Can we still say winners and losers? Maybe: "The most vote getters and those who also received votes." Roe Is the New Prohibition - can't we all see this coming. Clever Tweets this week.
I smiled when I saw you threw a political Tweet in last week. Didn't think it was the cleverest, but knew it would win. "God" had another Tweet this week. It would have been a runaway winner in Zorn TOTW:
God
@TheTweetOfGod
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is six bastards with gavels.
Both the crops of ToTW - regular and political - are good this week. I, too, felt that the political tweet last week would win - even though I found it only mildly funny.
The Frum piece "Roe is the New Prohibition" makes many good points but fails to emphasize the most important issue. Legislation. When the original Roe decision was made there were many opponents that complained that the court was legislating. And many pundits at the time, and since, have recognized that the lack of abortion legislation left the 'culture war' alive. So now, as always in a functioning democracy, those that favor abortion rights need to focus on legislation and legislators. Just as they should have been for the last 50 years. And, as has been discussed here, the proponents would do well to understand what the broad middle is willing to support and avoid their own fringe desires.
A while back there was something on TV which taught viewers about what Phyllis Schlafly thought and did to oppose right of choice, and help fight it for the long haul. I didn't take notes. I'm surprised her efforts haven't been talked about again after this SCOTUS decision.
I don't blame Griffin for leaving. The real losers are the citizens of Illinois, who will miss his philanthropy and tax payments. Maybe Governor Flintstone can make up for that? He's joining the tens of thousands of other ex-Illinoisans (net of immigration) who are fed up with this one-party state and its extortionate taxes.
It's just a matter of time. The state is losing tens of thousands of taxpayers and they are taking their taxes, spend, and charity with them. I have a number of friends (some of whom you have met) who feel that same way.
On the importance of voting, there is a very good letter-to-the-editor in today's Trib. Mark Deaton, of Oak Park, blamed Democrats that failed to come out to vote for Clinton in 2016, for the current make-up of the Supreme Court. Their. lack of enthusiasm, and preference to stay home because they lost in the primary, prevented them from choosing the lesser evil. Voting in every election, and in every race, is a democratic duty, and shouldn't depend on 'enthusiasm".
I'm not sure who said it, but I like the following retort to those who bemoan that elections are reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils: "Well, I want less evil. What do you want?"
I voted 'yes' in the Evanston poll, because I think they should be logically consistent in their world view, not because I think that it is a good idea. But I question why they would stop short of full nudity and limited to beaches. If 'sexualizing' human anatomy is inappropriate and an unfashionable gender binary perception, then why have any restrictions? And it might make Northwestern and Loyola even more popular university choices.
The argument ultimately comes down to cultural norms and values, which are under challenge in many ways these days. For both and all genders, genitals are naturally sexualized since they are organs that complete the sex act. And rear ends -- butts -- are sexualized and also stigmatized as the locus of elimination, to put it delicately. In certain cultures -- mostly primitive, hunter-gatherer cultures -- women don't modestly cover their breasts (and finding photo essays about such cultures in National Geographic was a particular thrill for pre-adolescent boys in the 1960s, I can tell you!) Other cultures require women to cover their legs, hair, and even faces. I don't think Evanston society will come crashing down if the ban on topless women in public is lifted. I also don't think all that many women will take advantage of the opportunity.
Agreed on all counts. and I was expecting a reference to Europe or even some US beaches. I am curious as to what they think the cultural norms and values of Evanston really are. I think they are only talking about the beach, so I will also be interested if it is really anywhere in public. It reminds me of the 60's when some argued that clothing was an oppressive and puritanical artifact of western culture and a specifically male oppression of female sexuality.
I give credit to World Business Chicago for their 'values' pitch to CEO's. But I doubt that the abortion laws will rise very high on the list of deciding factors. Likewise, I don't see it having an impact on any of the other things you mentioned. But it will be most interesting to watch Texas as a bellwether. Texas is ranked by CEO's as the most business-friendly state (Illinois is 4th in HQ and 48th in friendliness) and has the second highest number of Fortune 500 headquarters. The top ten HQ states are split on the abortion issue. New York (most HQ, 49th friendly), California (3rd HQ, 50th friendly), and Illinois have also been losing HQs to Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc. So we will see if this issue shifts the trend, or if economic, demographic, transportation, infrastructure, operating restrictions and tax issues remain the drivers. Texas has also seen a 16% average population growth from 2010 to 2020. It will be interesting to see if there is any change in that trend.
It would seem like an excellent place to start as model legislation for other states or a federal bill. It would address many of greatest immediate concerns of pro-choice and provide a basis for future revisions. It is also much closer to a 'restore Roe' bill than the one that went through the House. My guess is that the fringes will demonize the center and the media will ride the 'energy' of the fringes. But if I were a pro-choice advocate, I would seize the opportunity to build political momentum with this sort of moderate bill.
I am disappointed when any political office holder resorts to crass and vulgar language, especially against other office holders. It degrades civil discourse and panders to misguided emotion. To your point, it would be better to articulate actual legislation or administrative actions. Demonizing and attacking the legitimacy of our institutions, its processes, and officers is corrosive of democracy, regardless of the political origin. All politicians serve us better when they propose solutions that use the democratic, legislative tools that are the core of our democracy.
Regarding total abortion bans, including the life of the mother, what happens when these women start dying for the lack of medical procedures needed to save their lives? The example of non-viable ectopic pregnancies is forcing doctors and hospitals to consult lawyers rather than perform life saving surgery. I've heard some governors from red states are avoiding questions on the woman's right to life. Did they really think R v. W would stand and the draconian laws they passed would never go into effect? I'm encouraged that some judges in these states are still trying to block these total bans.
To ,my knowledge, there are no total abortion bans. Perhaps I'm wrong? Nor, to my knowledge, are there any states in which abortions of ectopic pregnancies are prohibited. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church permits abortions of ectopic pregnancies because they are unnatural. And you are pleased that non elected judges are using their personal views to override the actions of the elected legislatures? What happens when the sword cuts the other way?
Unnatural? That's an odd word to describe a natural occurrence in 1-2% of pregnancies. The fear is that doctors won't act quickly because they may not feel they can justify the "life of the mother" exception -- not all ectopic pregnancies are fatal to the woman and virtually always fatal to the fetus. The confusion over this is illustrated in this astonishing apology column in The Federalist in which a knee-jerk anti-choicer had to eat a huge plateful of crow https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/19/i-was-wrong-sometimes-its-necessary-to-remove-ectopic-babies-to-save-their-mothers-life/
Call it what you want. It's a technical term Perhaps I should have referred to the principle of double-effect, as below:
1. Removing a part of the body that is about to rupture and cause the death of the individual is a morally good action.
2. The death of the child is not the direct intention of the procedure. It is the removal of the fallopian tube that saves the life of the mother, not causes the death of the child.
3. The death of the child is not willed and would be avoided if at all possible—if, for example, re-implantation in the womb were reasonably possible.
4. The life of the mother is, of course, equal to the life of the child.
Re Rascals, agree 100% on Laura Washington -- hope she comes back soon! (And not just because she agrees with me on speed cameras -- just go the darn speed limit!)
Thanks for the fascinating backstory on John Fillipich, who's a joy to listen to. Not being a regular WGN listener, I wouldn't be familiar with him except through you. Love the joint pain ads and the rest of the show too, and may he continue to give you the first question so long as you offer a suitably intriguing intro of yourself.
Re you v. Williams, I agree with Williams that if Trump had actually stolen the last election, there would have been a significant popular reaction, nothing like Bush v. Gore. I would expect riots, I would expect calls for a general strike and lots of people not showing up to work, who knows what else. It would have been nothing like Bush v. Gore because such a theft would have been far worse, far more outrageous. In 2000, some 500 votes separated the two candidates -- it was a tie. At that point, you can't even be sure that recounts, especially with all the business over how to count chads in various states of dimple and detachment, would have been more accurate than the initial count. Remember, even Breyer found a problem with the differing recount standards, and the idea that there was simply not enough time, under both Florida and federal law, to conduct a statewide recount under uniform standards wasn't crazy.
You couldn't say anything like that to defend Trump's hypothetically successful theft of the last election. It was not nearly so close, either in terms of vote tallies or in terms of the law. As Eastman admitted, his argument would have lost at the Supreme Court, probably 9-0. It would have been a straight-up, obvious, actual, honest-to-God coup. I would expect a commensurate reaction from aggrieved Americans, who were certainly paying attention.
Another point: We keep hearing about how we were just one or two choices away from that coup -- that if Raffensperger or Pence or whoever had done what Trump wanted, we would have been cooked. So long, democracy. Not so! Why are we ignoring the role of our independent, professional judiciary? It's what keeps ours a nation of laws, not of assholes. It's what differentiates the U.S. and other modern liberal democracies from nations where judges are mere political hacks with no power to keep the political system honest. So, what would have happened? Raffensperger would have been hauled into court by Biden and ordered to do the right thing. (That happens! See, e.g.: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/new-mexico-secretary-state-asks-court-step-gop-commission-refuses-cert-rcna33684) Biden would have sued Pence and -- as Eastman admitted! -- Pence would have lost in the Supreme Court, probably 9-0. Remember, the Trump crowd was all over the courts beforehand and lost every time, with lawsuits dismissed even by Trump-appointed judges. So, yeah, if Raffensperger or Pence had followed Trump's orders, it would have been super alarming. What actually happened was super alarming. But I don't think it would have been successful. I don't hear that enough.
I don’t get your hostility toward Ken Griffin. He could have pocketed all his money and not done a damn thing for the city. But he was very philanthropic and every day I bike and walk the lake trail I thank him ! He didn’t go all Maga but only tried to get officials elected that would help fix our disastrous state political and economic situation. I know both parties had a hand in our fiscal mess but the Democrats, thanks to Madison, Blagoavich and Quinn have the biggest share. The fact The Dems want a graduated income without fixing our pension system or any of our structural issues was a huge miscalculation. Griffin made every attempt to help fix our state before he gave up and left. That can’t be said for Caterpillar or Boeing. He also tried to sound the alarm about our crime problem and how it affects recruitment. The fact that politicians, prosecutors, and judges, who never have to make a living in the real world, don’t listen to the many business leaders who are sounding alarms is to all of our peril.
Can we still say winners and losers? Maybe: "The most vote getters and those who also received votes." Roe Is the New Prohibition - can't we all see this coming. Clever Tweets this week.
I smiled when I saw you threw a political Tweet in last week. Didn't think it was the cleverest, but knew it would win. "God" had another Tweet this week. It would have been a runaway winner in Zorn TOTW:
God
@TheTweetOfGod
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is six bastards with gavels.
Both the crops of ToTW - regular and political - are good this week. I, too, felt that the political tweet last week would win - even though I found it only mildly funny.
The Frum piece "Roe is the New Prohibition" makes many good points but fails to emphasize the most important issue. Legislation. When the original Roe decision was made there were many opponents that complained that the court was legislating. And many pundits at the time, and since, have recognized that the lack of abortion legislation left the 'culture war' alive. So now, as always in a functioning democracy, those that favor abortion rights need to focus on legislation and legislators. Just as they should have been for the last 50 years. And, as has been discussed here, the proponents would do well to understand what the broad middle is willing to support and avoid their own fringe desires.
A while back there was something on TV which taught viewers about what Phyllis Schlafly thought and did to oppose right of choice, and help fight it for the long haul. I didn't take notes. I'm surprised her efforts haven't been talked about again after this SCOTUS decision.
I don't blame Griffin for leaving. The real losers are the citizens of Illinois, who will miss his philanthropy and tax payments. Maybe Governor Flintstone can make up for that? He's joining the tens of thousands of other ex-Illinoisans (net of immigration) who are fed up with this one-party state and its extortionate taxes.
What's keeping you here then? Sell and move to Florida. Or Northwest Indiana!
It's just a matter of time. The state is losing tens of thousands of taxpayers and they are taking their taxes, spend, and charity with them. I have a number of friends (some of whom you have met) who feel that same way.
On the importance of voting, there is a very good letter-to-the-editor in today's Trib. Mark Deaton, of Oak Park, blamed Democrats that failed to come out to vote for Clinton in 2016, for the current make-up of the Supreme Court. Their. lack of enthusiasm, and preference to stay home because they lost in the primary, prevented them from choosing the lesser evil. Voting in every election, and in every race, is a democratic duty, and shouldn't depend on 'enthusiasm".
I'm not sure who said it, but I like the following retort to those who bemoan that elections are reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils: "Well, I want less evil. What do you want?"
Evil is still evil. Depends on your cup of tea, I guess.
I voted 'yes' in the Evanston poll, because I think they should be logically consistent in their world view, not because I think that it is a good idea. But I question why they would stop short of full nudity and limited to beaches. If 'sexualizing' human anatomy is inappropriate and an unfashionable gender binary perception, then why have any restrictions? And it might make Northwestern and Loyola even more popular university choices.
The argument ultimately comes down to cultural norms and values, which are under challenge in many ways these days. For both and all genders, genitals are naturally sexualized since they are organs that complete the sex act. And rear ends -- butts -- are sexualized and also stigmatized as the locus of elimination, to put it delicately. In certain cultures -- mostly primitive, hunter-gatherer cultures -- women don't modestly cover their breasts (and finding photo essays about such cultures in National Geographic was a particular thrill for pre-adolescent boys in the 1960s, I can tell you!) Other cultures require women to cover their legs, hair, and even faces. I don't think Evanston society will come crashing down if the ban on topless women in public is lifted. I also don't think all that many women will take advantage of the opportunity.
Agreed on all counts. and I was expecting a reference to Europe or even some US beaches. I am curious as to what they think the cultural norms and values of Evanston really are. I think they are only talking about the beach, so I will also be interested if it is really anywhere in public. It reminds me of the 60's when some argued that clothing was an oppressive and puritanical artifact of western culture and a specifically male oppression of female sexuality.
I give credit to World Business Chicago for their 'values' pitch to CEO's. But I doubt that the abortion laws will rise very high on the list of deciding factors. Likewise, I don't see it having an impact on any of the other things you mentioned. But it will be most interesting to watch Texas as a bellwether. Texas is ranked by CEO's as the most business-friendly state (Illinois is 4th in HQ and 48th in friendliness) and has the second highest number of Fortune 500 headquarters. The top ten HQ states are split on the abortion issue. New York (most HQ, 49th friendly), California (3rd HQ, 50th friendly), and Illinois have also been losing HQs to Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc. So we will see if this issue shifts the trend, or if economic, demographic, transportation, infrastructure, operating restrictions and tax issues remain the drivers. Texas has also seen a 16% average population growth from 2010 to 2020. It will be interesting to see if there is any change in that trend.
I will be interested, but not hopeful, to see Democratic reaction to the Youngkin proposed abortion legislation. https://reason.com/2022/06/27/glenn-youngkins-proposed-15-week-abortion-ban-speaks-to-abortion-moderates/
It would seem like an excellent place to start as model legislation for other states or a federal bill. It would address many of greatest immediate concerns of pro-choice and provide a basis for future revisions. It is also much closer to a 'restore Roe' bill than the one that went through the House. My guess is that the fringes will demonize the center and the media will ride the 'energy' of the fringes. But if I were a pro-choice advocate, I would seize the opportunity to build political momentum with this sort of moderate bill.
I am disappointed when any political office holder resorts to crass and vulgar language, especially against other office holders. It degrades civil discourse and panders to misguided emotion. To your point, it would be better to articulate actual legislation or administrative actions. Demonizing and attacking the legitimacy of our institutions, its processes, and officers is corrosive of democracy, regardless of the political origin. All politicians serve us better when they propose solutions that use the democratic, legislative tools that are the core of our democracy.
Will you be commenting in a future column on the new movie, "Ms. Cassidy and the Dumbdance Kid"?
Regarding total abortion bans, including the life of the mother, what happens when these women start dying for the lack of medical procedures needed to save their lives? The example of non-viable ectopic pregnancies is forcing doctors and hospitals to consult lawyers rather than perform life saving surgery. I've heard some governors from red states are avoiding questions on the woman's right to life. Did they really think R v. W would stand and the draconian laws they passed would never go into effect? I'm encouraged that some judges in these states are still trying to block these total bans.
To ,my knowledge, there are no total abortion bans. Perhaps I'm wrong? Nor, to my knowledge, are there any states in which abortions of ectopic pregnancies are prohibited. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church permits abortions of ectopic pregnancies because they are unnatural. And you are pleased that non elected judges are using their personal views to override the actions of the elected legislatures? What happens when the sword cuts the other way?
Unnatural? That's an odd word to describe a natural occurrence in 1-2% of pregnancies. The fear is that doctors won't act quickly because they may not feel they can justify the "life of the mother" exception -- not all ectopic pregnancies are fatal to the woman and virtually always fatal to the fetus. The confusion over this is illustrated in this astonishing apology column in The Federalist in which a knee-jerk anti-choicer had to eat a huge plateful of crow https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/19/i-was-wrong-sometimes-its-necessary-to-remove-ectopic-babies-to-save-their-mothers-life/
Call it what you want. It's a technical term Perhaps I should have referred to the principle of double-effect, as below:
1. Removing a part of the body that is about to rupture and cause the death of the individual is a morally good action.
2. The death of the child is not the direct intention of the procedure. It is the removal of the fallopian tube that saves the life of the mother, not causes the death of the child.
3. The death of the child is not willed and would be avoided if at all possible—if, for example, re-implantation in the womb were reasonably possible.
4. The life of the mother is, of course, equal to the life of the child.
Re Rascals, agree 100% on Laura Washington -- hope she comes back soon! (And not just because she agrees with me on speed cameras -- just go the darn speed limit!)
Thanks for the fascinating backstory on John Fillipich, who's a joy to listen to. Not being a regular WGN listener, I wouldn't be familiar with him except through you. Love the joint pain ads and the rest of the show too, and may he continue to give you the first question so long as you offer a suitably intriguing intro of yourself.
Re you v. Williams, I agree with Williams that if Trump had actually stolen the last election, there would have been a significant popular reaction, nothing like Bush v. Gore. I would expect riots, I would expect calls for a general strike and lots of people not showing up to work, who knows what else. It would have been nothing like Bush v. Gore because such a theft would have been far worse, far more outrageous. In 2000, some 500 votes separated the two candidates -- it was a tie. At that point, you can't even be sure that recounts, especially with all the business over how to count chads in various states of dimple and detachment, would have been more accurate than the initial count. Remember, even Breyer found a problem with the differing recount standards, and the idea that there was simply not enough time, under both Florida and federal law, to conduct a statewide recount under uniform standards wasn't crazy.
You couldn't say anything like that to defend Trump's hypothetically successful theft of the last election. It was not nearly so close, either in terms of vote tallies or in terms of the law. As Eastman admitted, his argument would have lost at the Supreme Court, probably 9-0. It would have been a straight-up, obvious, actual, honest-to-God coup. I would expect a commensurate reaction from aggrieved Americans, who were certainly paying attention.
Another point: We keep hearing about how we were just one or two choices away from that coup -- that if Raffensperger or Pence or whoever had done what Trump wanted, we would have been cooked. So long, democracy. Not so! Why are we ignoring the role of our independent, professional judiciary? It's what keeps ours a nation of laws, not of assholes. It's what differentiates the U.S. and other modern liberal democracies from nations where judges are mere political hacks with no power to keep the political system honest. So, what would have happened? Raffensperger would have been hauled into court by Biden and ordered to do the right thing. (That happens! See, e.g.: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/new-mexico-secretary-state-asks-court-step-gop-commission-refuses-cert-rcna33684) Biden would have sued Pence and -- as Eastman admitted! -- Pence would have lost in the Supreme Court, probably 9-0. Remember, the Trump crowd was all over the courts beforehand and lost every time, with lawsuits dismissed even by Trump-appointed judges. So, yeah, if Raffensperger or Pence had followed Trump's orders, it would have been super alarming. What actually happened was super alarming. But I don't think it would have been successful. I don't hear that enough.
I don’t get your hostility toward Ken Griffin. He could have pocketed all his money and not done a damn thing for the city. But he was very philanthropic and every day I bike and walk the lake trail I thank him ! He didn’t go all Maga but only tried to get officials elected that would help fix our disastrous state political and economic situation. I know both parties had a hand in our fiscal mess but the Democrats, thanks to Madison, Blagoavich and Quinn have the biggest share. The fact The Dems want a graduated income without fixing our pension system or any of our structural issues was a huge miscalculation. Griffin made every attempt to help fix our state before he gave up and left. That can’t be said for Caterpillar or Boeing. He also tried to sound the alarm about our crime problem and how it affects recruitment. The fact that politicians, prosecutors, and judges, who never have to make a living in the real world, don’t listen to the many business leaders who are sounding alarms is to all of our peril.