I’m interesting that one of the quips was about how it is not always easy to take candy from a baby. Another talks of an incarcerated man giving advice. Then you have the story of the child who was killed during a confrontation after a robbery. My advice to would be robbers: If the el platform is so crowded that a man wearing a boot and walking with a cane can catch you in a chase, then don’t do the crime.
I also don't see in the story whether or not he was charged with endangering the life of a child. Who pulls a robbery while taking care of a nine year old? Is he being charged with anything for putting the kid in that situation?
Hearing that Putin was talking about living to 150 brings back memories. When yogurt was marketed in the 1960s and 1970s the commercials used to show incredibly old looking Russians eating it with the implication being that there was a correlation.
I think the argument about full military honors for Babbitt misleads us a bit. This is not lowering the flag to half staff and giving her an honor no one else gets. This is something that any veteran gets. My father-in-law had this and it is beautiful. One question for those against: what is the government stand on these honors for other retired military who had a less than stellar post military life (although with no convictions)?
Did any of those “less than stellar” lives include trying to subvert the constitution? Had she been on active duty (or even reserve status) and not been shot dead she could have found herself court-martialed and/or dishonorably discharged. So yes, I oppose giving her any veteran benefits.
I get your point. But just serving doesn't automatically earn rewards. That's why they have things like dishonorable discharge. Yes, I know the story says she was honorably discharged. I suppose we could debate whether or not she should lose any rights after being honorably discharged. But in my view, you get nothing for attacking the Capital, not even veteran's benefits. I know- that opens up a whole new can of worms. How about all the Vietnam vets that marched in anti war protests after they got back?
One data point: I attended a funeral for an Army vet who served time for murder later in his liffe. His death was years after his release from prison. He was buried at a federal military cemetery with full honors.
I was surprised to read that the Biden administration had not allowed honors. Aren’t there 1000s of these funerals each day or week? I don’t know why it got to that level.
I believe that trump, Noem, and the Ernst Röhm impersonator who runs ICE are planning to flood Chicago with goons for a month in the hope that they will provoke a violent confrontation that provides an excuse for armed troop intervention.
Did anyone else want to vomit when they heard Captain Bone-Spurs say "We're going in"? Who's this 'we,' orange man?
The National Guard only gets full pay, housing benefits, and health care for a 30 or more day deployment. By assigning them to a 29-day deployment, the administration is keeping them from full pay, housing benefits, and health care benefits to which they would be entitled.
I've heard these National Guard deployments cost a million dollars a day, yet the soldiers get nothing. The fact they cancel the deployment on the 29th day is vicious insult.
Let's keep this simple. I already called it a waste of time and money. His supporters already back it. Democrats will hate it. It's costing a lot of money and won't solve crime. Here's the real problem that no one is talking about. What's next? What's down the road? A government takeover by the orange stain of any business opposing him? Send the troops to take over any business that doesn't do it his way? It's already starting with government investment in private firms. Who's really going to be making the decisions? How about companies changing policies because of tantrums by the stain? The withholding of university funds for any university not kneeling before the altar of the orange stain? When does the orange stain start using eminent domain to take what he wants? Or is that already happening at the southern border? And his stupid supporters just can't see it. They claim it's working and that they like the results. They cheer while democracy is disappearing before their eyes.
OOPS! I'm sure you meant to say for 29 days. To be sure that the troops don't get any pay, housing, or heath care while picking up trash and spreading mulch! And the Orange Menace pretending they are fighting crime..
Why are the pseudo-Republicans not asking the question: Have you no sense of decency?
We’ve seen direct correlations between the levels of lead in the environment and an offset rise in crime around twenty years later (when children exposed to that lead reach adulthood), as well as a dramatic downturn along those same lines when lead levels drop. The removal of lead in gasoline in the late ‘70s and the cresting of violent crime in the late ‘90s suggests a strong link between the two, so it’s not surprising to me that the Chicago neighborhoods most afflicted with violent crime these days are also the ones with the worst lead levels in their water.
If Trump truly wanted to leave a positive legacy of crime reduction, he would be better off funding the removal of lead pipes in those neighborhoods than his PR stunt with the National Guard.
I think that's plausible, but I wonder if it's been scientifically shown. I've heard other theories, one kind of a controversial one was that easier access to abortions was a significant cause of drops in crime rates. Another was that social media and the internet were a significant cause since people tend to stay at home more.
Oh no doubt that was a great idea and saved and improved countless lives. Clair Patterson is a hero, there should be a biopic of his life and achievements.
I wasn’t even aware of a correlation between lead exposure and crime. I know of the effects it can have on long term health and brain development. Does that have anything to do with it?
"There is a consilience of evidence in support of the hypothesis that lead exposure in childhood increases the risk of criminal offending in young adulthood. Low intelligence increases the risk of offending, and there is a dose-response relationship between lead exposure in childhood and a decline in average IQ 13, 19, 23. Fergusson et al. 19 also showed that the relationship between dentine lead levels and self-reported crime was no longer significant after adjusting for school completion.
"There is also support for a second way that lead exposure may increase offending, namely, that lead exposure in childhood makes adolescents more impulsive, hyperactive and aggressive. Meta-analyses find small but consistent correlations between blood and dentine measures of lead exposure and symptoms of conduct problems (r = 0.15) 24, inattentiveness (r = 0.14) and hyperactivity (r = 0.12) 25. These patterns of behaviour in turn increase the risk of antisocial behaviour in adolescence and young adulthood 26. A recent neuroimaging study of the Cincinnati cohort reported correlations between childhood lead exposure and the size of frontal areas in the brain implicated in executive functioning, mood regulation and decision-making 27."
Good point. We might also ask Pritzker and Johnson why they think the current plan to replace pipes by 2047 is good enough. Given that they have together increased total state and city spending by about $40 billion, why has none of it gone toward the lead pipes?
All for prioritizing removal of lead, and a good ask from Trump. I've never been fully convinced about a considerable connection to crime though. Neighborhoods evolve, changing from low crime to high crime and vice versa. Current minority neighborhoods used to be white, when overall pollutant exposure was much worse. Crime waves go up and down. Same lead pipes. Chicago has the most lead service lines in the country, yet that goes against the argument that it is actually not a high crime city per capita. It's probably a factor, but difficult to know how much with so many other variables.
You look great in that photo, Eric! But when I first saw it, I thought it was a Star Trek outfit you had on - something about the black top and the very interesting background. Were you ever/are you a
The Mike Johnson quote following the Minneapolis shooting is infuriating and disgusting. It's all the GOP greatest cliches that they trot out every time a shooting is in the news:
"Constitutional right" - it's only that because SCOTUS decided to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. Guns don't need to be banned completely, just put in some basic safeguards, as most of the country finds sensible. Abortion was also deemed a Constitutional right.
"Mental illness" - Does that mean you'll work to improve access to mental health services? I didn't think so. Do they have mentally ill people in other countries? Yes, but they generally have both, better access to mental healthcare and stricter gun control laws.
"Now is not the time to politicize" - When would be a convenient time for you, Mr. Speaker? Is there a counter for "x days since last mass shooting" when it becomes acceptable? Because there is typically at least one each day, with 309 in 2025 through August.
I know, it's just lip service, guns are sacred and access to them will not be touched in the foreseeable future.
The whole argument that "it's not the guns" is specious. Of course the problem isn't the piece of equipment -- the problem is the untrained masses allowed unfettered access to that equipment; a problem that would be mitigated in part by stronger regulations on the people seeking to own the guns.
You realize there are several new suits ongoing. One is concealed carry on public transportation and whether or not military grade weapons can be carried around. I'm a retired history teacher. Would someone please tell me where in the Constitution it says that every type of gun created by man has to be allowed or where it says the authors even anticipated high capacity handguns or long guns? While we're at it, why not simply let everyone walk around with their own hand grenades and rocket launchers? After all, the Second Amendment doesn't specifically ban them, it only says that people have the right to be armed.
My point, exactly. Who would be better protected on the streets of Chicago than a teen with a rocket launcher? And they are not banned by the Second Amendment.
I was getting the Sunday Trib delivered free because I signed up for the free delivery as part of my digital subscription. But last year I dropped that because it no longer had any separate ads from retail stores or the coupon sections.
Plus it was easier to read on my computer, where i could enlarge the text.
And a huge Red Light for the movie "The Brutalist", mainly because of its appalling 3 hour & 20 minute length. An overlong mess! It desperately needs an editor to knock at least an hour out of it!
Song writer John Hiatt's "Ride Along" contains this line regarding newspapers."You get the Sunday paper...on Saturday night...you read the travel section..untill you're all uptight." That is me.
I am so tired of being told to play nice while Trump and his buffoons trample over everything I hold dear. All of us libs need to parse our words and prance around so as not to appear soft on crime and fall into some Republican trap. That's what we did under Clinton and we got workfare, 3 strikes laws and the highest incarceration levels in the world while driving minor offenders into poverty with fees and penalties. Any attempt to rectify that is "soft on crime. " Sending the National Guard in is the damn crime and I'm not in the mood to be soft on it.
Violent crime in the '90s was rampant -- far worse than it is now. As I alluded to in my earlier post, what really had the biggest impact on reducing those crimes was removing lead from gasoline twenty years earlier. It may not be as dramatic as armed troops patrolling the streets, but reducing the exposure kids have to lead is probably the most cost-effective way to lower the crime rate (albeit twenty years down the road).
sorry, john, i don't think you can find a good study showing the major causal impact of the decrease in violent crime in the '90s was due to removing lead from gasoline ~20 yrs before.
there were certainly many causal, and potentially causal factors. try reading 'Freakonomics' [1st chapter, as i recall] for another take on the primary cause for the reduction of violent crime in the '90s.
Specifically for Chicago, I would like to know how many of the victims of shootings were themselves suspects in other shootings. I think part of the decline in recent years is due to the decline in numbers of shooters from attrition and not reform, or interrupters, or policing.
There is certainly debate on whether exposure to lead contributed to crime in general, but there are plenty of reputable studies that show a strong correlation between lead exposure in childhood and violent crime 20 years later.
"Reyes concluded that lead exposure in childhood was causally related to rates of violent crime (assaults and robberies) committed 20 years later when children exposed to lead in childhood entered the peak period of criminal offending. She concluded that "lead exposure was likely an important factor in both the rise and the decline of violent crime in the last 30 years" and that "two major acts of government, the Clean Air Act and Roe v Wade, neither intended to have any effect on crime, may have been the largest factors affecting violent crime trends at the turn of the century" (p 36)."
To your point, though, I should not have stated that removing lead from gasoline was the major reason for the decline in violent crime. Only that the evidence suggests it was a contributing factor.
You want common sense? Good luck. Watch No Mind's commercials, threatening illegals with fines up up to $1000 per day. Yeah, I'm sure every illegal caught is writing out a check as we speak.
Even better, the company should charge $11 and not the silly 10.99. Who do they think they are fooling? And don't get me started on the tenths of a cent on gasoline prices!
“Who do they think they are fooling?” A significant percentage of customers who will conceptualize this as a $10 item. Deception and dishonesty are effective.
I've learned a lot from Eric et al about journalists' ethics and professionalism so am dumbfounded the response to the Pritzker interview by Mary Ann Ahern was how to spin it to be about drug prices and not why the hell she asked the question in the first place. His appropriate response *should* have been:
"My physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with my job as Governor of the State of Illinois, which is currently facing an illegal invasion of federal troops ordered by a dictatorial president drunk on power. I don't want to be too rude to you. But at the same time, have you had your hair dyed or any plastic surgery done?" Pause. "By not answering, there will be those who assume the answer is yes."
Questions about personal medical information are considered to be fair game for politicians. Why do think there’s been so much speculation about Trump’s health? When you’re a high ranking public official, your medical status is everyone’s business.
And no, that would NOT be an appropriate response to Ahern’s question. Not only would he have come off as pathetically thin skinned, but he would no doubt have been accused of sexism (or, more likely, the overused and more hyperbolic term du jour “misogyny”) for questioning her about her appearance. Plus, obesity is a medical issue, not a personal vanity issue.
I admit questioning her appearance is snarky and not appropriate. It was just to point out her question was inappropriate. It IS about his appearance and not his health. If it were really about health, the question would have been when to all candidates when they're running , "People need to know their elected officials are physically up to the job. Can you tell us about the state of your health and any medical issues you have?" But that's not where it came from. The question wasn't - "What's your cholesterol level and are you on statins?" It's an in-fashion question currently asked to anyone who's "overweight" or who may appear to have lost weight.
And where, exactly, is the line drawn of what medical information is fair game and/or relevant for the public to know about politicians? Which of the following conditions can be asked about: heart disease, pulmonary function, past surgeries, cholesterol levels, vaccination status, menopause symptoms, STDs, migraines, colonoscopies, allergies.....? Seriously, where do you draw the line? And which positions -- president, Governor, comptroller, city clerk, alderperson, school board? I think it should all be limited to presidents, senators, and governors once a year having their physicians release a general report on their overall health and fitness. Everything else should be about job performance and policies.
It's very tricky. Health questions can be relevant and important, as we saw with both Biden and Trump. I think it's reasonable to make sure that a candidate or office holder is medically fit to perform the job. But who do we trust to make and report that determination? As we've seen, it's easy to find a doctor who'll sign a paper saying you're the healthiest and sanest human being to ever walk the Earth.
I don’t think her question was inappropriate. An affirmative answer by Pritzker would have just confirmed that he’s looking after his health, which would seem like a positive and responsible thing to do.
We seem as a culture to have shifted to this view that obesity is a vanity issue, when it is, in fact, a medical issue. The terms “fat shaming”, and its antagonist “body positivity” have served to effectively shut down any attempt to point out the grave health issues related to obesity, whilst simultaneously casting it almost as a kind of virtue, a goal that one should strive for. The reasons for this may be well intentioned, but they are ultimately detrimental. It’s like refusing to acknowledge the health risks of smoking so as not to make smokers feel like they’re being judged.
I suppose. I was being more facetious than anything else. Am I supposed to be more or less likely to take a drug because our overweight nonmedical governor does? By the way, I take Trulicity.
I take Trulicity too. I was on Ozempic for a while, but then there were some shortages so I went back on Trulicity. My doctor wanted to put me back on Ozempic, but my plan doesn’t cover it now, probably because of demand.
I 100% agree. If the reporter wants to know his opinion on weight losing drugs, especially as it relates to their efficacy and cost to his constituents, then ask that. Whatever medication he takes is private. No, the public doesn’t get to know what medication he uses just because he is a public figure. Should she ask him if he uses Viagra?
Absolutely the public has a right to know. Public life is different from private life. Any politician that doesn’t want reporters pressing them about their medical status can always seek employment in the private sector. Do you honestly think that the public doesn’t have a right to know if their officials are on Vicodin, Dexedrine or Xanax?
The deduction for tip income is capped at $25,000 in tips. The deduction is phased out starting at Modified Adjusted Gross Income of $150,000 and is zero at $160,000. Recharacterizing business income, service income, membership fees, subscription fees, or wages as tips is tax fraud. This will be obvious from prior year returns.
The current average tax rate for $150,000 is 6.67%. The full deduction for a person making $150,000 would save them $6000 and reduce their average rate to 2.87%
The opportunities for tax minimization through 'legal' evasion are less than enormous.
The presence of ICE and other feds, possibly the NG, is also impacting communities close to Great Lakes Naval Station. We have received a statement from my city saying "any activities are coordinated at the federal level and do not involve local law enforcement." We'll see.
As a precaution, the Mexican Independence Day parade and other related activities have been cancelled.
I’m interesting that one of the quips was about how it is not always easy to take candy from a baby. Another talks of an incarcerated man giving advice. Then you have the story of the child who was killed during a confrontation after a robbery. My advice to would be robbers: If the el platform is so crowded that a man wearing a boot and walking with a cane can catch you in a chase, then don’t do the crime.
Or, better yet, just don’t commit crime at all.
I’m glad to see there is a dreamer in the crowd.
Reminded me of a classic Simpsons episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yicacIKQ8M
"The old axiom was misleading. Taking the candy proved exceedingly difficult!"
I also don't see in the story whether or not he was charged with endangering the life of a child. Who pulls a robbery while taking care of a nine year old? Is he being charged with anything for putting the kid in that situation?
Hearing that Putin was talking about living to 150 brings back memories. When yogurt was marketed in the 1960s and 1970s the commercials used to show incredibly old looking Russians eating it with the implication being that there was a correlation.
The real question is whether or not the orange stain has been on the phone asking where he can get the treatment.
I think the argument about full military honors for Babbitt misleads us a bit. This is not lowering the flag to half staff and giving her an honor no one else gets. This is something that any veteran gets. My father-in-law had this and it is beautiful. One question for those against: what is the government stand on these honors for other retired military who had a less than stellar post military life (although with no convictions)?
Did any of those “less than stellar” lives include trying to subvert the constitution? Had she been on active duty (or even reserve status) and not been shot dead she could have found herself court-martialed and/or dishonorably discharged. So yes, I oppose giving her any veteran benefits.
Less than stellar life post-military life? That is not what Babbitt led.
What was so stellar about it then?
Treasonous - not "less than stellar."
I get your point. But just serving doesn't automatically earn rewards. That's why they have things like dishonorable discharge. Yes, I know the story says she was honorably discharged. I suppose we could debate whether or not she should lose any rights after being honorably discharged. But in my view, you get nothing for attacking the Capital, not even veteran's benefits. I know- that opens up a whole new can of worms. How about all the Vietnam vets that marched in anti war protests after they got back?
I agree. The honor is for their service, not for how they may have spent or misspent the rest of their lives.
One data point: I attended a funeral for an Army vet who served time for murder later in his liffe. His death was years after his release from prison. He was buried at a federal military cemetery with full honors.
I was surprised to read that the Biden administration had not allowed honors. Aren’t there 1000s of these funerals each day or week? I don’t know why it got to that level.
I believe that trump, Noem, and the Ernst Röhm impersonator who runs ICE are planning to flood Chicago with goons for a month in the hope that they will provoke a violent confrontation that provides an excuse for armed troop intervention.
Did anyone else want to vomit when they heard Captain Bone-Spurs say "We're going in"? Who's this 'we,' orange man?
But not quite a month, because they wouldn’t want those troops the right is always saying they love to actually get paid or qualify for benefits.
They are ICE goons and get paid, etc., wherever they are and for how long.
As for the troops, the Chiseler-in-Chief doesn't give a rat's patootie about them and thinks they are suckers.
(I was referring to the NG deployment he keeps threatening...)
The National Guard only gets full pay, housing benefits, and health care for a 30 or more day deployment. By assigning them to a 29-day deployment, the administration is keeping them from full pay, housing benefits, and health care benefits to which they would be entitled.
I've heard these National Guard deployments cost a million dollars a day, yet the soldiers get nothing. The fact they cancel the deployment on the 29th day is vicious insult.
Let's keep this simple. I already called it a waste of time and money. His supporters already back it. Democrats will hate it. It's costing a lot of money and won't solve crime. Here's the real problem that no one is talking about. What's next? What's down the road? A government takeover by the orange stain of any business opposing him? Send the troops to take over any business that doesn't do it his way? It's already starting with government investment in private firms. Who's really going to be making the decisions? How about companies changing policies because of tantrums by the stain? The withholding of university funds for any university not kneeling before the altar of the orange stain? When does the orange stain start using eminent domain to take what he wants? Or is that already happening at the southern border? And his stupid supporters just can't see it. They claim it's working and that they like the results. They cheer while democracy is disappearing before their eyes.
OOPS! I'm sure you meant to say for 29 days. To be sure that the troops don't get any pay, housing, or heath care while picking up trash and spreading mulch! And the Orange Menace pretending they are fighting crime..
Why are the pseudo-Republicans not asking the question: Have you no sense of decency?
I think the decency ship sailed some while ago.
I love the smell of deportation of illegals in the morning. Has anyone asked him when he intends to reach puberty?
I thought it was ironic reading about the Atlanta newspaper ceasing print - in the PS which I was reading on my phone.
We’ve seen direct correlations between the levels of lead in the environment and an offset rise in crime around twenty years later (when children exposed to that lead reach adulthood), as well as a dramatic downturn along those same lines when lead levels drop. The removal of lead in gasoline in the late ‘70s and the cresting of violent crime in the late ‘90s suggests a strong link between the two, so it’s not surprising to me that the Chicago neighborhoods most afflicted with violent crime these days are also the ones with the worst lead levels in their water.
If Trump truly wanted to leave a positive legacy of crime reduction, he would be better off funding the removal of lead pipes in those neighborhoods than his PR stunt with the National Guard.
I think that's plausible, but I wonder if it's been scientifically shown. I've heard other theories, one kind of a controversial one was that easier access to abortions was a significant cause of drops in crime rates. Another was that social media and the internet were a significant cause since people tend to stay at home more.
But we do have conclusive evidence of the effects of lead exposure, especially in children.
Oh no doubt that was a great idea and saved and improved countless lives. Clair Patterson is a hero, there should be a biopic of his life and achievements.
I wasn’t even aware of a correlation between lead exposure and crime. I know of the effects it can have on long term health and brain development. Does that have anything to do with it?
"There is a consilience of evidence in support of the hypothesis that lead exposure in childhood increases the risk of criminal offending in young adulthood. Low intelligence increases the risk of offending, and there is a dose-response relationship between lead exposure in childhood and a decline in average IQ 13, 19, 23. Fergusson et al. 19 also showed that the relationship between dentine lead levels and self-reported crime was no longer significant after adjusting for school completion.
"There is also support for a second way that lead exposure may increase offending, namely, that lead exposure in childhood makes adolescents more impulsive, hyperactive and aggressive. Meta-analyses find small but consistent correlations between blood and dentine measures of lead exposure and symptoms of conduct problems (r = 0.15) 24, inattentiveness (r = 0.14) and hyperactivity (r = 0.12) 25. These patterns of behaviour in turn increase the risk of antisocial behaviour in adolescence and young adulthood 26. A recent neuroimaging study of the Cincinnati cohort reported correlations between childhood lead exposure and the size of frontal areas in the brain implicated in executive functioning, mood regulation and decision-making 27."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3829390/
John, if lead in the water is really affecting the brains of kids, you need to ask yourself what Trump drank as a kid.
Good point. We might also ask Pritzker and Johnson why they think the current plan to replace pipes by 2047 is good enough. Given that they have together increased total state and city spending by about $40 billion, why has none of it gone toward the lead pipes?
All for prioritizing removal of lead, and a good ask from Trump. I've never been fully convinced about a considerable connection to crime though. Neighborhoods evolve, changing from low crime to high crime and vice versa. Current minority neighborhoods used to be white, when overall pollutant exposure was much worse. Crime waves go up and down. Same lead pipes. Chicago has the most lead service lines in the country, yet that goes against the argument that it is actually not a high crime city per capita. It's probably a factor, but difficult to know how much with so many other variables.
You look great in that photo, Eric! But when I first saw it, I thought it was a Star Trek outfit you had on - something about the black top and the very interesting background. Were you ever/are you a
Trekkie?
The Mike Johnson quote following the Minneapolis shooting is infuriating and disgusting. It's all the GOP greatest cliches that they trot out every time a shooting is in the news:
"Constitutional right" - it's only that because SCOTUS decided to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. Guns don't need to be banned completely, just put in some basic safeguards, as most of the country finds sensible. Abortion was also deemed a Constitutional right.
"Mental illness" - Does that mean you'll work to improve access to mental health services? I didn't think so. Do they have mentally ill people in other countries? Yes, but they generally have both, better access to mental healthcare and stricter gun control laws.
"Now is not the time to politicize" - When would be a convenient time for you, Mr. Speaker? Is there a counter for "x days since last mass shooting" when it becomes acceptable? Because there is typically at least one each day, with 309 in 2025 through August.
I know, it's just lip service, guns are sacred and access to them will not be touched in the foreseeable future.
The whole argument that "it's not the guns" is specious. Of course the problem isn't the piece of equipment -- the problem is the untrained masses allowed unfettered access to that equipment; a problem that would be mitigated in part by stronger regulations on the people seeking to own the guns.
You realize there are several new suits ongoing. One is concealed carry on public transportation and whether or not military grade weapons can be carried around. I'm a retired history teacher. Would someone please tell me where in the Constitution it says that every type of gun created by man has to be allowed or where it says the authors even anticipated high capacity handguns or long guns? While we're at it, why not simply let everyone walk around with their own hand grenades and rocket launchers? After all, the Second Amendment doesn't specifically ban them, it only says that people have the right to be armed.
Bazookas?
Sure, why not?
rocket launchers? they're just big guns, with big ammo.
My point, exactly. Who would be better protected on the streets of Chicago than a teen with a rocket launcher? And they are not banned by the Second Amendment.
I was getting the Sunday Trib delivered free because I signed up for the free delivery as part of my digital subscription. But last year I dropped that because it no longer had any separate ads from retail stores or the coupon sections.
Plus it was easier to read on my computer, where i could enlarge the text.
And a huge Red Light for the movie "The Brutalist", mainly because of its appalling 3 hour & 20 minute length. An overlong mess! It desperately needs an editor to knock at least an hour out of it!
Song writer John Hiatt's "Ride Along" contains this line regarding newspapers."You get the Sunday paper...on Saturday night...you read the travel section..untill you're all uptight." That is me.
I am so tired of being told to play nice while Trump and his buffoons trample over everything I hold dear. All of us libs need to parse our words and prance around so as not to appear soft on crime and fall into some Republican trap. That's what we did under Clinton and we got workfare, 3 strikes laws and the highest incarceration levels in the world while driving minor offenders into poverty with fees and penalties. Any attempt to rectify that is "soft on crime. " Sending the National Guard in is the damn crime and I'm not in the mood to be soft on it.
Violent crime in the '90s was rampant -- far worse than it is now. As I alluded to in my earlier post, what really had the biggest impact on reducing those crimes was removing lead from gasoline twenty years earlier. It may not be as dramatic as armed troops patrolling the streets, but reducing the exposure kids have to lead is probably the most cost-effective way to lower the crime rate (albeit twenty years down the road).
Violent crime peaked in 1984 and 1991 and decreased throughout the 90s.
sorry, john, i don't think you can find a good study showing the major causal impact of the decrease in violent crime in the '90s was due to removing lead from gasoline ~20 yrs before.
there were certainly many causal, and potentially causal factors. try reading 'Freakonomics' [1st chapter, as i recall] for another take on the primary cause for the reduction of violent crime in the '90s.
Specifically for Chicago, I would like to know how many of the victims of shootings were themselves suspects in other shootings. I think part of the decline in recent years is due to the decline in numbers of shooters from attrition and not reform, or interrupters, or policing.
There is certainly debate on whether exposure to lead contributed to crime in general, but there are plenty of reputable studies that show a strong correlation between lead exposure in childhood and violent crime 20 years later.
"Reyes concluded that lead exposure in childhood was causally related to rates of violent crime (assaults and robberies) committed 20 years later when children exposed to lead in childhood entered the peak period of criminal offending. She concluded that "lead exposure was likely an important factor in both the rise and the decline of violent crime in the last 30 years" and that "two major acts of government, the Clean Air Act and Roe v Wade, neither intended to have any effect on crime, may have been the largest factors affecting violent crime trends at the turn of the century" (p 36)."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3829390
To your point, though, I should not have stated that removing lead from gasoline was the major reason for the decline in violent crime. Only that the evidence suggests it was a contributing factor.
You want common sense? Good luck. Watch No Mind's commercials, threatening illegals with fines up up to $1000 per day. Yeah, I'm sure every illegal caught is writing out a check as we speak.
Even better, the company should charge $11 and not the silly 10.99. Who do they think they are fooling? And don't get me started on the tenths of a cent on gasoline prices!
“Who do they think they are fooling?” A significant percentage of customers who will conceptualize this as a $10 item. Deception and dishonesty are effective.
More fool, they.
Ever notice how gas prices are usually posted with an additional 9/10 of a cent?
When I started driving gas was 35 cents a gallon, and I thought it was dumb then.
I've learned a lot from Eric et al about journalists' ethics and professionalism so am dumbfounded the response to the Pritzker interview by Mary Ann Ahern was how to spin it to be about drug prices and not why the hell she asked the question in the first place. His appropriate response *should* have been:
"My physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with my job as Governor of the State of Illinois, which is currently facing an illegal invasion of federal troops ordered by a dictatorial president drunk on power. I don't want to be too rude to you. But at the same time, have you had your hair dyed or any plastic surgery done?" Pause. "By not answering, there will be those who assume the answer is yes."
Questions about personal medical information are considered to be fair game for politicians. Why do think there’s been so much speculation about Trump’s health? When you’re a high ranking public official, your medical status is everyone’s business.
And no, that would NOT be an appropriate response to Ahern’s question. Not only would he have come off as pathetically thin skinned, but he would no doubt have been accused of sexism (or, more likely, the overused and more hyperbolic term du jour “misogyny”) for questioning her about her appearance. Plus, obesity is a medical issue, not a personal vanity issue.
I admit questioning her appearance is snarky and not appropriate. It was just to point out her question was inappropriate. It IS about his appearance and not his health. If it were really about health, the question would have been when to all candidates when they're running , "People need to know their elected officials are physically up to the job. Can you tell us about the state of your health and any medical issues you have?" But that's not where it came from. The question wasn't - "What's your cholesterol level and are you on statins?" It's an in-fashion question currently asked to anyone who's "overweight" or who may appear to have lost weight.
And where, exactly, is the line drawn of what medical information is fair game and/or relevant for the public to know about politicians? Which of the following conditions can be asked about: heart disease, pulmonary function, past surgeries, cholesterol levels, vaccination status, menopause symptoms, STDs, migraines, colonoscopies, allergies.....? Seriously, where do you draw the line? And which positions -- president, Governor, comptroller, city clerk, alderperson, school board? I think it should all be limited to presidents, senators, and governors once a year having their physicians release a general report on their overall health and fitness. Everything else should be about job performance and policies.
It's very tricky. Health questions can be relevant and important, as we saw with both Biden and Trump. I think it's reasonable to make sure that a candidate or office holder is medically fit to perform the job. But who do we trust to make and report that determination? As we've seen, it's easy to find a doctor who'll sign a paper saying you're the healthiest and sanest human being to ever walk the Earth.
I don’t think her question was inappropriate. An affirmative answer by Pritzker would have just confirmed that he’s looking after his health, which would seem like a positive and responsible thing to do.
We seem as a culture to have shifted to this view that obesity is a vanity issue, when it is, in fact, a medical issue. The terms “fat shaming”, and its antagonist “body positivity” have served to effectively shut down any attempt to point out the grave health issues related to obesity, whilst simultaneously casting it almost as a kind of virtue, a goal that one should strive for. The reasons for this may be well intentioned, but they are ultimately detrimental. It’s like refusing to acknowledge the health risks of smoking so as not to make smokers feel like they’re being judged.
I can also see the furor caused by his naming of a drug. The competitors would scream bloody murder about free celebrity advertising.
He could have answered “yes”without saying which one.
I suppose. I was being more facetious than anything else. Am I supposed to be more or less likely to take a drug because our overweight nonmedical governor does? By the way, I take Trulicity.
I take Trulicity too. I was on Ozempic for a while, but then there were some shortages so I went back on Trulicity. My doctor wanted to put me back on Ozempic, but my plan doesn’t cover it now, probably because of demand.
I 100% agree. If the reporter wants to know his opinion on weight losing drugs, especially as it relates to their efficacy and cost to his constituents, then ask that. Whatever medication he takes is private. No, the public doesn’t get to know what medication he uses just because he is a public figure. Should she ask him if he uses Viagra?
Absolutely the public has a right to know. Public life is different from private life. Any politician that doesn’t want reporters pressing them about their medical status can always seek employment in the private sector. Do you honestly think that the public doesn’t have a right to know if their officials are on Vicodin, Dexedrine or Xanax?
I respectfully disagree. I see no basis for it.
The deduction for tip income is capped at $25,000 in tips. The deduction is phased out starting at Modified Adjusted Gross Income of $150,000 and is zero at $160,000. Recharacterizing business income, service income, membership fees, subscription fees, or wages as tips is tax fraud. This will be obvious from prior year returns.
The current average tax rate for $150,000 is 6.67%. The full deduction for a person making $150,000 would save them $6000 and reduce their average rate to 2.87%
The opportunities for tax minimization through 'legal' evasion are less than enormous.
The presence of ICE and other feds, possibly the NG, is also impacting communities close to Great Lakes Naval Station. We have received a statement from my city saying "any activities are coordinated at the federal level and do not involve local law enforcement." We'll see.
As a precaution, the Mexican Independence Day parade and other related activities have been cancelled.
That's sad that the parade's cancelled.
Actually, the parade went on. But according to media reports, there were a lot less people.
The .99 BS is ridiculous - just say it's $11. Also, gas prices being say, $3.799 is even more ridiculous. Just tell say $3.80, for heaven's sake.