If the Pope does not believe that Caholic dogma is absolute truth, then what is he even doing? It is fitting that its he would try to impose what is right and true on the world. It is really up to the rest of the world to decide if it should pay any attention.
Okay. I called the Vatican this morning and left a voice mail to let them know. Let me know if I need to follow-up, but I think the issue should be resolved now.
I could quibble, but your main point that the Pope could choose to say nothing about surrogate mothers or say something supportive is, of course, true. It is a strange thing, though, to assert you know truths that are absolute, universal, and forever, and then change them.
This issue reminds me of a a discussion among journalists in Francis's first year as Pope. There was a lot of enthusiasm about signal's he had give about being supportive of modern norms of society related to sexual orientation. Some pointed out that he was not proposing to change church doctrine he was just saying sympathetic things. One journalist suggested that the biggest news story in the next year would be that the Pope is Catholic.
I don't remember the program. It would have been either Chicago Week in Review, or Washington Week.
Well, I would hate for you to quibble, but this sort of thing appears to go on with some frequency. The Orthodox Jews have the same issue with reconciling contradictory (or at least inconsistent) statements in the Torah, all of which are believed to be right from God's mouth via Moses's hand. The Talmud manages this all the time. The Mormon's have managed it, too, when absolutely necessary. So if the Pope alters dogma, is he no longer Catholic? That would make for a more entertaining news story.
That old fool in the Vatican apparently & conveniently forgets that the guy he worships was born out of a form of surrogacy!
As for the cops & arbitrators, the arbitrators almost always go for the cop's side, not the other way around, which is why the cop union wants them making the ruling, not the police board, which only goes for the cop's side around 50% of the time.
You found one of my all-time favorite music videos! For more enjoyment, read all the comments on the YouTube link - from high praise for his hip swinging moves to at least a couple cheeky attempts to provide the actual lyrics. Fun stuff!
Adding “Prisencolinensinainciusol” to a running playlist ASAP, I never heard this before! Not that it matters in terms of liking it, but it's weirdly current--unlike a lot of early 70s "novelty" songs (Monster Mash comes to mind). Man I love the Tune of the Week feature.
while i appreciate the sentiment of the statement, not sure i agree about the Bulls. as fantastic a season as was 95/96 [maybe the best team in NBA history], is it a much better memory than 90/91? or 97/98 [The Last Dance]?
definitely agree about the Bears. you can add the White Sox 2005 and Cubs 2016. coming from a family of White Sox fans, my parents saw their 1st & only WS WS [World Series] championship when they were 85 and 81. are my brothers and i destined to have that memory not superseded by another WS WS championship in our lifetimes?
"Bring Chicago Home" referendum just took a page from JB's "Fair Tax" referendum play book. JB's claim was the "Fair Tax" would lower taxes for over 95% of the voters. Not a lie, but the savings came to a whopping $5.00 for every $10,000 earned. Voters were savvy enough to see through the hype.
"Bring Home Chicago" is a little more substantial ($150 per $100,000 in value). If your property is valued at exactly $1,000,000 you will be paying $1,500.00 less, but once it reaches $1,150,000, you will be paying more. Since only 3.6% of Chicago homes are valued over one million, I think this three-tiered referendum will have a good chance of passing if it makes a ballot.
I have a house worth less than $400,000 & I'll vote against it if it's on the ballot. It's a truly stupid idea & will cause all sorts of problems.
My work around for those with homes & buildings worth more than a million is this, just do like the New York Central Rail Road did to create that system, lease the property for 999 years from the original seller, with a single balloon payment. That avoids the tax.
I also suspect there will be a change in behavior as people find ways to avoid the tax. How far people will go will depend on the amount of tax burden. What matters is not how many units will get hit with the extra tax, but how many transactions there are on high value homes. My guess is that 4000 transactions per year will be on units above 1 million. To get the targeted 100 mil of extra revenue then those 4000 buyers will have to by 25k tax higher than they would now under the current system, which is already a high tax.
So how much difference does it make to add 25k tax to the price tag to high value homes? How many would be buyers will rent instead of buy or not buy in the city? I don't know. I think maybe a little bit of an effect, but its not catastrophic.
Humans are great adapters. If this passes, I will be curious to see what schemes the market comes up with to make the official price of transferring ownership of property get reported as lower.
As with everything in economics the issue is on decisions at the margin. There will always be deals that are $1 too expensive to work. This will probably be more important in large properties that need to be refurbished or repurposed - large housing complexes, office buildings, brown space, etc. It is hard to predict what the effect will be, but I expect many property restructurings and new price structures to avoid the tax. Also, in some instances, the seller can lower the selling price drop to a lower tax bracket for a net gain.
I was thinking of that, too, but as I pondered the possibilities, my conclusion is that "worship" really had to come first and "friends" last. The only solution I could think of was to change the middle word and hence, its initial.
I was surprised to learn that the Catholic Church also condemns IF (in vitro fertilization). Imagine the number of people who would never be grandparents if their children followed that stipulation.
Gee, who knew that the Workers' Rights Amendment would make public employee unions more powerful and less accountable? And as I recall the issue of arbitration in police contracts was brought up during the debate on the amendment. Changing this is not just a new law, it is a new amendment to the state constitution. It is a pipe dream to believe that public employee unions and their representatives would entertain an amendment that reduced their rights or power. Even if the Public Labor Relations Act were changed, it would not change the union right to bargain or the fact that arbitration has already been included in the bargaining.
Mayor Johnson and the Alders are either posturing or ignorant. I expect that they will waste millions on legal action to protect and enhance their political street cred as they decry the injustice in the courts.
Finally, why should teachers, whose infractions affect children, not be included in the elimination of disciplinary non-public arbitration?
This forum is getting into a bad habit. Questioning official's calls in sports is as old as sports. Just because fans question calls doesn't make officials wrong. I can watch a replay, determine the official made absolutely the correct call, and still listen to fans whine. As an official myself for over fifty years, I have heard it all. I don't mean to be insulting, but the vast majority of fans don't know the rules very well, don't have a clue about officiating mechanics, and have skewed views depending on which team they are rooting for,. Now, about ticky tack- what does that mean? Games are governed rules. Players are supposed to perform according to those rules. If they don't, they get penalized. On the play in question, there was holding. The solution? Block legally. It's a no win situation for officials. If they hadn't called the holding, i'm quite sure Michigan fans would have been screaming bloody murder. It's too easy for fans to whine. But I have a solution. Try it yourselves. I've made that challenge many times over the years. Only one person ever took me up on it. He was so incredibly bad that he was blacklisted by local schools. I would hate to see this forum turn into a forum for this nonsense.
Same! I only reffed youth basketball, but there are all kinds of fouls on every play. I came to think that to be thought of as a good ref you have to project utter confidence. You have no doubt about every call you make as far as the players, coaches and fans believe.
I think the drafting of the new transfer tax referendum is an example of the poor governance skills of the mayor and his alders. But if it gets on the ballot, I think the issue of how the money will be spent will be significant in the voting because of the obvious conflict with the spending on immigrant housing and support. The referendum hopes to raise $100 million, which is less than the $150 million the mayor found to put in the current budget for immigrant housing and services. So, is there already plenty of money not being used for Chicago homeless? Is there really a new deficit, so the new funds are just going to partially fill it, with nothing left for Chicago homeless? If the mayor thinks he can get state and federal money for immigrant housing, then why can't he get that money for Chicago's homeless? Or should we just expect other to increases in taxes in Chicago?
The idea of communism is that everyone is equal and all means of production and outcome should be shared. The reason it has never worked anywhere is that we humans do not truly believe that we are all equal. It might be because of genetics. It might be due to environment. For whatever reason, here in America, we only promise equal opportunity, not total equality. I am most definitely not rich. I have never owned a house. I probably, based on finances, never will. But I hold nothing against those that have money and can actually afford to live in Chicago. Chicago, at one time, had a population of over three million. I believe at last count, it was something like 2.6 million. People are leaving for a lot of reasons. Is is Johnson's intention to make Chicago totally undesirable for anyone who dared be sucessful financially? Has he read too much Robin Hood? Is it now illegal in Chicago to be financially sucessful? Could someone please remind Johnson that while his words and policies might be pleasing to those in the lower classes that absolutely no one is required to live in Chicago? That there are examples in this country of cities that had hard times when people left.
My family of heavy tea drinkers would never microwave water for tea. God gave us electric kettles for a reason! Our 'merican ones don't heat as fast as British ones (different electrical systems) but they do the job quite nicely. My college freshman child even took a fancy electric kettle on which one can adjust the temperature for different types of tea to college.
Reason: Microwaves can super-heat the water, causing it to "explode" when dropping a tea bag (or hot chocolate packet) into it. People suffer significant burns when this happens.
Bravo electric kettles, but not only for tea. If I'm making pasta, I heat the water first in the electric kettle and then transfer it to the pot in which I'll cook the pasta. Much quicker, less watching needed.
(PS: Household hint: Don't make the pasta *in* the electric kettle)
EZ: "View: Incumbents should not have to pass petitions for reelection efforts."
Does that apply to primary contests? If so, the I am sure Barack Obama would disagree. https://www.westernjournal.com/flashback-1996-obama-challenged-signatures-get-primary-opponents-thrown-off-ballot/
Re: the Pope
If the Pope does not believe that Caholic dogma is absolute truth, then what is he even doing? It is fitting that its he would try to impose what is right and true on the world. It is really up to the rest of the world to decide if it should pay any attention.
Then tell Catholics not to engage in surrogate pregnancies. Let the rest of the world do what they feel is right and true.
Okay. I called the Vatican this morning and left a voice mail to let them know. Let me know if I need to follow-up, but I think the issue should be resolved now.
Isn’t Dogma pretty much what the Pope says it is? Precedents have been overturned or modified before.
I could quibble, but your main point that the Pope could choose to say nothing about surrogate mothers or say something supportive is, of course, true. It is a strange thing, though, to assert you know truths that are absolute, universal, and forever, and then change them.
This issue reminds me of a a discussion among journalists in Francis's first year as Pope. There was a lot of enthusiasm about signal's he had give about being supportive of modern norms of society related to sexual orientation. Some pointed out that he was not proposing to change church doctrine he was just saying sympathetic things. One journalist suggested that the biggest news story in the next year would be that the Pope is Catholic.
I don't remember the program. It would have been either Chicago Week in Review, or Washington Week.
Well, I would hate for you to quibble, but this sort of thing appears to go on with some frequency. The Orthodox Jews have the same issue with reconciling contradictory (or at least inconsistent) statements in the Torah, all of which are believed to be right from God's mouth via Moses's hand. The Talmud manages this all the time. The Mormon's have managed it, too, when absolutely necessary. So if the Pope alters dogma, is he no longer Catholic? That would make for a more entertaining news story.
That old fool in the Vatican apparently & conveniently forgets that the guy he worships was born out of a form of surrogacy!
As for the cops & arbitrators, the arbitrators almost always go for the cop's side, not the other way around, which is why the cop union wants them making the ruling, not the police board, which only goes for the cop's side around 50% of the time.
You found one of my all-time favorite music videos! For more enjoyment, read all the comments on the YouTube link - from high praise for his hip swinging moves to at least a couple cheeky attempts to provide the actual lyrics. Fun stuff!
Adding “Prisencolinensinainciusol” to a running playlist ASAP, I never heard this before! Not that it matters in terms of liking it, but it's weirdly current--unlike a lot of early 70s "novelty" songs (Monster Mash comes to mind). Man I love the Tune of the Week feature.
It was new to me as well. I learned several new things from the PS today.
Totally off topic, but there's a simple solution for Boeing's problems with the 737 Max planes.
Boeing should just buy the Flex-Seal Company & use that to close up the door openings in those planes.
Chris Castellani’s quote from the Wolverine Podcast can also apply to the 1985 Bears for Bears fans or the 1995-96 Bulls for Bulls fans.
while i appreciate the sentiment of the statement, not sure i agree about the Bulls. as fantastic a season as was 95/96 [maybe the best team in NBA history], is it a much better memory than 90/91? or 97/98 [The Last Dance]?
definitely agree about the Bears. you can add the White Sox 2005 and Cubs 2016. coming from a family of White Sox fans, my parents saw their 1st & only WS WS [World Series] championship when they were 85 and 81. are my brothers and i destined to have that memory not superseded by another WS WS championship in our lifetimes?
"Bring Chicago Home" referendum just took a page from JB's "Fair Tax" referendum play book. JB's claim was the "Fair Tax" would lower taxes for over 95% of the voters. Not a lie, but the savings came to a whopping $5.00 for every $10,000 earned. Voters were savvy enough to see through the hype.
"Bring Home Chicago" is a little more substantial ($150 per $100,000 in value). If your property is valued at exactly $1,000,000 you will be paying $1,500.00 less, but once it reaches $1,150,000, you will be paying more. Since only 3.6% of Chicago homes are valued over one million, I think this three-tiered referendum will have a good chance of passing if it makes a ballot.
I have a house worth less than $400,000 & I'll vote against it if it's on the ballot. It's a truly stupid idea & will cause all sorts of problems.
My work around for those with homes & buildings worth more than a million is this, just do like the New York Central Rail Road did to create that system, lease the property for 999 years from the original seller, with a single balloon payment. That avoids the tax.
I also suspect there will be a change in behavior as people find ways to avoid the tax. How far people will go will depend on the amount of tax burden. What matters is not how many units will get hit with the extra tax, but how many transactions there are on high value homes. My guess is that 4000 transactions per year will be on units above 1 million. To get the targeted 100 mil of extra revenue then those 4000 buyers will have to by 25k tax higher than they would now under the current system, which is already a high tax.
So how much difference does it make to add 25k tax to the price tag to high value homes? How many would be buyers will rent instead of buy or not buy in the city? I don't know. I think maybe a little bit of an effect, but its not catastrophic.
Humans are great adapters. If this passes, I will be curious to see what schemes the market comes up with to make the official price of transferring ownership of property get reported as lower.
As with everything in economics the issue is on decisions at the margin. There will always be deals that are $1 too expensive to work. This will probably be more important in large properties that need to be refurbished or repurposed - large housing complexes, office buildings, brown space, etc. It is hard to predict what the effect will be, but I expect many property restructurings and new price structures to avoid the tax. Also, in some instances, the seller can lower the selling price drop to a lower tax bracket for a net gain.
Regarding the visual tweet winner, if they had only reversed the order of the banners, (For The Win).
I was thinking of that, too, but as I pondered the possibilities, my conclusion is that "worship" really had to come first and "friends" last. The only solution I could think of was to change the middle word and hence, its initial.
Mary Schmich is wise to embrace curiosity.. Instead of saying “how can people believe XYZ” try to figure it out.
I was surprised to learn that the Catholic Church also condemns IF (in vitro fertilization). Imagine the number of people who would never be grandparents if their children followed that stipulation.
Gee, who knew that the Workers' Rights Amendment would make public employee unions more powerful and less accountable? And as I recall the issue of arbitration in police contracts was brought up during the debate on the amendment. Changing this is not just a new law, it is a new amendment to the state constitution. It is a pipe dream to believe that public employee unions and their representatives would entertain an amendment that reduced their rights or power. Even if the Public Labor Relations Act were changed, it would not change the union right to bargain or the fact that arbitration has already been included in the bargaining.
Mayor Johnson and the Alders are either posturing or ignorant. I expect that they will waste millions on legal action to protect and enhance their political street cred as they decry the injustice in the courts.
Finally, why should teachers, whose infractions affect children, not be included in the elimination of disciplinary non-public arbitration?
This forum is getting into a bad habit. Questioning official's calls in sports is as old as sports. Just because fans question calls doesn't make officials wrong. I can watch a replay, determine the official made absolutely the correct call, and still listen to fans whine. As an official myself for over fifty years, I have heard it all. I don't mean to be insulting, but the vast majority of fans don't know the rules very well, don't have a clue about officiating mechanics, and have skewed views depending on which team they are rooting for,. Now, about ticky tack- what does that mean? Games are governed rules. Players are supposed to perform according to those rules. If they don't, they get penalized. On the play in question, there was holding. The solution? Block legally. It's a no win situation for officials. If they hadn't called the holding, i'm quite sure Michigan fans would have been screaming bloody murder. It's too easy for fans to whine. But I have a solution. Try it yourselves. I've made that challenge many times over the years. Only one person ever took me up on it. He was so incredibly bad that he was blacklisted by local schools. I would hate to see this forum turn into a forum for this nonsense.
I was a pretty good basketball player. I tried refereeing. It was incredibly hard. I was not good at all!
Same! I only reffed youth basketball, but there are all kinds of fouls on every play. I came to think that to be thought of as a good ref you have to project utter confidence. You have no doubt about every call you make as far as the players, coaches and fans believe.
I think the drafting of the new transfer tax referendum is an example of the poor governance skills of the mayor and his alders. But if it gets on the ballot, I think the issue of how the money will be spent will be significant in the voting because of the obvious conflict with the spending on immigrant housing and support. The referendum hopes to raise $100 million, which is less than the $150 million the mayor found to put in the current budget for immigrant housing and services. So, is there already plenty of money not being used for Chicago homeless? Is there really a new deficit, so the new funds are just going to partially fill it, with nothing left for Chicago homeless? If the mayor thinks he can get state and federal money for immigrant housing, then why can't he get that money for Chicago's homeless? Or should we just expect other to increases in taxes in Chicago?
The idea of communism is that everyone is equal and all means of production and outcome should be shared. The reason it has never worked anywhere is that we humans do not truly believe that we are all equal. It might be because of genetics. It might be due to environment. For whatever reason, here in America, we only promise equal opportunity, not total equality. I am most definitely not rich. I have never owned a house. I probably, based on finances, never will. But I hold nothing against those that have money and can actually afford to live in Chicago. Chicago, at one time, had a population of over three million. I believe at last count, it was something like 2.6 million. People are leaving for a lot of reasons. Is is Johnson's intention to make Chicago totally undesirable for anyone who dared be sucessful financially? Has he read too much Robin Hood? Is it now illegal in Chicago to be financially sucessful? Could someone please remind Johnson that while his words and policies might be pleasing to those in the lower classes that absolutely no one is required to live in Chicago? That there are examples in this country of cities that had hard times when people left.
My family of heavy tea drinkers would never microwave water for tea. God gave us electric kettles for a reason! Our 'merican ones don't heat as fast as British ones (different electrical systems) but they do the job quite nicely. My college freshman child even took a fancy electric kettle on which one can adjust the temperature for different types of tea to college.
Reason: Microwaves can super-heat the water, causing it to "explode" when dropping a tea bag (or hot chocolate packet) into it. People suffer significant burns when this happens.
Bravo electric kettles, but not only for tea. If I'm making pasta, I heat the water first in the electric kettle and then transfer it to the pot in which I'll cook the pasta. Much quicker, less watching needed.
(PS: Household hint: Don't make the pasta *in* the electric kettle)
How big is your electric kettle?
Mine's only 1.5 liters
Mine is 2 liters, I think. Only cooking for two.