This issue may change forever how you feel about peanut butter

...along with more dialogue with readers

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.

Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses

Rick W. — Yeah, the government is so good at pre-filling-in things like, say, assessed property values, that a major successful industry has grown up to appeal them.

Having been through a tax audit in which the amount the IRS claimed I owed them was off by a factor of 10 in their favor (they finally agreed with me) , I remain unenthusiastic about a free, online program from the IRS that will calculate my taxes.

Zorn — First, apologies to frequent contributor Rick W. for introducing a typo in his letter last week during the editing process. I trim and reword some of the letters/comments and every once in a while I botch things up in haste.

Second, as long as using an IRS version of TurboTax or similar is optional, I don’t see the problem. If you don’t trust it, you won’t have to use it! You can pay a private company for the template. And then you can run the same information through the IRS program to see if there’s a difference — watchdog groups all over will be running tests on the IRS program and howling when it makes mistakes, which will put a lot of pressure on the agency to do it right. I don’t think the comparison to property-tax assessment is on point. The IRS will not be estimating your income, but working from submitted figures.

David L. — Regarding your support for a free tax-filing system run by the IRS: Decades ago Steve Forbes came forth with a proposal for a universal flat tax that would have very minimal deductions, say for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Another alternative to our current system would be a value-added tax such as currently used in some European countries where people pay their taxes in the process of their purchasing. Polls have consistently shown that either of these approaches are viewed positively by a majority of US citizens, yet the bipartisan powers that be and their vested interests are never going to let them see the light of day.

Zorn — See “Americans' Long-Standing Interest in Taxing the Rich” from Gallup to see how it all depends on what questions you ask if you truly want to gauge public opinion on flat taxes and placing a heavier burden on the rich (which progressive taxes do). Value-added taxes are, like sales taxes, vehicle and other licensing fees and most fines, regressive. They exact more pain, proportionally, on lower income people than upper income people.

There is no reason a simplified tax code couldn't retain multiple tax brackets, and there is no reason that a complicated tax code couldn't have a single tax bracket. The reason advocates like to wed the concepts, is that flatness itself has a strong, commonsensical, moral appeal--even to those who might pay more under it.

Federal income taxes have been "progressive"--taking a larger share from bigger incomes--since their inception, and they remain progressive virtually all around the world.

Taxing the rich in greater measure demands a broader definition of fairness. High-wage earners should pay proportionally more for government because they benefit proportionally more from the structure that government maintains.

And not just because they are more likely to use the Coast Guard when their yachts founder, vacation at Yellowstone or get a substantial bailout when their S&L folds, but because much of government is devoted to the immediate service of their interests.

The courts, the military, protective and regulatory agencies, academia and other institutions aid in the acquisition, maintenance and safe enjoyment of wealth, the argument goes. Government enforces contracts, sets ownership and safety standards, conducts research, and helps educate employees in ways that end up aiding business owners most of all.

On a more pragmatic level, we need a certain amount of money to run government and we should split this burden in ways that minimize discomfort without dampening aspirations. The rich should pay disproportionally more because the loss of each dollar hurts them disproportionately less.

There is an amoral, coldly political aspect to this approach and its reliance on the slippery concept of pain, but even the starkest flat-tax proposals tend to embrace it toward the bottom of the wage scale, where earners pay no income tax at all.

Joanie W. — See “Illinois’s Flat Income Tax Amounts to a Tax Subsidy for the Wealthiest Illinoisans that Compounds Income and Wealth Inequalities” from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. “Currently Illinoisans in the bottom 20 percent of income—less than $21,800 in income—pay 14.4 percent of their incomes in combined state and local taxes, while the top 1 percent—$537,400 and higher in income—pay only 7.4 percent.”

Jake H. — Switching to a flat tax would increase taxes for most Americans least able to afford it while decreasing taxes on the wealthy far more able to afford it. That strikes me as perverse, and it certainly wouldn't get voter approval. (And, if one day we decided to actually tax the ultra-wealthy -- outlawing such schemes as buy-borrow-die that allow them to live on untaxed loan proceeds backed by spectacular wealth at low interest -- a progressive tax would finally result in taxing the greatest income at the highest rates.)

I'm left cold by the argument that the very wealthy have an equal moral claim on all their dollars, from the first to the one gazillionth. I don't think anybody has a strong moral claim on vast riches, no matter how obtained. I'm with Shelley on this one: "No man has a right to monopolize more than he can enjoy; what the rich give to the poor, whilst millions are starving, is not a perfect favour, but an imperfect right."

I certainly favor rewarding hard work and rare talent and great genius and useful accomplishments, along with all the Ben Franklin-ish thrifty virtues, and I don't even say, as some do, "outlaw billionaires" or, worse, "eat the rich." But a progressive tax maintains good incentives. Indeed, the genius of it is that, because only income beyond the given thresholds is taxed at the higher rate, it's always in one's interest, no matter how high the next bracket (so long as it's not 100%), to earn more.

As a moral matter, a flat tax can only be sustained on a radical principle, at odds with reality and common sense, that the wealthy always and everywhere deserve all their wealth equally merely for having acquired it legally, whether through wholesome means, gift, or grift, and never mind the social consequences. The first progressive tax was President Abraham Lincoln's and we can thank President Woodrow Wilson for instituting our now hundred-year-old progressive tax. In that time, America has become the richest, most dynamic economy in the world, so I think we can afford a little Robin-Hooding in the name of a slightly more just distribution of our rich society's riches.

Jim. S. —You make a good point about how, in pro baseball, even terrible teams win at least one-quarter of the time. This suggests to me that baseball games are too short for the better team to always win. If games were longer — more innings, not more advertisements — I suspect good teams would win more often and bad teams would lose more often. I’m not promoting this idea, just offering an explanation.

Zorn — Is there a sabermetrician in the house? If we looked at who was ahead in the sixth inning of, say, 10,000 baseball games in which one team was ahead and compared each game to the final score and then looked at the comparative records of the teams playing, we could see if the better team had any advantage given the extra three innings.

Of course one problem with this kind of analysis is that managers are not managing for six-inning games so aren’t using their closers, best pinch-hitters and so forth.

This does bring to mind a contrary idea I have which is that NBA games should all be half-length doubleheaders. The first three quarters of most NBA games seems like a lot of ground-pawing to me given how often teams come from behind. Fans could get two exciting finishes in one evening if they’re lucky.

Rick W. — Regarding Streetsblog editor John Greenfield's approving comments on lowering the speed limits for cars on Chicago streets: I will gladly drive slower if bicyclists start obeying traffic laws. He certainly has a lot of very expensive suggestions for slowing down cars and retrofitting streets made for cars to bike lanes. But the best way to pay for all these improvements would be for the police actually to enforce the traffic laws bike riders, by law, are supposed to obey. The revenue generated by this new batch of well-deserved fines would surely pay for all the concrete traffic converters, raised crosswalks, and "road diets" John desires. Let's play fair. If you want or demand to share the road, you need to follow the rules of the road.

Zorn — The fact that I’ve never seen a cyclist obey automotive rules of the road and that the vast majority of bike/car collisions I’m aware of seem to be the fault of the drivers not the bicyclists suggests to me that the rules ought to be somewhat different for bicycles. The stop sign, for instance, should read as “yield” for bikers — most cars don’t come to a full stop at a stop sign when there is no other traffic around; no bicyclists do. Red lights for cars should read as yellow for bicycles.

Steve T. — To the noble bicycle enthusiasts who cheer every effort to reduce our reliance on the automobile, I ask that you consider the impact of these efforts on the disabled, and then consider how many people you know who are incapable of jumping on a bike to navigate their neighborhoods. As the father of a recently disabled son, I now thank God for our car-centric cities and suburbs — they allow him the opportunity to access and enjoy most of the places that draw us to large metro areas in the first place.

Jim G. — Why do so many of my journalist friends still follow the app formerly known as Twitter?

Zorn — Because it remains the best place to follow breaking news events and see what other publications and writers are sharing. And because, for all its flaws, it still has greater functionality than Threads or any of the other contenders/pretenders.

Dan P. — I see a big opportunity here for you to rename the Picayune Sentinel as Z.

Only a fool would take an internationally recognized brand and change it to a letter of the alphabet that can’t be copyrighted.

SLM — Are you going to weigh on the “Barbie” movie? I really enjoyed the film.

Zorn — For the first time in more than three years, Johanna and I went to a Hollywood movie in an actual theater, in part to catch this cultural wave. We’re glad we did. We found it funny, provocative and touching. The monologue that the character Gloria delivers to Barbie stands out as something that will provoke many useful conversations (though I recoil at how she uses “literally” in the first sentence):

It is literally impossible to be a woman . You are so beautiful, and so smart, and it kills me that you don’t think you’re good enough. Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we’re always doing it wrong.

You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that’s crass. You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean. You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You’re supposed to love being a mother, but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining.

You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you’re supposed to be a part of the sisterhood. But always stand out and always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that but also always be grateful. You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It’s too hard! It’s too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.

I’m just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing women, then I don’t even know.

Peter Z. — It is my second year at college and a new guy comes on my floor as a transfer. His room is next to mine. We get to be friends and as time goes on we come to the time fraternities start recruiting folks. I am a scholarship ROTC student with no desire to join any fraternity. I ask him if he’s interested in joining a frat.

He freaks out a bit and then relates this story: In his freshman year he really wanted to join a frat. Went to the parties and then found one he really liked and pledged.

Come hell week he found himself in a line of other pledges naked and bent over in a compromising position. Suddenly he felt peanut butter being applied to his butt and genitals. At that moment he realized he could not debase himself any further. He raised up, ran out of the frat house naked, across the campus (snow on the ground) and back to his dorm. After several showers he decided to transfer and start a new life.

I asked him what he expected was going to happen after the peanut butter. He said, “I try not to think about it.”

He smiled and said my self respect overcame my desire to be a frat guy. Once you lose your self respect it is really hard to get it back. And I realized that I was doing this to myself and that I could stop. I have never regretted my decision.

Seems like the NU football players all came to similar crossroads…but made a different decision.

Zorn — Just a guess, but I’ll bet a hungry dog was going to be part of that hazing ritual as described. Not pledging a frat is one thing. Giving up your identity as a football player and possibly your scholarship is another. I’m guessing a lot of the men on those teams had qualms but went along either as victims or victimizers in order to belong to a very meaningful part of their college experience.

Marty G. — Please stop comparing military training to hazing. Exercising, running, going through group training events and enduring them together hopefully teaches recruits the value of teamwork and cohesion from the first day. In my experience of basic training at Fort Polk in 1971 there was no getting naked and rubbing on each other or spreading peanut butter on people's genitals.

PZ. — I was drafted and so the boot camp experience was not voluntary. Upon entering training I was informed I was a Civilian Under Naval Training which was quickly reduced to the first letters of each word.

And while we did group exercises to teach us good order and discipline - we had some brutal exercises. We sometimes went on long marches and then dug fox holes. We were exhausted but sometimes the instructors dropped simulated mines in our fox holes with the result that several folks would catch fire and require medical treatment. I was lucky. I did not catch fire but I did manage to tackle a guy who panicked and was running on fire rather than dropping and rolling.

And yes we ran in formation to breakfast and sometimes to dinner. Certainly makes sense as a training exercise. But to sometimes “punish” us we got into ranks, then we put one hand on the guy in front of us and one hand on the guy next to us. We were basically a weird group chorus line. We began to run which required everyone to stay in step. As the cadence increased and the miles went by people got out of step resulting in getting stepped on (very painful). We did this until pretty much everyone got stepped on.

Group physical training was expected, this kind of stuff mentioned above I considered crap. And yes there was no sexual hazing, but hazing takes many forms.

Marc M. — You criticize the effort in Ohio to raise the voting threshold to 60% from 50% to amend the state constitution. But in Illinois it’s nearly impossible to get an amendment on the ballot and the Democratic legislature derails anything desired by citizens, like independent redistricting or changing the pension clause, but push through their faves, like graduated tax rates.

Zorn — Yeah, I have nothing in principle against a 60% threshold to amend a constitution, state or federal. The bar should be higher than 50% of the voters. But the transparent hypocrisy of the Republican attempt to hastily implement this threshold to block an effort to enshrine abortion rights is galling.

I’ve long been suspicious of much of “direct democracy” when it comes to ballot initiatives, as they can subject government to whims and momentary passions of an electorate swayed by big-money campaigns. But as the years have gone on I’ve become so contemptuous of spineless elected officials in the thrall of the donor class and base voters that I’m starting to rethink all that.

Aviva P. — Regarding the elimination of cash bail in Illinois: Some people don't seem to understand what has been changed. Suspects can still be held in pre-trial detention if they are deemed to pose a danger to society - same as with cash bail. They can still be held if they are deemed a flight risk - same as with cash bail. The only thing that changed is the inequity of a system in which someone who is NOT deemed to be a danger to society and is NOT deemed to be a flight risk, is still held in pre-trial detention for months or even years because they are poor.

Under the cash bail system, two people accused of the exact same crime, with the same criminal background (or lack thereof) could appear before the same judge and be given the same amount of bail and the one with money to pay would be released pending trial and the one without money would stay in jail. That makes no sense from a public safety point. And since years of studies in various jurisdictions demonstrate that people released without posting bail are just as likely to show up for their trial as those who post bail, cash bail makes no sense from the point of having the defendant show up in court.

And it makes even less sense when considering that a low-level functionary in a street gang or drug-dealing enterprise could have their bail set at $10,000 and not be able to pay while the gang leader or drug kingpin would be able to pay bail of $100,000 or $1,000,000 and walk free to continue running their illegal organization until their trial.

The cash bail system is unjust, inequitable, and ineffective in increasing public safety or compliance with court orders.

Monica M. — You say your streaming “to-watch” list is intimidatingly long so you’re not worried about the lack of content coming out of Hollywood during the strike by actors and writers. I stumbled on a super simple way to cut that to a fraction with a little experiment. For one month, watch only movies or shows that have even a roughly equal balance of women to men as main characters. 50/50 is asking too much so I'll give you a 60/40 split. I'll bet you a dinner that within weeks you'll find yourself away from the screen with more time for golf.

I've done an embarrassing amount of streaming during the pandemic, and once I started noticing the unequal gender balance I can't unsee how stark it is. Old shows I loved re-watching — “Scrubs,” “Parks & Recreation,” “Galavant,” “West Wing” — don't make the cut. Only a couple of the Marvel movies or DC Comics ones make it; and none in the Star Wars series. Much as I love it, “The Bear” doesn't make it. “Ted Lasso,” nope. Thankfully, “Abbott Elementary” does, which is awesome. It really starts to be odd when you notice it. Women are half the population (technically 51%) but Hollywood just cannot get itself there. Downright weird.

Zorn — I don’t want more time for golf, I want more time for fiddlin’! And I don’t want to deprive myself of excellent entertainments — “The Bear” for instance — based on some arbitrary measurements of, say, screen time or the number of characters. Sydney, Sugar and Tina are very strong female characters in “The Bear,” and if you refuse to watch it even still, you’re missing out on some of the best TV ever made.

I’m guessing “The Wire,” which we just, finally, finished watching, and “The Sopranos,” ditto earlier this year, are too phallocentric to make the cut as well, and, again, it would be a shame to miss out on those.

I’ve had a number of conversations with people about my view that, while I’m all with the actors and writers and their demands, I’m a bit relieved that the pace of new, must-watch shows coming out will slacken and give me time to catch up. But how popular is that view?

Ya gotta see these tweets!

Here are some funny visual images I've come across recently on social media. Enjoy, then evaluate:

Vote for your favorite. I will disqualify any tweets I later find out used digitally altered photos to make the joke. I’ll share the winner in an upcoming edition..

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

.