think about this for a second.  Vancouver is $400 million over budget. Their original budget was $1.2 billion.  That means they are 33% over budget.  London's 2012 budget is currently... $15 billion!  Chicago's big is about a third of that price.  And a 33% increase on Chicago bid would put costs at $6.4 billion.  This is going to be a disaster if Chicago gets the bid.

Only 50 odd hours to go until they make their decision.  I'll break down how I think the vote will go one of these hours...

Fed Catch the Bad Guy?

Yay?

The FBI had a drug informant become friendly with Finton, according to the complaint. The informant told agents Finton had talked about wanting to get terror training and to fight in Gaza against the Israelis. Agents then worked to set up an "opportunity for action that we controlled," began recording contacts with him and put him in touch with an undercover agent who told Finton he was an al-Qaeda operative.

In a July conversation, Finton allegedly told the agent he was considering attacks on "government buildings, banks and police stations." His hope was that an attack would cause the U.S. military to withdraw from conflicts overseas.

The headline sounds great.  Feds catch terrorist.  But, um, was this guy actually going to be a terrorist before the Feds got involved?  I think it's fair to say that the Feds caught a guy who they created. Which is sort of scary when you think about it.  This is not like someone going undercover with the Mifa... this is leading someone on to think thinking they're going to kill Americans and letting them believe that they were being given everything they need to do so.  They only caught this guy red handed because the Feds were the one giving him everything he needed.

Now there are two sides to a coin... and this case seems like a coin situation.  It's easy to argue that Finton was in fact a terrorist in waiting and if he had hooked up with the real bad guys, bad things would have happened.

But the other side of the coin is what I'm starting to think the more I hear about the Feds catching guys who, um, they sort of created.

I mean, was Finton ever really a threat?  Sure he wanted to cause some harm, but was it real or was he pushed by the FBI?  If the FBI had left him alone would anything had happened?  It's hard to say of course, and on the face of it the country is safe... but is it?  Because at the same time the Feds were focusing all this energy on this one man who may not have even been a threat if the Feds had left him alone urban America continues to decay.  How many gang wars does the American city have to suffer through?  How many young people have to die before we start focusing on another form of terrorism happening blocks away from where you're reading this?

You couldn't make this stuff up.

You couldn't make this stuff up:

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

I mean, you can be all anti-taxes and government for all I care, but please, whatever you do, do not bitch about there not being enough government or service.  You just look silly.  You look stupid.  And you make me wonder if you and your constituents are educated.  And I don't want to think that half the Republican Representatives from the South and their constituents are morons.  I don't want to think that my tax dollars go towards enabling these people to be stupid, because that's a billion times worse than the made up "Welfare Queen" whom you blame for all our problems.

You seriously couldn't make this shit up.  The South everyone, let's give it up for the South!  They may have caught up with us economically, but we're still waiting for them to catch up with us intellectually!

What am I missing?

Bloomberg headlines at about 1:30 (CST) today:

Stocks, Commodities Gain on Speculation Global Economy Returning to Growth
Global Confidence Index Holds at Record High on Signs Recession Has Ended
Ireland Will Spend $79 Billion to Purge Financial System of Toxic Assets

Huh?  Irleand is going to drop nearly 29% of it's GDP in an attempt to get rid of Toxic Assets and the world economy is getting better?  And there are stories like this almost EVERY DAY.  Banks on the brink... banks failing... yet all of a sudden things are getting better?

I am totally lost.  Sure things are better than they were six months ago, but let's not for a second believe that because the DOW is up 2% every day now that things are back to normal and the Sept. 15, 2008 — Sept. 1, 2009 was just a minor bump in the road.  Governments are keeping banks alive and without banks then there is no capitalism.

It's going to take a long time for us, as a nation and world, to get back to where we were in 2007.  But then again, as we found out, much of that money in 2007 was... well... not real.

(Un)Constructive Summer

Frank Rich points out what, frankly, I should have realized and pointed out more directly: the summer of 2009 has been a total waste from a policy perspective:

This was a silly summer, as wasteful in its way as the summer of 2001, when Washington dithered over the now-forgotten Gary Condit scandal while Al Qaeda plotted. The president deserves his share of the blame...

a certain damage has been done — to Obama and to the country. The inmates took over the asylum, trivializing and poisoning the national discourse while the president bided his time. The lies that Obama called out so strongly in his speech — from “death panels” to “government takeover” — ran amok. So did all the other incendiary faux controversies, culminating with the ludicrous outcry over the prospect that the president might speak to the nation's schoolchildren on a higher plane than, say, “The Pet Goat.”

The problem with health care has been the lack of leadership from Obama.  He finally stepped the plate on Wednesday.  But it took far too long.  His political capital is less than it was five months ago, and health care is going to take a lot of political capital.  It was a wasted summer.

And just as all four years of Bush's second term was a waste because nothing happened on the domestic front, 2009 hasn't looked too much better. Yes, stimulus got done, which is more than Bush can say about 2005-2008, but it's not enough.  Obama came in with more political capital and power than any President since probably FDR in 1932.  And what does he have to show for it?  A disliked stimulus and a bunch of two bit rumors started by idiots.  That's what I'd call an (un)Constructive Summer.

It finally happened. Now will it hap...

It finally happened.  Now will it happen?

That's what I'm left wondering this morning.  Obama finally came out and told Congress what he wants.  I'm sure he'll get something close to what he outlined last night.  So what did he say... going to the newspapers... oh wait, it is impossible to get a news article that talks about what Obama wants.  The New York Times? NOPE.  Chicago Tribune?  SUCKS.  Washington Post?  STINKS.  Seriously, can someone in the media tell me what Obama said last night?  Did anyone in the media listen to his speech?  This is amazing at how poorly it's being covered.  This lifeline from Politico is the best I can send you...  Hey, but at least we know they pointed out that Joe Wilson is a fucking idiot!  Oh wait, we knew that last night.

So I'll do it myself. <sighs/> Anything in italics is Obama's words from last night.  

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation... Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. 

Amazing when you think about it.  Why is the GOP and some Dems against reform again? If universal coverage was so bad, then why does everyone else have it?

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most... 

They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime... And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse... 

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices... We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices....

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers...

And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that, but an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange... I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects... The public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal....

I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.

So let's review:

1) Insurance companies cannot deny anyone coverage.  They also cannot drop coverage when they want to.

2) There will be no maximum on coverage (I'm sure most people don't realize this, but most plans have a lifetime cap, if you hit, you're SOL).

3) There will be something called an insurance exchange were people and businesses can go to shop for health insurance.

4) Everyone in America will be forced to buy health insurance.

5) He wants a Public Option... but he doesn't have to have a public option.  Apparently, the public option is like the iPhone, it'd be cool to have but I don't have to have it.

6) Malpractice/tort reform won't solve everything, but we should probably do something about it.

7) If you have insurance, you can keep your insurance.

Okay... seven things.  Laid out nicely for us.  What to think?

Requiring everyone to buy health insurance isn't a cure all, end all... but it is a start.  This won't necessarily control costs, but it will increase the insurance pool.  And Obama's right about tort reform, it's not a silver bullet.  (What he is doing is throwing the GOP a bone.  Will they work with him?  Of course not.  Why?  Because they're fucking dickheads at the moment.  The real question is, why is the Republican party refusing health care reform?  If we don't do anything about health care, things will only get worse, and it will start to eat and destroy America from the inside out... who wants that?)

Final Thoughts:
This is a start.  Obama finally said what he wants.  It should make things a bit better.  But I'm still not sure how it controls costs. Health care—in and of itself—should improve under his plan.  However, are incentives being given for people to get preventive care?  Are their disincentives to going to the ER or the doctor for a cold?  What about end of life treatment?  And who is going to pay to keep a premature baby alive for the necessary time until it can live on his/her own?  Prescription drugs?  The insurance exchange seems... how will it work?

There are a lot of questions out there to be answered still.  This isn't the kind of health care reform that will totally change the face of America or drastically reduce costs or provide results that are as good as Cuba's, let alone Frances.  But it's a start.  And Obama telling Congress and American what he wants was necessary.  Now, let's get it done.

Sun-Times Saved

Good day in Chicago yesterday.  The Oprah thing went fine.  Jay-Z played for free (though someone did get stabbed).  Cubs had 8 straight hits to start the game and won... and it looks like the Chicago Sun-Times will be saved.

Yup, Chicago continues to be a two paper town.  If only the Sox had won... at least the deal reminded me of Mike Royko.

I'm sure Trib Tower is a bit upset.  They've been waiting for years for the Sun-Times to fold.  'Any day now,' they would say to themselves.  Then make a glib remark about Ebert writing them to discontinue publishing the Red-Eye because it was the Red-Eye that was killing the Sun-Times.  Once the Sun-Times was gone then they'd have a nice little monopoly over Chicago and, I guess in theory, make a lot of their financial problems go away.  But I guess they'll have to continue to be the paper in bankruptcy.

Chicago wakes up to both the Trib and the Sun-Times.  The Almighty Tribune and it's harder working, better Chicago reporting red headed step child Sun-Times.  The real winners?  Anyone who lives in Chicago.  

Sold on the Stimulus

Day late and a dollar short?  Or at this point, do we still need to be sold on it?  I know the bill was passed seven months ago and it's been showing itself in cash for clunkers and high speed rail ideas ever since.  Next year, that money will flood the US economy.  However, all summer we've been told that things are getting better and that the stimulus was unnecessary.

Well those people are wrong.  I rediscovered this graph and even though I've always been pro-stimulus, I was 100% resold when seeing it again. 

But looking forward, the Taylor rule says that the Fed should cut rates a lot from here — in fact, to negative 6%. That’s not surprising: we’re clearly opening up a huge output gap, inflation is turning into deflation.

The problem, of course, is that you can’t cut interest rates below zero (if you try, lenders will just hoard cash.) So the Fed simply can’t do what the rule says it should.

This is why we need a huge fiscal stimulus, unconventional monetary policy, and anything else you can think of to fight this slump. Quite literally, the usual rules no longer apply.

No matter what we we told all summer, things are not getting better.  Banks are still not fixed.  Business are not growing.  People are out of work and continue to be out of work.  Things are really really bad.  Maybe not 1932 bad, but they're as bad as anyone born after World War II has seen.  And they are not getting better.  Don't listen to the GOPers or the White House.  We have a ways to go.

However as wrong as both parties are about the economy (nothing says out of touch as when you say one thing and your constituents look around see and tell you another), the GOP is more 'wrong'.  This idea that the stimulus wasn't need is wrong—Iraq has WMDs wrong.  The Fed was out of tools back in the Fall and Winter of 2008.  A huge injection of money—the hope, promise, and reality of—was a necessity.

Now, I think people are too often confusing the stimulus (Obama) and the bank bailout (started with Bush, lead by the Fed and pretty much non-political/partisan).  The credit crisis and thus the bailouts, are what should make us all go, Holy Shit.  Those numbers are so large, that it's pretty much impossible for us to fully understand them in our heads.  Check this out if you haven't already - it compares policies like the Marshall Plan to the credit crisis.  Wow.

And of course, that's lead to a whole new mess—already big banks taking on the sick banks to create even bigger banks which of course can't fail.  It's a moral hazard that is TRILLIONS of dollars worse than any welfare program only two bit idiots have an issue with.  But of course, some how, in the mess of the last year, everyone is confusing policy, politics, GOPers and Dems... and as a result, lots of misinformed people (ie main stream media, Sarah Palin) are placing a lot of blame on all the wrong shoulders.

If you have the 90k a year job and think the stimulus was a bad thing... well, be happy you have the 90k a year job because there is a better than you might think chance that you might not have it without the stimulus.

Signs that your country is screwed: #29,483,283

When people bitch about the President giving a small speech to grade school students to the point where it becomes a story.

The GOP is complaining and giving their usual "socialist" bullshit stupid ass ignorant argument.  However, to be fair, back in the early 90s, Dems complained about Bush (the not bad one) giving a small little address to 3rd graders.

Come on people, let's let the President say hi to the kids and encourage them to stay in school.  It's really not a big deal.  He  isn't going to start talking about health care policy or the stimulus or some socialist program.  Why?  Because he's talking to 9 year olds.  And 9 year olds aren't interested in socialists agendas.  

So let's chill the fuck out.  No one is forcing every school student to watch this. It's totally optional if they want to hear the shout out that Obama's gonna lay on 'em. Let's just move on before we fuck this country up any more talking about stupid shit.

Et tu, Daley?

Well one report from the IOC and the Chicago media goes crazy.  I'm happy about it of course—the media is finally starting to catch up with the public.

The stories and editorials are coming fast and furious. But the Mayor has to be starting to panic: His constituents don't want the Olympics any more:

Nearly as many city residents oppose Mayor Richard Daley's Olympic plans, 45 percent, as support them, 47 percent. And residents increasingly and overwhelmingly oppose using tax dollars to cover any financial shortfalls for the Games, with 84 percent disapproving of the use of public money.

Daley has, for the last two or three years, put all his eggs and political capital and connections and ego and time and effort and you know... everything... into getting the Olympics.  The thought was two fold:

1) The Games would be Daley's final 'stamp' on Chicago.  His legacy.  They would be the Daley Olympics, not Chicago's, Daley's.  

2) Money.  Daley also needed the Olympics because of the money it would bring in.  Not the ticket sales and the bullshit multiplier effect that they try to sell us.  But rather federal money.  The city for a bunch of reasons, is out of money (or sitting on billions depending on who you believe) and Daley is/was hoping that the Feds would come in and build him some new public transportation lines and help with crime which would allow him to throw more money at the schools.  But ever since the Federal government started bailing out the banks, it's hard to believe that they're going to send much (any?) money Chicago's way.  

The people of Chicago will put up with a lot as long as you: pick up the garbage, keep the city open spaces clean, and plow the snow.  But even Chicagoans will start to feel a bit rebellious after three years of over all decline throughout the city.  

The decline isn't exactly noticeable to the untrained or out of town eye.  The Loop still looks the Loop and the Lakefront is amazing on a sunny day.  But if you were to walk the streets every day, the difference starts to become obvious.  Crime is up, cops don't have a contract, schools are out of money, if you park your car on the street someone seems to find a way to give you a ticket, it seems like we're being hustled by our own government at every street corner.  And thus, the air, the rhythm of the city, doesn't feel right.  Every Chicago resident feels ignored—we know when the Mayor takes off for China or Moscow and we feel a little, well, neglected.

It hasn't helped that the Olympics have been rammed down our throat.  We haven't had a say in any of this.  That's partly our fault.  But at the same time, Daley and his buddies at Aon (who are working on the details of this bid) haven't allowed us to speak, let alone listened.  Daley figured that we want the Olympics because HE WANTS the Olympics.  But this time he misjudged us. We aren't upset because of the money or the financing.  This is about being ignored.  

Every Chicago resident knew what was going to happen the moment this process started years ago.  We knew there would be corruption. We knew that the Olympic people would be paid a ton of money. We aren't stupid.  But as Daley realizes that we, his constituents, know that he can't deliver everything his promised and that we feel ignored... well I'm not sure what he's going to do.  With a month to go, he has to sell the Games to us, something he never thought he'd have to do.  And now, as the last leg of this journey begins, Daley is still pandering to the world.

He can shut down Michigan Avenue and let Oprah become the #2 cheerleader for all the world to see.  But with every stunt that Daley does to impress the World, he loses another one of His Own.  The people of Bridgeport have been saying this for years—ever since he left the 'hood.  They'll tell anyone and everyone their own Ritchie story, and none of them are ever good.  And we non-Bridgeporters would smile and think, "oh come on, he's not that bad."

But the truth is, they were right.  And now, as we all walk down Ashland or Irving Park or Longwood or Kosner making that quick, slight eye contact with the passerby, we both share a moment where we both thing:

Et tu, Ritchie?

So close...

In a way, you've got to feel sorry for the Chicago Tribune Editorial board.  Tuesday was supposed to be their big day—the day that the Cook County Sales Tax would be rolled back.  They've been waiting for this day for about 18 months.  They've been so against the County's tax hike that they have a little clock counting down the days until the next election.  In fact, they were so confident that they even wrote an editorial on Monday about the rollback.  The excitement was in the air...

But of course this is Chicago and Cook County... the one place were the person who proposed the bill would vote against her own bill:

Sims deserved Tuesday's award for Most Bizarre Commissioner, a floating distinction for which there often are many qualified candidates. In July, Sims co-sponsored, and voted for, a measure to cut in half the full-percentage-point tax increase that took effect 14 months ago. Sims evidently had enough information to justify casting that July vote. Inexplicably, though, she didn't have enough information Tuesday to override Stroger's veto of the very measure she co-sponsored in July.

You can read the rest of that Trib's well written editorial at that link.  And while the Sun-Times echoed much of what the Trib said, it didn't have the passion that the Tribune's piece did.  

Anyway, what happened at the County yesterday is unique to Chicago and a few other cities in this country: everyone is left wonder just what the fuck is going on.  The tax hike was sold on the fact that the County Hospitals needed more money.  Well they don't.  So the question now is... where did and does all that money go?  (Other than the Forest Preserve hacks of course).

Who knows... and the thing is... at a certain point, we don't care.  Or better put, we stop caring.  And the hacks in the city and county know this. Keep the streets clean, make sure crime only happens in certain neighborhoods, pick up the garbage and get rid of the snow.  You do those four things... and you can do and make whatever you want here in Chicago.

Flavorless

So according to new Tribune hire Scott Stantis, somewhat new Tribune editor Gerry Kern is, "a guy talking about creating a crusading paper, a paper with flavor and spice and passion."  That sounds great.  But why is it that the Tribune doesn't reflect that?  It's hooked one major story -- U of I clout -- and ran with it for what seems like five months now... nearly every day.  It's a tired story at this point -- yes clout is bad.  No, I'm not shocked that 50 kids got into U of I that should not have.  Yes, it's a shame it happened, but it's only 50 kids (less than 1% for those scoring at home).  Let's move on with our lives.

However, the full of "flavor and spice" Tribune continues to plug away with the U of I stuff.  It's as if nothing else in this city matters.  I know, I'm preaching to the choir at this point but what about: crime, the Olympics, CPS, the State budget, the lack of social services, the fact that every single word that comes from the Olympic committee's mouth is bullshit?  Today, the Trib ran another story on clout.  Okay fine.  Whatever, I'm not going to read it, but I'll link it.  Meanwhile, this article in the Sun-Times about the Olympics is informative and they call out the pipe dream projections coming from these 2016 Dreamers.

That Sun-Times story?  That's a story with spice and flavor and passion.  

And I should be fair, the Trib does run a few pieces with spice and passion: look no further than the editorial board.  They write about clout a tad too often for my liking, but I'll put up with it because of editorials like today's.

Trib bores, Health Care Turning Point?

Corruption in the county, City either out of money or Daley is sitting on billions to spend only for the Olympics (which is worse, imo, because he could be feeding millions into policing, education, transportation, etc), State budget is a joke... and what does the Trib editorial board lead off with? Quinn and U of I Clout. Shoot me in the head. Go away. Stop this story NOW.

But I've been thinking... between the Barney Frank video/town hall, the totally insane/nut job town hall anti-health care people, and Sen. Ted Kennedy's death... does health care have new life? [NOTE: I wrote this this morning and then saw this article this afternoon... oh well... it was an original thought at some point]. Never underrate these seemingly non-political moments when it comes to huge policy debates. Some times all it takes is a pitcher of beer at the Times to save a major bill.

Over the last 10 days, the health care debate has sort of shifted. Obama and company have stopped fucking it up. Congress isn't around to do or not do anything. And the TV images of idiots calling Obama a Nazi, Socialist, Muslim terrorist, dove ALL AT THE SAME TIME doesn't help the anti-health care cause. Now, with Kennedy's death, a rallying cry will/has been called to get health care done, "for Ted". I wouldn't underestimate that -- I mean, the irony of DC going out there to the win one from the Gipper is off the charts. And not totally insane when you think about it. "Let's get it done for Ted" is a rally around the flag moment for the Democrats -- this was Kennedy's last wish and something he has pushed for pretty much his entire Senate career. The question is, of course, will Obama continue to insist that they have to work with the GOP even though the GOP doesn't want to work with them?

PS I've been working on a health care manifesto... but it just gets longer and longer and longer so I'm going to have to break it down one of these days into about three posts.

Someone Out There Gets It

You would think that with all the intelligent advisers in the West Wing they would be telling Obama this every day.  But then again, they're all inside the Beltway, and if we know anything about the Beltway it is that it's were the dumbest, most stupid idiots in America move to and live.  It took someone outside the Beltway to tell Obama what everyone in the country feels:

"I'm scared out of my mind talking to you here," Joe from Philly blurted out as he was connected to President Barack Obama during a talk radio call-in show devoted to health care Thursday. But when it came to his comment, however, Joe did not hold back.

"I'm getting a little ticked off that it feels like the knees are buckling a little bit," the caller declared, suggesting the president had begun to wobble in the face of pressure from conservative critics.

"You have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate, and you own the whole shooting match. ... It's very frustrating to watch you try and compromise with a lot of these people who aren't willing to compromise with you."

I love how giving common sense advise to the President is headline news.  But that's how fucked up the Beltway is.  They live in this bubble that no one else in America lives in.  These people think they know America, but the fact is they know nothing about America.  That's why you get fuck ups like Obama's Health Care "plan".  

Kudos to Joe from Philly.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  Maybe Obama will take his advise to heart and tell the GOP to fuck off.  Health care isn't going to get done with their help and the Democrats don't need their help.  Why Obama wanted their help even after the GOP has told Obama to fuck off since the moment he took office is beyond me.