I can remember, back in the ‘60s, that an evening's stay in the Grant Park garage cost about $2.25 flat rate. You could pre-pay it right after you parked, so you didn’t have to stand in line to pay after the concert. Ah, memories of times gone by.
The parking apps, like ParkWhiz and SpotHero, are a godsend and prevent paying the ridiculous posted rates. At the same time, the best you can do in the Loop from 7AM to 7PM on a weekday, even on the apps, looks to be about $20. Might some monthly rates cut down on that?
The tweet about heating the mansion is so true. I’ll never forget walking out of the indoor amusement park/shopping mall called Old Chicago, my fifth-grade mind completely blown away by the experience, until my best friend’s dad said, “Can’t imagine the overhead it takes to keep that place running like that.” I thought, “We just rode rollercoasters in late November and that’s your first thought? What’s wrong with adults?” Turns out he was right, though. Place was bulldozed within 10 years. Think it’s an IKEA now.
It’s too bad Old Chicago couldn’t last, I thought it was charming the one time that we visited it in 1977.
A business model like that is not automatically unsustainable, thought. There’s a huge indoor mall in Edmonton, Alberta that has an indoor amusement park replete with a highly rated roller coaster that’s been open for decades.
Update: The Mindbender roller coaster at West Edmonton Mall ceased operation and was dismantled earlier this year after 37 years of thrills, chills, and occasional fatalities. Remnants of it will live on as part of a new roller coaster opening next summer at Indiana Beach.
“I’m not going to apologize for doing right by the people of Chicago. I said I was going to bring Chicago home. I said I was going to invest in the unhoused,” Johnson said"... Shades of the Daley era! So, if Johnson thinks it is the right thing, the method of getting there is irrelevant. Eric mentioned that the two bills did not need the alderman's support. Suppose they had been objectionable. Then what would the staffer's deal look like? Always remember the rule in Illinois politics- "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".
Please forgive me for commenting twice and taking up space. Don't Trump's future plans scare people, even his supporters? They bleat about weaponization of the Justice Department by Biden. How about using government machinery to get back at opponents not because they have broken any rules or laws but merely because they oppose Trump? What's next? We return to the King George III era when it was illegal to criticize the king and one could go to jail- one of the drivers for the Bill of Rights in the first place? It also sounds fairly Hitleristic.
Yet, current National polling shows that Trump (42%) has a higher approval rating than Biden (37%), and Trump is leading Biden in a head-to-head matchup for president by 2%-6% in the overwhelming majority of polls.
So despite the fact that Trump is under multiple criminal indictments and is presently sitting in trial, and that he continues his imbecilic comments and tweets and borish behavior, the majority of American people would still prefer him over Biden for president next year. Does this not cause you to take a step back and considerate how deeply unpopular Biden and Democrat policies are? If not, then I challenge you to explain why the numbers are where they are today.
David, exactly. Biden has had 3 years to convince the American public that he is the better choice, so what exactly is going wrong here. Because something certainly is.
Partly because there are so many people like you, David, would would gladly trade in our democracy if it is only meant cracking down on undocumented immigrants. Maybe "gladly" overstates it. You've been clear that you're in favor of Haley, who is at least a knife-and-fork whackjob, and you don't like a lot about Trump. But anyone who pulls the lever for Trump is, in the end, enabling a dangerous traitorr and compulsive liar Say what you will about Biden, he's neither of those things. Trump's average approval rating was 41, Bidens average is 44 (Gallup)
Eric - Thanks for your reply and thoughts. I could certainly reply with similarly pejorative comments about Biden personally and his policies and how they represent a distinct threat to our country and how people who pull the lever for him enable that, but I'm happy to leave it that we have a vast difference of opinion on this.
But most importantly, national polls presently reflect that a majority of Americans share my view of which would be the preferred presidential candidate between Trump and Biden. BTW, here's a link to 538 which is a composite of many national polls, and it has Biden at just under 39% approval rating. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
I confess that I'm a bit troubled that you find it necessary to attach the adjective "whackjob" to Nikki Haley as she is a mainstream GOP conservative. She won widespread approval for her excellent governance in South Carolina, where she led the fight for a comprehensive ethics Reform Bill which greatly increased transparency and accountability in South Carolina government, as well as focusing on job creation and economic development which created a very improved state economic environment. In her re-election rematch against a popular and well-known Democrat, South Carolina voters rewarded her with a 15-point margin of victory.
Perhaps it is your default to attach a demeaning adjective to anyone in the GOP not named Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger, but the silly name calling on both sides does not lend itself to a healthy and productive debate of issues and policies.
I’d be happy to consider Nikki Haley and her reasonable, mainstream conservative policies if the Republicans make her the nominee and acknowledge that Trump, especially after Jan. 6, cannot be allowed anywhere near the Presidency again. Do we have a deal?
EZ - so Haley is a 'knife-&-fork' whackjob ... because? because her politics are different from yours? you disagree with her policy positions, and that makes her a 'whackjob'? i disagree with some of her policy positions [fewer than you do, i reckon], yet i hardly thinks she's a whackjob. she's got a boatload of credentials for the presidency, not the least of which that she's not the monomaniacal, narcissistic, flat-out-dangerous overwhelming leader in the polls for the Repub presidential nomination.
you can do better in criticizing those with whom you disagree on policy.
Sorry David- not buying. Yes, you are correct that Biden has bad numbers. So what! Does that force me into supporting Trump? Can't both parties do any better? To answer your question, the situation does not necessarily signify approval of Trump. That merely makes him an alternative to Biden. That's not good enough for me. Have you read about his plans for political retribution if he is elected? The man is scary! I'd rather vote for Biden again no matter what your Trump loyalists think. That's why this is America, David. I don't need to agree with them. Or are you one of those pushing for a fascist dictatorship?
Hi Laurence - Thanks for your thoughts. I've been saying for some time that a Trump Biden rematch is forcing all of us to choose between two bad alternatives. And as a constitutional conservative I am totally against any type of fascism. Unfortunately, we are seeing signs of it on clear display on the streets and college campuses of our country today when there is attempt to shut down speakers that people do not agree with, and especially, the visceral anti-semitism in which people are openly advocating for the destruction of state of Israel and making hateful threats against Jews overall.
I have strongly condemned the January 6th rally and Trump's attempts not to certify the election results from the beginning and continue to do so today. However, I see the danger of fascism coming much more clearly from the left than the right.
I agreed with everything you said until your final statement. Yes there are some on the left tnrying to silence some on the right, especially on college campuses. But most of us don't live on college campuses and don't need to live with the consequences. What is happening in Congress, state legislatures, town meetings, and school boards is far more dangerous to the general population and an assault on democracy. College students will need to eventually leave campus and move out to the real world.
What are these Biden and Democratic “policies” that you claim are deeply unpopular? Inflation has been reduced from 9.1% in June of 2022 to 3.2% today. GDP growth last quarter, at an annual rate, was 4.9%, whereas GDP growth averaged 0.95% during Trump’s term of office. Unemployment is low at 3.9%. Bidenomics is working. The Immigration and Naturalization Act hasn’t been amended since 2004, and the Biden administration is enforcing the Act. I get it that Biden has an overall welcoming attitude to all Americans, including gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans, Muslim Americans, independent women, and people of color, the groups MAGA likes to marginalize. Maybe that attitude is the Biden and Democratic policy you are referring to? If not what is or are the Biden or Democratic policy or policies which you claim are unpopular?
Hi Joanie - Thank you for your reply. I do not care to get into debate about policies over which we certainly have vast differences, but I simply refer you to National polling which shows that President Biden is viewed heavily unfavorable on immigration, the economy and crime.
Cultural issues come strongly into play also. A vast majority of Americans do not want biological males competing in women's sports, and a solid majority of Americans does not want biological males in women's locker rooms or bathrooms. Again, no need to debate our personal differences on these issues, but I cite them as examples why Biden has such low approval ratings and that he is trailing Trump and most national polls.
There’s a difference between people viewing Biden unfavorably with respect to immigration, the economy, and crime, and specific “policies” related to those subjects. And you haven’t, I would suggest, been able to identify any Biden or Democratic “policies” relating to those subjects which are unpopular. I get it that you refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of transgender identities, and apparently love to call transgender women “biological males” (I guess whether they have breasts and a vagina or not), but you are in the minority there, I am happy to say. See the article from The Hill below. I’ve seen a lot of comments from you in which you seem to seek to justify your bigoted views relating to immigrants and transgender people by saying that a majority of Americans agree with you. But that’s just not the case. A majority of Americans support our laws granting asylum for people who qualify (that’s why they are laws--they were supported by a majority of our legislators), and a majority of Americans approve of laws prohibiting discrimination against transgender people. You and the MAGAs are the intellectual descendants of the Know Nothing party of the mid 1800s. There has always been an anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant, anti-minority group streak in our American culture, and there probably always will be. But we will prevail against you.
Joanie - I regret that you felt the need to make a personal attack based upon differing views. It would appear that you are the intolerant person here.
Typical bully. What did Edward G. Robinson say in Little Caesar? “You can dish it out, but you can’t take it!” You can bully transgender women on social media by refusing to recognize our identity and calling us “biological males,” but then you get butt hurt when you are criticized for your bigoted and unkind views. By the way, you still haven’t identified a specific Biden or Democratic policy that is related to immigration, the economy, or crime which is unpopular. Because you cannot.
I'm reminded how SPY Magazine used Trump--way back in the 90s!--as the symbol of all that was wrong with the world, referring to him as "short-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump." Great quote, but it would be much quicker to just correctly call him a sociopath.
Can we ask Phil Vettel to explain to folks that no, Jesus is NOT the reason for the season??? Few things drive me more crazy this time of year than that nonsense. Regardless of your views on religion and Christianity, we should all objectively realize that virtually nothing about our celebrations of "the season" has anything to do with Jesus. Decorating trees, giving gifts, sharing food and drink, the whole winter wonderland thing, the yule logs and candy canes and all the rest...almost all of it can be traced to winter solstice celebrations well before Jesus came around.
I've got your "reason for the season" right here, pal.
Just outside the window, to be exact: sunlight.
No secret there. Civilizations all over the northern hemisphere have been making merry toward the end of December for thousands of years, with most of the celebrations linked somehow to the "return" of the sun--the longer periods of daylight that begin on the winter solstice, Dec. 21.
Which is why the triumphant, even defiant, slogan, "Jesus is the reason for the season"--seen this time of year on buttons, T-shirts and bumper stickers and heard from those who grouse that secular society is at war with Christmas--is so irritating.
A cynic with more energy than I have ought to create "Marduk is the reason for the season" banners in honor of the beloved Zagmuk story.
Some 4,000 years ago in ancient Mesopotamia, Marduk was the patron deity of the city of Babylon. Marduk was said to have conquered the monster of chaos, Tiamat, and thus paved the way for creation. But every year, alas, the monster fought back, the fields went barren, the days got shorter and life itself hung in the balance.
The 12-day late-December Zagmuk throwdown, then, was replete with rituals believed to help Marduk win his annual battle with Tiamat, and then to celebrate the return of light.
Ancient Romans celebrated Saturnalia during roughly the same calendar window, while the Persians observed the festival of Sacaea. History does not record whether peevish Mesopotamians, perceiving a dilution of their seasonal tradition, began a campaign to "put Marduk back into Zagmuk."
But even by then, the season belonged to many cultures and was viewed as a magical, mysterious and portentous time.
Quite a coincidence that Jesus Christ was born at a time when folks all over were already partying, eh?
Well, probably not. Scholars don't even agree on the year Jesus was born, much less the month or day. Given the reported presence of shepherds watching their flocks by night, the best guess is sometime in the late spring or early fall. If you have lots of time on your hands, Google the phrase "When was Jesus born?" and start poking around the 13,000 Web sites where exegetes and skeptics alike parse the text and history books for answers.
The question didn't seem to concern early Christians all that much. It wasn't until 350 A.D. that Pope Julius I of Rome fixed the date for the Feast of the Nativity on Dec. 25.
It looked like a cynical choice designed to co-opt the wanton hoo-haw already raging at that time of year, and not an educated estimate.
Early American Puritans were among the Christians who felt the choice amounted to unseemly piggy-backing: "It was in compliance with the pagan Saturnalia that Christmas Holy Days were first invented," sniffed Puritan pastor and Harvard president Increase Mather in 1687, explaining why those in his denomination scorned the observance.
But, hey. Whatever the source of his calculations, Pope Julius got it right. Christmas is not the holiest day on the Christian calendar--that would be Easter--but it's become by far the biggest.
The reason? Sunlight.
Sunlight is also, coincidentally, said to be the best disinfectant--here a disinfectant to kill the toxic notion that any one faith "owns" this season of renewal, hope, joy, generosity and the victory over darkness.
"Season's greetings" and "happy holidays" take nothing from the Christians who also chose this time of year to celebrate the birth of their divine source of renewal, hope, joy, generosity and victory. He is their reason for the season, not the reason.
These generic expressions are not banalities that trivialize the festivities.
They are invitations to all to join in. Invitations to find and revel in your own reasons to be glad for the trappings and trimmings of this time of year and the promise that lies ahead.
And also resisting the Common Era and Before the Common Era (CE and BCE)? :)
I would say repurposed rather than stole but I agree. It is only a 'season' and a 'holiday' because of Christmas and the idea of Christian goodwill, at least for the last few hundred years. It has certainly been secularized and commercialized and there are many people willing to invent their own reasons for seasonal celebration. But it seems preposterous to claim that a large segment of the population is celebrating archaic pagan gods or rites (or is even aware of them). Even more preposterous that people are celebrating the winter solstice. I doubt most people even notice and I can't think of anyone around here that thinks winter is ending in late December. The solstice idea also doesn't work for all of the Southern Hemisphere countries that are celebrating the season.
That’s fine for you. Just don’t get upset when I prefer happy holidays. It is a wonderful time of year for everyone, not just Christians. By the way, stealing is a sin. I hope those Christians who stole Christmas ask forgiveness.
The reason the FPOTUS (F for former, please) is a clear and present danger is that nearly half the population of the United States supports him. Maybe it’s time for less discussion about how venal he is and more discussion about how to win back the hearts of his “ovine followers.”
Rick - If you're familiar with Dan Froomkin (once of WaPo), Mark Jacob (formerly an Editor at the Tribune) and several other media writers, they place a great deal of the blame on the mainstream media for "both-sidesing" the positions of the policies of the two parties over the past 10 years when one side is clearly far further out on the extreme edge of its wing than the other. By treating both parties (and their leaders) similarly, it normalizes the whack-a-doodle nature and behavior of the one - when such behaviors should have been called out as "out there" long ago, and with unceasing repetition. Given what appears to be current Trump vs Biden polling data, it may be too late.
Yes, but I don’t see a lot of the media treating, say, the extreme MAGA nut jobs as equivalent to, say, the AOC crowd, or even the FPOTUS equivalently to Biden. In any case, the issue is how to return the Republican base to something resembling sanity. I think Trump is a symptom, not a prime mover.
I think it's less about Trump and more about the nationalist, white supremecy movement he supports, whose followers make up most of the number of his loyal supporters. That number never changes, it's always around 40%. You are not going to win back any of these voters, as many Republicans, whom have tried and failed, have realized.
What's left of the Republican party is terrified of Trump supporters and dare not cross their dear leader. Instead they seek to suppress the vote while challenging elections they've lost. I don't see how this ends as long as Trump is the de facto leader of the party.
I think you make the argument in your first paragraph that it's not the leader, it's the movement. At this point, If Trump went away, there'd be someone else. Somehow we managed to de-Nazi Germany and de-Empire Japan. We ought to be able to de-Fascist ourselves.
i agree and disagree. i am reminded of what someone said to me during FPOTUS' [i like that identifier] 'reign' - not all trump supporters are racist; but all racists are trump supporters.
i do agree that what's left of the Repub party are terrified of trump supporters. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to verify, with good data, that '... the nationalist, white supremacy movement he supports, whose followers make up most of the number of his loyal supporters.'
BTW, i detest FPOTUS and hope he's wearing an orange jumpsuit come election day '24.
I was sufficiently suspicious of the Illinois Policy Institute poll that I went all the way back to the individual questions, which I was sure would be loaded in a typical "push poll" kind of way. I was wrong. They were fine. But I have some doubts about the sample. 55% of the respondents were homeowners, which is pretty significantly above the actual figure for the city. Their respondents also included only 56% who identify as Democrats.
On the singing together issue, by all means go find the Ada Limon poem "Hell or High Water" in the current issue of the New Yorker. "Not churchgoers or joiners, still my people sang."
1. "...remove... his district tent encampments of those experiencing homelessness because, he said, they created trouble spots for illegal drugs and violent crime." How are they able to effectively have criminal activity with all those homeless people in the way. 2. Good old days... Daley (pick one) would never have been so obvious in horse trading. Another comparison... You didn't always follow Daley's train of thought, but at least he didn't seem lost and confused. #BringChicagoHome. 3. RESULTS: More Police (Duh); Oppose Base Camps (vs what other options or opposed in their neighborhoods?); Oppose "Sanctuary" city status (But do they know what that term means?); Invest Kids (It is positively phrased - so who would say no?) Boot red light tix (55% seems low) 4. What ties does the reparation commission have to Chicago? 5. Bad year for Big Ten coaches 6. Quotables (Trump) Continued "Nastiness of Trump" everywhere - yet he still leads in Rep in Prez bid; Biden struggling polls. There is a long way to go - but little shiver of potential mess ahead.
I agree that the main cost of going to office is time loss, but there are additional costs not mentioned. As DINKWADs, we've paid a hefty sum for dog walkers over the years. Same goes for those who need child care.
Good enough point about hand wringing and private donations for Invest in Kids rather than using our money, but the same could be said about lots of government spending. A commission on reparations, or reparations themselves, for example.
Re the commute and working from home: "The main cost, to my mind, is time. I live in the city, and my commute was always roughly an hour each way whether I drove or took the train."
But is that time necessarily a cost? People love to complain about the commute. I love it! I happen to live pretty far from the school where I ended up getting my current teaching gig (which I love). It's 40 minutes there, about an hour back in the car. I've often thought of moving closer. I would end up far away from family and local friends, and I really like where I live.
But I'd also miss the commute. It's my podcast time. It's my me time. It's my time to get ready for the work day, and my time to wind down from it. Am I the only one who actually looks forward to my commute, the only one for whom the prospect of driving well-trod ground alone, coffee mug in the cupholder, Mincing Rascals (or one of about ten others on rotation) on the radio, no other screens or other demands on my time or attention, is so enticing that it actually encourages rolling out of bed?
I also like the psychological separation. I have my work life and my home life, and they're different domains. It makes sense. I never liked working at home when I did. I frequently felt I had to get out of the house, take a walk, clear my head. I missed tremendously socializing with my work buddies.
I get the convenience of working from home. Then again, I'm not sure I really do, when I think about what I had to give up in the bargain.
Re that anti-Trump Lincoln Project ad that casts Trump is a would-be Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, Chavez, Putin, Duterte, and other such loathsome creatures, love it!
And yet, putting on my objective, sober-minded lawyer hat and historian hat, I have a lot of trouble really believing that "it could happen here."
Don't get me wrong. I think Trump would absolutely be like any of those if he could. I don't think he would order a Holocaust! But he would surely be a ruinous authoritarian cult-of-personality dictator if he could.
But he can't! I'm continually surprised by my liberal and progressive friends' lack of belief in our constitutional system, a system that is the oldest in the world, a system that has withstood greater deficits of virtue, a system that withstood Jacksonian bids against the primacy of the law, a system that withstood even a civil war, a system that successfully constrained Trump's authoritarian instincts last time and will again.
My belief in that system is not an irrational faith. It is one based on evidence. Trump was president for four years. Did his tenure fundamentally change any aspect of our democratic republic, our checks and balances, the basic rules that rigorously insist on fragmenting power, the basic rules that comprise our system? Did he shred the Constitution? No, nowhere close, not within a million miles. Did he want to? Does he want to? Sure. But he won't be able to come close.
Yes, his justices overturned Roe v. Wade, just as justices appointed by a Romney would have done. (Trump's appointees have proved actually pretty moderate, more so than the most right-wing justices, Alito and Thomas, appointed by more normal presidents.) Much more important for purposes of this discussion, none of his justices or judges went along with his election denial. Not even close, not by a million miles. And, moreover, nobody, not even Trump or his cronies, ever envisioned defying the courts. Eastman envisioned a sort of legal coup, but his dreams were pathetic. He admitted that the bid would ultimately lose, 9-0, and he never seriously advocated somehow taking to the streets to undo that result. I can't see it. Can anyone really see it?
Dictators past found footing in fundamentally unstable political systems rocked by economic turmoil. I suggest that these were necessary preconditions for their rise to power. Our conditions are nothing like any of those. We're in a sour mood, and polls reflect irritation. They don't portend revolution.
One last point, maybe a point of solace. Those other autocrats were maniacal and had tremendous drive characterized by true belief in nutso ideology. The ad suggests that many of those dictators were likewise seen as jackasses to start with. In those cases, the assessment was wrong. I suggest that that assessment isn't wrong when it comes to Trump. He really is a shallow fool. He has no ideology and is incredibly lazy.
I disagree. It certainly could happen here. The only thing that stopped it last time were a few good people who believed that there was something bigger and more important than themselves: Brad Raffensberger, Rusty Bowers, General Milley, Jeffrey Rosen, Richard Donoghue, Gregory Jacob, and several others. There were others, like John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Dan Scavino, and others who would have assisted Trump in becoming a dictator. Next time Trump has vowed to appoint only loyal yes men, like Eastland. The courts won’t save us. Remember the quotation attributed to President Jackson in regard to Worcester v. Georgia: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"? I have no doubt that Trump will create concentration camps--see the article from the Washington Post below. I already am looking into the possibilities of leaving the United States, if necessary, because I am in a group that Trump vilifies in every one of his rallies, a transgender person. Bertolt Brecht left Germany in 1933.
EZ - we've disagreed on charter schools and the Invest in Kids program. but, now that the IL legislature has failed to renew the program, you're right: those who support the concept need to open their wallets and fund the charter schools that educate those kids - and that's what i'm going to do. [note - i've been doing that for a while; now i will up the ante]
"..."that $8 for parking is quite optimistic for downtown Chicago workers."
Yeah, I came here to say that but you beat me to I'm your original post. Eight bucks for parking downtown? 🙄
I haven't lived in IL since 2015 but it was way more than that back then. WAY more.
I can remember, back in the ‘60s, that an evening's stay in the Grant Park garage cost about $2.25 flat rate. You could pre-pay it right after you parked, so you didn’t have to stand in line to pay after the concert. Ah, memories of times gone by.
The parking apps, like ParkWhiz and SpotHero, are a godsend and prevent paying the ridiculous posted rates. At the same time, the best you can do in the Loop from 7AM to 7PM on a weekday, even on the apps, looks to be about $20. Might some monthly rates cut down on that?
The tweet about heating the mansion is so true. I’ll never forget walking out of the indoor amusement park/shopping mall called Old Chicago, my fifth-grade mind completely blown away by the experience, until my best friend’s dad said, “Can’t imagine the overhead it takes to keep that place running like that.” I thought, “We just rode rollercoasters in late November and that’s your first thought? What’s wrong with adults?” Turns out he was right, though. Place was bulldozed within 10 years. Think it’s an IKEA now.
It’s too bad Old Chicago couldn’t last, I thought it was charming the one time that we visited it in 1977.
A business model like that is not automatically unsustainable, thought. There’s a huge indoor mall in Edmonton, Alberta that has an indoor amusement park replete with a highly rated roller coaster that’s been open for decades.
The Mall of America in Minneapolis is another example of how to make the concept successful, even in these days of the dying shopping mall.
Update: The Mindbender roller coaster at West Edmonton Mall ceased operation and was dismantled earlier this year after 37 years of thrills, chills, and occasional fatalities. Remnants of it will live on as part of a new roller coaster opening next summer at Indiana Beach.
“I’m not going to apologize for doing right by the people of Chicago. I said I was going to bring Chicago home. I said I was going to invest in the unhoused,” Johnson said"... Shades of the Daley era! So, if Johnson thinks it is the right thing, the method of getting there is irrelevant. Eric mentioned that the two bills did not need the alderman's support. Suppose they had been objectionable. Then what would the staffer's deal look like? Always remember the rule in Illinois politics- "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".
Please forgive me for commenting twice and taking up space. Don't Trump's future plans scare people, even his supporters? They bleat about weaponization of the Justice Department by Biden. How about using government machinery to get back at opponents not because they have broken any rules or laws but merely because they oppose Trump? What's next? We return to the King George III era when it was illegal to criticize the king and one could go to jail- one of the drivers for the Bill of Rights in the first place? It also sounds fairly Hitleristic.
Yet, current National polling shows that Trump (42%) has a higher approval rating than Biden (37%), and Trump is leading Biden in a head-to-head matchup for president by 2%-6% in the overwhelming majority of polls.
So despite the fact that Trump is under multiple criminal indictments and is presently sitting in trial, and that he continues his imbecilic comments and tweets and borish behavior, the majority of American people would still prefer him over Biden for president next year. Does this not cause you to take a step back and considerate how deeply unpopular Biden and Democrat policies are? If not, then I challenge you to explain why the numbers are where they are today.
David, exactly. Biden has had 3 years to convince the American public that he is the better choice, so what exactly is going wrong here. Because something certainly is.
Partly because there are so many people like you, David, would would gladly trade in our democracy if it is only meant cracking down on undocumented immigrants. Maybe "gladly" overstates it. You've been clear that you're in favor of Haley, who is at least a knife-and-fork whackjob, and you don't like a lot about Trump. But anyone who pulls the lever for Trump is, in the end, enabling a dangerous traitorr and compulsive liar Say what you will about Biden, he's neither of those things. Trump's average approval rating was 41, Bidens average is 44 (Gallup)
Eric - Thanks for your reply and thoughts. I could certainly reply with similarly pejorative comments about Biden personally and his policies and how they represent a distinct threat to our country and how people who pull the lever for him enable that, but I'm happy to leave it that we have a vast difference of opinion on this.
But most importantly, national polls presently reflect that a majority of Americans share my view of which would be the preferred presidential candidate between Trump and Biden. BTW, here's a link to 538 which is a composite of many national polls, and it has Biden at just under 39% approval rating. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
I confess that I'm a bit troubled that you find it necessary to attach the adjective "whackjob" to Nikki Haley as she is a mainstream GOP conservative. She won widespread approval for her excellent governance in South Carolina, where she led the fight for a comprehensive ethics Reform Bill which greatly increased transparency and accountability in South Carolina government, as well as focusing on job creation and economic development which created a very improved state economic environment. In her re-election rematch against a popular and well-known Democrat, South Carolina voters rewarded her with a 15-point margin of victory.
Perhaps it is your default to attach a demeaning adjective to anyone in the GOP not named Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger, but the silly name calling on both sides does not lend itself to a healthy and productive debate of issues and policies.
I’d be happy to consider Nikki Haley and her reasonable, mainstream conservative policies if the Republicans make her the nominee and acknowledge that Trump, especially after Jan. 6, cannot be allowed anywhere near the Presidency again. Do we have a deal?
Steve - That is a deal 🤝 I would make in a heartbeat - just wish I had the ability to commit everyone to it!
EZ - so Haley is a 'knife-&-fork' whackjob ... because? because her politics are different from yours? you disagree with her policy positions, and that makes her a 'whackjob'? i disagree with some of her policy positions [fewer than you do, i reckon], yet i hardly thinks she's a whackjob. she's got a boatload of credentials for the presidency, not the least of which that she's not the monomaniacal, narcissistic, flat-out-dangerous overwhelming leader in the polls for the Repub presidential nomination.
you can do better in criticizing those with whom you disagree on policy.
Sorry David- not buying. Yes, you are correct that Biden has bad numbers. So what! Does that force me into supporting Trump? Can't both parties do any better? To answer your question, the situation does not necessarily signify approval of Trump. That merely makes him an alternative to Biden. That's not good enough for me. Have you read about his plans for political retribution if he is elected? The man is scary! I'd rather vote for Biden again no matter what your Trump loyalists think. That's why this is America, David. I don't need to agree with them. Or are you one of those pushing for a fascist dictatorship?
Hi Laurence - Thanks for your thoughts. I've been saying for some time that a Trump Biden rematch is forcing all of us to choose between two bad alternatives. And as a constitutional conservative I am totally against any type of fascism. Unfortunately, we are seeing signs of it on clear display on the streets and college campuses of our country today when there is attempt to shut down speakers that people do not agree with, and especially, the visceral anti-semitism in which people are openly advocating for the destruction of state of Israel and making hateful threats against Jews overall.
I have strongly condemned the January 6th rally and Trump's attempts not to certify the election results from the beginning and continue to do so today. However, I see the danger of fascism coming much more clearly from the left than the right.
I agreed with everything you said until your final statement. Yes there are some on the left tnrying to silence some on the right, especially on college campuses. But most of us don't live on college campuses and don't need to live with the consequences. What is happening in Congress, state legislatures, town meetings, and school boards is far more dangerous to the general population and an assault on democracy. College students will need to eventually leave campus and move out to the real world.
What are these Biden and Democratic “policies” that you claim are deeply unpopular? Inflation has been reduced from 9.1% in June of 2022 to 3.2% today. GDP growth last quarter, at an annual rate, was 4.9%, whereas GDP growth averaged 0.95% during Trump’s term of office. Unemployment is low at 3.9%. Bidenomics is working. The Immigration and Naturalization Act hasn’t been amended since 2004, and the Biden administration is enforcing the Act. I get it that Biden has an overall welcoming attitude to all Americans, including gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans, Muslim Americans, independent women, and people of color, the groups MAGA likes to marginalize. Maybe that attitude is the Biden and Democratic policy you are referring to? If not what is or are the Biden or Democratic policy or policies which you claim are unpopular?
Hi Joanie - Thank you for your reply. I do not care to get into debate about policies over which we certainly have vast differences, but I simply refer you to National polling which shows that President Biden is viewed heavily unfavorable on immigration, the economy and crime.
Cultural issues come strongly into play also. A vast majority of Americans do not want biological males competing in women's sports, and a solid majority of Americans does not want biological males in women's locker rooms or bathrooms. Again, no need to debate our personal differences on these issues, but I cite them as examples why Biden has such low approval ratings and that he is trailing Trump and most national polls.
There’s a difference between people viewing Biden unfavorably with respect to immigration, the economy, and crime, and specific “policies” related to those subjects. And you haven’t, I would suggest, been able to identify any Biden or Democratic “policies” relating to those subjects which are unpopular. I get it that you refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of transgender identities, and apparently love to call transgender women “biological males” (I guess whether they have breasts and a vagina or not), but you are in the minority there, I am happy to say. See the article from The Hill below. I’ve seen a lot of comments from you in which you seem to seek to justify your bigoted views relating to immigrants and transgender people by saying that a majority of Americans agree with you. But that’s just not the case. A majority of Americans support our laws granting asylum for people who qualify (that’s why they are laws--they were supported by a majority of our legislators), and a majority of Americans approve of laws prohibiting discrimination against transgender people. You and the MAGAs are the intellectual descendants of the Know Nothing party of the mid 1800s. There has always been an anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant, anti-minority group streak in our American culture, and there probably always will be. But we will prevail against you.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446373-poll-majority-support-law-allowing-transgender-people-to-use-bathrooms-that/amp/
Joanie - I regret that you felt the need to make a personal attack based upon differing views. It would appear that you are the intolerant person here.
Typical bully. What did Edward G. Robinson say in Little Caesar? “You can dish it out, but you can’t take it!” You can bully transgender women on social media by refusing to recognize our identity and calling us “biological males,” but then you get butt hurt when you are criticized for your bigoted and unkind views. By the way, you still haven’t identified a specific Biden or Democratic policy that is related to immigration, the economy, or crime which is unpopular. Because you cannot.
I'm reminded how SPY Magazine used Trump--way back in the 90s!--as the symbol of all that was wrong with the world, referring to him as "short-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump." Great quote, but it would be much quicker to just correctly call him a sociopath.
Carlos Ramirez-Rosa and Jason Lee are cut from the same cloth. How many of Mayor Johnson's other staff/allies are using similar tactics?
Can we ask Phil Vettel to explain to folks that no, Jesus is NOT the reason for the season??? Few things drive me more crazy this time of year than that nonsense. Regardless of your views on religion and Christianity, we should all objectively realize that virtually nothing about our celebrations of "the season" has anything to do with Jesus. Decorating trees, giving gifts, sharing food and drink, the whole winter wonderland thing, the yule logs and candy canes and all the rest...almost all of it can be traced to winter solstice celebrations well before Jesus came around.
Let's also not forget the great "Christmas Songs" written by many "Great Jewish Composers".
I wrote about this in 2006:
Before the Son, the sun was reason enough
By Eric Zorn
Chicago Tribune
Dec 05, 2006
I've got your "reason for the season" right here, pal.
Just outside the window, to be exact: sunlight.
No secret there. Civilizations all over the northern hemisphere have been making merry toward the end of December for thousands of years, with most of the celebrations linked somehow to the "return" of the sun--the longer periods of daylight that begin on the winter solstice, Dec. 21.
Which is why the triumphant, even defiant, slogan, "Jesus is the reason for the season"--seen this time of year on buttons, T-shirts and bumper stickers and heard from those who grouse that secular society is at war with Christmas--is so irritating.
A cynic with more energy than I have ought to create "Marduk is the reason for the season" banners in honor of the beloved Zagmuk story.
Some 4,000 years ago in ancient Mesopotamia, Marduk was the patron deity of the city of Babylon. Marduk was said to have conquered the monster of chaos, Tiamat, and thus paved the way for creation. But every year, alas, the monster fought back, the fields went barren, the days got shorter and life itself hung in the balance.
The 12-day late-December Zagmuk throwdown, then, was replete with rituals believed to help Marduk win his annual battle with Tiamat, and then to celebrate the return of light.
Ancient Romans celebrated Saturnalia during roughly the same calendar window, while the Persians observed the festival of Sacaea. History does not record whether peevish Mesopotamians, perceiving a dilution of their seasonal tradition, began a campaign to "put Marduk back into Zagmuk."
But even by then, the season belonged to many cultures and was viewed as a magical, mysterious and portentous time.
Quite a coincidence that Jesus Christ was born at a time when folks all over were already partying, eh?
Well, probably not. Scholars don't even agree on the year Jesus was born, much less the month or day. Given the reported presence of shepherds watching their flocks by night, the best guess is sometime in the late spring or early fall. If you have lots of time on your hands, Google the phrase "When was Jesus born?" and start poking around the 13,000 Web sites where exegetes and skeptics alike parse the text and history books for answers.
The question didn't seem to concern early Christians all that much. It wasn't until 350 A.D. that Pope Julius I of Rome fixed the date for the Feast of the Nativity on Dec. 25.
It looked like a cynical choice designed to co-opt the wanton hoo-haw already raging at that time of year, and not an educated estimate.
Early American Puritans were among the Christians who felt the choice amounted to unseemly piggy-backing: "It was in compliance with the pagan Saturnalia that Christmas Holy Days were first invented," sniffed Puritan pastor and Harvard president Increase Mather in 1687, explaining why those in his denomination scorned the observance.
But, hey. Whatever the source of his calculations, Pope Julius got it right. Christmas is not the holiest day on the Christian calendar--that would be Easter--but it's become by far the biggest.
The reason? Sunlight.
Sunlight is also, coincidentally, said to be the best disinfectant--here a disinfectant to kill the toxic notion that any one faith "owns" this season of renewal, hope, joy, generosity and the victory over darkness.
"Season's greetings" and "happy holidays" take nothing from the Christians who also chose this time of year to celebrate the birth of their divine source of renewal, hope, joy, generosity and victory. He is their reason for the season, not the reason.
These generic expressions are not banalities that trivialize the festivities.
They are invitations to all to join in. Invitations to find and revel in your own reasons to be glad for the trappings and trimmings of this time of year and the promise that lies ahead.
It still is a magical, mysterious and portentous time!
Right on Zorn! The various salutations of the holidaze are not a zero sum gain. Celebrate good times Come on!!
All true, John L. But Christianity stole those traditions and so now they belong to them.
I want to send good wishes to everyone as we approach the end of the 2023'rd year of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
And also resisting the Common Era and Before the Common Era (CE and BCE)? :)
I would say repurposed rather than stole but I agree. It is only a 'season' and a 'holiday' because of Christmas and the idea of Christian goodwill, at least for the last few hundred years. It has certainly been secularized and commercialized and there are many people willing to invent their own reasons for seasonal celebration. But it seems preposterous to claim that a large segment of the population is celebrating archaic pagan gods or rites (or is even aware of them). Even more preposterous that people are celebrating the winter solstice. I doubt most people even notice and I can't think of anyone around here that thinks winter is ending in late December. The solstice idea also doesn't work for all of the Southern Hemisphere countries that are celebrating the season.
You are right on all points. My comment was in jest. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NXO0oOIXw68
We celebrate the Soulstice in Western ILL
That’s fine for you. Just don’t get upset when I prefer happy holidays. It is a wonderful time of year for everyone, not just Christians. By the way, stealing is a sin. I hope those Christians who stole Christmas ask forgiveness.
The reason the FPOTUS (F for former, please) is a clear and present danger is that nearly half the population of the United States supports him. Maybe it’s time for less discussion about how venal he is and more discussion about how to win back the hearts of his “ovine followers.”
Rick - If you're familiar with Dan Froomkin (once of WaPo), Mark Jacob (formerly an Editor at the Tribune) and several other media writers, they place a great deal of the blame on the mainstream media for "both-sidesing" the positions of the policies of the two parties over the past 10 years when one side is clearly far further out on the extreme edge of its wing than the other. By treating both parties (and their leaders) similarly, it normalizes the whack-a-doodle nature and behavior of the one - when such behaviors should have been called out as "out there" long ago, and with unceasing repetition. Given what appears to be current Trump vs Biden polling data, it may be too late.
Yes, but I don’t see a lot of the media treating, say, the extreme MAGA nut jobs as equivalent to, say, the AOC crowd, or even the FPOTUS equivalently to Biden. In any case, the issue is how to return the Republican base to something resembling sanity. I think Trump is a symptom, not a prime mover.
I think it's less about Trump and more about the nationalist, white supremecy movement he supports, whose followers make up most of the number of his loyal supporters. That number never changes, it's always around 40%. You are not going to win back any of these voters, as many Republicans, whom have tried and failed, have realized.
What's left of the Republican party is terrified of Trump supporters and dare not cross their dear leader. Instead they seek to suppress the vote while challenging elections they've lost. I don't see how this ends as long as Trump is the de facto leader of the party.
I think you make the argument in your first paragraph that it's not the leader, it's the movement. At this point, If Trump went away, there'd be someone else. Somehow we managed to de-Nazi Germany and de-Empire Japan. We ought to be able to de-Fascist ourselves.
i agree and disagree. i am reminded of what someone said to me during FPOTUS' [i like that identifier] 'reign' - not all trump supporters are racist; but all racists are trump supporters.
i do agree that what's left of the Repub party are terrified of trump supporters. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to verify, with good data, that '... the nationalist, white supremacy movement he supports, whose followers make up most of the number of his loyal supporters.'
BTW, i detest FPOTUS and hope he's wearing an orange jumpsuit come election day '24.
I was sufficiently suspicious of the Illinois Policy Institute poll that I went all the way back to the individual questions, which I was sure would be loaded in a typical "push poll" kind of way. I was wrong. They were fine. But I have some doubts about the sample. 55% of the respondents were homeowners, which is pretty significantly above the actual figure for the city. Their respondents also included only 56% who identify as Democrats.
On the singing together issue, by all means go find the Ada Limon poem "Hell or High Water" in the current issue of the New Yorker. "Not churchgoers or joiners, still my people sang."
1. "...remove... his district tent encampments of those experiencing homelessness because, he said, they created trouble spots for illegal drugs and violent crime." How are they able to effectively have criminal activity with all those homeless people in the way. 2. Good old days... Daley (pick one) would never have been so obvious in horse trading. Another comparison... You didn't always follow Daley's train of thought, but at least he didn't seem lost and confused. #BringChicagoHome. 3. RESULTS: More Police (Duh); Oppose Base Camps (vs what other options or opposed in their neighborhoods?); Oppose "Sanctuary" city status (But do they know what that term means?); Invest Kids (It is positively phrased - so who would say no?) Boot red light tix (55% seems low) 4. What ties does the reparation commission have to Chicago? 5. Bad year for Big Ten coaches 6. Quotables (Trump) Continued "Nastiness of Trump" everywhere - yet he still leads in Rep in Prez bid; Biden struggling polls. There is a long way to go - but little shiver of potential mess ahead.
The Chicago mayor is setting a record for the earliest use of “one term mayor” after being elected.
I agree that the main cost of going to office is time loss, but there are additional costs not mentioned. As DINKWADs, we've paid a hefty sum for dog walkers over the years. Same goes for those who need child care.
Good enough point about hand wringing and private donations for Invest in Kids rather than using our money, but the same could be said about lots of government spending. A commission on reparations, or reparations themselves, for example.
Re the commute and working from home: "The main cost, to my mind, is time. I live in the city, and my commute was always roughly an hour each way whether I drove or took the train."
But is that time necessarily a cost? People love to complain about the commute. I love it! I happen to live pretty far from the school where I ended up getting my current teaching gig (which I love). It's 40 minutes there, about an hour back in the car. I've often thought of moving closer. I would end up far away from family and local friends, and I really like where I live.
But I'd also miss the commute. It's my podcast time. It's my me time. It's my time to get ready for the work day, and my time to wind down from it. Am I the only one who actually looks forward to my commute, the only one for whom the prospect of driving well-trod ground alone, coffee mug in the cupholder, Mincing Rascals (or one of about ten others on rotation) on the radio, no other screens or other demands on my time or attention, is so enticing that it actually encourages rolling out of bed?
I also like the psychological separation. I have my work life and my home life, and they're different domains. It makes sense. I never liked working at home when I did. I frequently felt I had to get out of the house, take a walk, clear my head. I missed tremendously socializing with my work buddies.
I get the convenience of working from home. Then again, I'm not sure I really do, when I think about what I had to give up in the bargain.
Re that anti-Trump Lincoln Project ad that casts Trump is a would-be Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, Chavez, Putin, Duterte, and other such loathsome creatures, love it!
And yet, putting on my objective, sober-minded lawyer hat and historian hat, I have a lot of trouble really believing that "it could happen here."
Don't get me wrong. I think Trump would absolutely be like any of those if he could. I don't think he would order a Holocaust! But he would surely be a ruinous authoritarian cult-of-personality dictator if he could.
But he can't! I'm continually surprised by my liberal and progressive friends' lack of belief in our constitutional system, a system that is the oldest in the world, a system that has withstood greater deficits of virtue, a system that withstood Jacksonian bids against the primacy of the law, a system that withstood even a civil war, a system that successfully constrained Trump's authoritarian instincts last time and will again.
My belief in that system is not an irrational faith. It is one based on evidence. Trump was president for four years. Did his tenure fundamentally change any aspect of our democratic republic, our checks and balances, the basic rules that rigorously insist on fragmenting power, the basic rules that comprise our system? Did he shred the Constitution? No, nowhere close, not within a million miles. Did he want to? Does he want to? Sure. But he won't be able to come close.
Yes, his justices overturned Roe v. Wade, just as justices appointed by a Romney would have done. (Trump's appointees have proved actually pretty moderate, more so than the most right-wing justices, Alito and Thomas, appointed by more normal presidents.) Much more important for purposes of this discussion, none of his justices or judges went along with his election denial. Not even close, not by a million miles. And, moreover, nobody, not even Trump or his cronies, ever envisioned defying the courts. Eastman envisioned a sort of legal coup, but his dreams were pathetic. He admitted that the bid would ultimately lose, 9-0, and he never seriously advocated somehow taking to the streets to undo that result. I can't see it. Can anyone really see it?
Dictators past found footing in fundamentally unstable political systems rocked by economic turmoil. I suggest that these were necessary preconditions for their rise to power. Our conditions are nothing like any of those. We're in a sour mood, and polls reflect irritation. They don't portend revolution.
One last point, maybe a point of solace. Those other autocrats were maniacal and had tremendous drive characterized by true belief in nutso ideology. The ad suggests that many of those dictators were likewise seen as jackasses to start with. In those cases, the assessment was wrong. I suggest that that assessment isn't wrong when it comes to Trump. He really is a shallow fool. He has no ideology and is incredibly lazy.
I disagree. It certainly could happen here. The only thing that stopped it last time were a few good people who believed that there was something bigger and more important than themselves: Brad Raffensberger, Rusty Bowers, General Milley, Jeffrey Rosen, Richard Donoghue, Gregory Jacob, and several others. There were others, like John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Dan Scavino, and others who would have assisted Trump in becoming a dictator. Next time Trump has vowed to appoint only loyal yes men, like Eastland. The courts won’t save us. Remember the quotation attributed to President Jackson in regard to Worcester v. Georgia: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"? I have no doubt that Trump will create concentration camps--see the article from the Washington Post below. I already am looking into the possibilities of leaving the United States, if necessary, because I am in a group that Trump vilifies in every one of his rallies, a transgender person. Bertolt Brecht left Germany in 1933.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportation-immigration-stephen-miller/
you present a convincing set of arguments - i hope you're right.
EZ - we've disagreed on charter schools and the Invest in Kids program. but, now that the IL legislature has failed to renew the program, you're right: those who support the concept need to open their wallets and fund the charter schools that educate those kids - and that's what i'm going to do. [note - i've been doing that for a while; now i will up the ante]