29 out of 32 "visiting team" tweets on top line won the first round of the tweet tournement. I wonder if there is an order effect? Of does the software randomize order when tweets are presented for voting?
“… it seems obvious to me that Hispanics deserve at least equal representation with Blacks on the council.”
Perhaps that makes sense if race or skin color is the only factor you look at. How that squares with a color-blind and postracial society isn’t clear. Pick any other political factor and substitute it. “It seems obvious to me that pro-choice proponents deserve at least equal representation with pro-life supporters on the council.” Or police supporters versus defund the police fans.
The point is, elevating a single factor to drive the selection of boundaries is fraught no matter which one you choose. Ideally, carving up maps should be blind to politics and demographics, including race and ethnicity.
I hate how the leaders in the Tweet of the Week poll are always the ones that take a political position most readers agree with. *I* agree too! But making a point I agree with is not the same as being funny.
On The Minscing Rascals this week, the panel discussed Gillette being under pressure to stop supplying Russia with shaving products. Eric described the effect of large corporations pulling out of the Russian economy as "death by a thousand cuts." Nicely done!
I like how Mary Schmich highlights once routine excursions that now have become adventurous for many of us, using her sister as an example. It’s like we’re emerging from pandemic winter into a new season, or what I like to call a new normal.
Personally, I’m still hesitant to wander too far, still carefully masking up. Last week, my daughter attended her first movie theater showing in over two years, ecstatic at how much she enjoyed the experience as if for the first time.
As usual, Mary’s insightful writing captures the moment.
I really don’t have something right on the tip of my tongue to say about the Smollett drama, but one thing that bothers me about it all is this nagging sense of – although I’m persuaded it isn’t the case – his possible innocence. He’s been convicted and so he is guilty in the eyes of the court, but I still say to myself, “what if he is really innocent?”
It is with a larger degree of legal certainty than doubt that he’s been convicted, but what legitimate doubt is there if any? I mean, maybe it has nothing to do with Smollett’s case and is more generally the question of doubt in judgment that can yield an ambiguous verdict – what exactly is the standard of “reasonable doubt”?
For sure, it is a subjective question, and one warranting reasonable judgement in any given contest: How do 12 jurors conclude guilt or innocence in deliberations? And we all know of the infamous “bias” involved in trying cases, and how does that play out in one situation or another?
I’m just trying to get at the general sense of possible innocence in a guilty verdict or the possibility of actual guilt in an innocent verdict. It seems to me that it is almost always a nagging possibility in jurisprudence and hangs there shrouded behind the actual verdict in any typical case.
Not that he is, but what if Smollett or any convicted criminal were really wrongfully convicted or exonerated, how would we ever really know?
Re Broccoli Shy…my adult daughters still enjoy singing a family favorite called “Broccoli Lasagna”, (sung to the tune of Hakuna Matata) about a one-time dinner I made that they all hated.
Just as Jussie Smolett’s nonsense hurt legitimate victims of hate crimes, Kim Foxx using this case as an example of racial injustice hurts the many African American people who have been victimized by an inequitable system. .
I am frequently frustrated at the length of time required to complete investigations of seemingly uncomplicated events - as with the Stillman case. But in this instance, I also am also suspicious of the timing of the Foxx news conference to combine the Toledo and Alvarez announcements to coincide with the Smollett news stories. Possibly misplaced, but for me, another result of a public official forfeiting the public trust. Along with the absurdity of not charging Roman with child endangerment, there is little reason to trust her judgement and every reason to suspect her motives.
I had to laugh at the Northwestern student government closed meeting position. I can't imagine that they would say the same rules should apply to the Evanston or Chicago governments. I agree that it is a clear attempt to protect themselves and reduce their need for self-censorship. It also displays their fear of the campus community and other campus organizations, not to mention the broader internet world. My guess is that even their 'enlightened' members fear blundering in their comments. I also have to wonder at how they think they will produce non-controversial minutes. In addition to withholding speaker names, will they also sanitize the language to make it entirely inoffensive to any possible audience that deserves protection? A sad state of affairs for the university and it's misguided leadership.
I don't care what names are on Chicago Schools. I think that it would be safest and cheapest to just name them for the neighborhood they are in or the street they are on. I also think that the adults are overthinking the impact of the school's name on the students. I doubt that many of them make any sort of connection of the name to a person or ideals. I also don't see how they would find any person (American or not) that would be an apt model for a diverse and constantly changing student body. I went to Blackhawk Junior High (long gone) which had a picture and sign with some facts which I barely noticed. It was only in my 50's that I read 'The Autobiography of Blackhawk" and learned something about this fascinating and complex man. The sanitized shorthand of him is noble defender of Native American rights, but his much more complex story is mixed, like Daniel Boone shorthand is incomplete. FYI, my elementary school was named by the street and my high school had a township name.
“There are Americans dumb enough to complain about gas prices while donating money to an alleged billionaire for a new private plane, in case you wondered how we haven’t been able to stop the spread of COVID in this country yet. —“
That’s a great diagnosis of why Covid goes in in this country. Eric, when you select non-sequitors like this, I assume you endorse the message.
Seems like they are not the only ones these days to have embraced the strategy of "double down liar" Donald Trump.
29 out of 32 "visiting team" tweets on top line won the first round of the tweet tournement. I wonder if there is an order effect? Of does the software randomize order when tweets are presented for voting?
Reading about Gina Schmich's ride made my day. I hope she can continue her adventures.
“… it seems obvious to me that Hispanics deserve at least equal representation with Blacks on the council.”
Perhaps that makes sense if race or skin color is the only factor you look at. How that squares with a color-blind and postracial society isn’t clear. Pick any other political factor and substitute it. “It seems obvious to me that pro-choice proponents deserve at least equal representation with pro-life supporters on the council.” Or police supporters versus defund the police fans.
The point is, elevating a single factor to drive the selection of boundaries is fraught no matter which one you choose. Ideally, carving up maps should be blind to politics and demographics, including race and ethnicity.
I hate how the leaders in the Tweet of the Week poll are always the ones that take a political position most readers agree with. *I* agree too! But making a point I agree with is not the same as being funny.
On The Minscing Rascals this week, the panel discussed Gillette being under pressure to stop supplying Russia with shaving products. Eric described the effect of large corporations pulling out of the Russian economy as "death by a thousand cuts." Nicely done!
I like how Mary Schmich highlights once routine excursions that now have become adventurous for many of us, using her sister as an example. It’s like we’re emerging from pandemic winter into a new season, or what I like to call a new normal.
Personally, I’m still hesitant to wander too far, still carefully masking up. Last week, my daughter attended her first movie theater showing in over two years, ecstatic at how much she enjoyed the experience as if for the first time.
As usual, Mary’s insightful writing captures the moment.
I really don’t have something right on the tip of my tongue to say about the Smollett drama, but one thing that bothers me about it all is this nagging sense of – although I’m persuaded it isn’t the case – his possible innocence. He’s been convicted and so he is guilty in the eyes of the court, but I still say to myself, “what if he is really innocent?”
It is with a larger degree of legal certainty than doubt that he’s been convicted, but what legitimate doubt is there if any? I mean, maybe it has nothing to do with Smollett’s case and is more generally the question of doubt in judgment that can yield an ambiguous verdict – what exactly is the standard of “reasonable doubt”?
For sure, it is a subjective question, and one warranting reasonable judgement in any given contest: How do 12 jurors conclude guilt or innocence in deliberations? And we all know of the infamous “bias” involved in trying cases, and how does that play out in one situation or another?
I’m just trying to get at the general sense of possible innocence in a guilty verdict or the possibility of actual guilt in an innocent verdict. It seems to me that it is almost always a nagging possibility in jurisprudence and hangs there shrouded behind the actual verdict in any typical case.
Not that he is, but what if Smollett or any convicted criminal were really wrongfully convicted or exonerated, how would we ever really know?
Re Broccoli Shy…my adult daughters still enjoy singing a family favorite called “Broccoli Lasagna”, (sung to the tune of Hakuna Matata) about a one-time dinner I made that they all hated.
Just as Jussie Smolett’s nonsense hurt legitimate victims of hate crimes, Kim Foxx using this case as an example of racial injustice hurts the many African American people who have been victimized by an inequitable system. .
Austin Berg did a much better job than I with his editorial on Madigan and his labor legislation legacy. (https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-illinois-right-to-work-union-amendment-madigan-20220316-pliz7qn3nbhlhmvvlscbq4p57e-story.html) Added to the Madigan earmarks in the Rebuild Illinois bill discussed by David Greising in a column today, and I think that it should be clear that any 'good' legislation with "Madigan's fingerprints" were just incidental to him running his operation. Which sadly shows every sign of having been inherited by Chris Welch and continuing in operation.
I am frequently frustrated at the length of time required to complete investigations of seemingly uncomplicated events - as with the Stillman case. But in this instance, I also am also suspicious of the timing of the Foxx news conference to combine the Toledo and Alvarez announcements to coincide with the Smollett news stories. Possibly misplaced, but for me, another result of a public official forfeiting the public trust. Along with the absurdity of not charging Roman with child endangerment, there is little reason to trust her judgement and every reason to suspect her motives.
I had to laugh at the Northwestern student government closed meeting position. I can't imagine that they would say the same rules should apply to the Evanston or Chicago governments. I agree that it is a clear attempt to protect themselves and reduce their need for self-censorship. It also displays their fear of the campus community and other campus organizations, not to mention the broader internet world. My guess is that even their 'enlightened' members fear blundering in their comments. I also have to wonder at how they think they will produce non-controversial minutes. In addition to withholding speaker names, will they also sanitize the language to make it entirely inoffensive to any possible audience that deserves protection? A sad state of affairs for the university and it's misguided leadership.
I don't care what names are on Chicago Schools. I think that it would be safest and cheapest to just name them for the neighborhood they are in or the street they are on. I also think that the adults are overthinking the impact of the school's name on the students. I doubt that many of them make any sort of connection of the name to a person or ideals. I also don't see how they would find any person (American or not) that would be an apt model for a diverse and constantly changing student body. I went to Blackhawk Junior High (long gone) which had a picture and sign with some facts which I barely noticed. It was only in my 50's that I read 'The Autobiography of Blackhawk" and learned something about this fascinating and complex man. The sanitized shorthand of him is noble defender of Native American rights, but his much more complex story is mixed, like Daniel Boone shorthand is incomplete. FYI, my elementary school was named by the street and my high school had a township name.
“There are Americans dumb enough to complain about gas prices while donating money to an alleged billionaire for a new private plane, in case you wondered how we haven’t been able to stop the spread of COVID in this country yet. —“
That’s a great diagnosis of why Covid goes in in this country. Eric, when you select non-sequitors like this, I assume you endorse the message.
I’m finding it hard to root for Ohio State over Villanova. Mainly, I think, because I don’t want Michigan to play them.