first of all, EZ is right, homan is an idiot [my characterization] and is unfit [by out-of-state status and mental capacity] to assess publicly the that Gov of IL and the mayor of Chgo suck.
but, as a current michigander and former long-time Chicagoan [and longer time oak parker and evanstonian], i take issue with the assertion that '... outsiders don't get to tell us our mayor and governor suck.' which outsiders shdn't be expressing publicly negative opinions of the IL guv & the Chgo mayor? i agree, ignorant MAGA appointees of the incoming admin shd STFU when it comes to denigrating politicians of the other party.
but i think many non-Chicagoans and non-IL'ans are well within their 'rights' [not just their 1st amendment rights, but also credibility 'rights'] to opine publicly about these 2 officeholders.
The point is that, as adults, we should be able to say it better than that, especially if one is a national leader. And while Mr. Homan is welcome to his opinion, it is very often necessary to remind Trump and those that work for him that that like it or not, the political opposition are also American citizens and not required to agree with them.
Hi Laurence - I completely agree with you that everyone associated with government should remain civil in their comments referring to others, and unfortunately Tom Homan is just one of many, many people on both sides of the spectrum who apparently feel no obligation to do so.
But it is interesting that flagrantly ignoring and violating our immigration laws has become normalized for many people, particularly Democrat elected officials at the local and state level, despite the fact that it is explicitly a federal offense to knowingly harbor or transport, or obstruct apprehension of people coming to this country illegally. So when Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson state their intention to actively defy federal apprehension of illegal immigrants, they are indeed in violation of federal law and subject to prosecution.
It’s an unrelated topic. I have seen no one here defending illegal immigration at this time. No matter what you think of elected officials, there is a better way for top elected officials to express themselves- no matter disagreement on policies.
I don’t want to seem too harsh in my reply to you. My own family consists mostly of liberals. They are still concerned about border controls. My problem with this topic is not border control. It is Trump’s scare tactics. Most of the crossers are not criminals. The other big issue seems to be depression of wages due to illegals. There are certain types of jobs in this country that were never going to pay big wages, illegals or not. Illegals became popular with employers not merely for low wages. They took jobs many natural born workers wouldn’t take anyway, especially whites. I live right next to farm country. There are no whites I know of, not even unemployed ones, vying for crop pickers, the local vegetable canning plant, or in the tree orchards, not unless they are higher paid supervisors.
Laurence - Thank you for your further reply and your as-always reasoned explanation of your position. At the risk of sounding like a bumper sticker slogan, I must take issue with your assertion that most people who come here are not criminals. While I readily agree that the overwhelming majority of people come here for economic opportunity and a better life as law abiding citizens, the fact that people knowingly violated our immigration law to illegally enter the country makes them by definition criminals. Part of the problem is that the left has normalized complete disregard for our immigration laws, and as a nation we must enforce or change our laws for them to have any meaning.
And I cannot disagree with you that illegal immigrants represent a significant and important part of our workforce performing much of the lower wage unskilled labor in this country. If they were to disappear overnight, it would have disastrous consequences for employers and our economy. In tandem with removal of people here illegally, I believe it is imperative that we have comprehensive legislation providing an expedited path for people to be properly vetted and come here in a visa as necessary workers. My belief is that apprehension and removal is going to immediately focus on people who have broken our laws after arriving here. Then I am hoping we may see proposed legislation for strict compliance with e-verify for all employers with serious consequences for violation to remove the economic incentive for people to come here illegally, and then the previously referenced process for admitting workers on a work visa. I believe this would be a great benefit to our country as well as treating people coming here to work very fairly and bringing them out of the shadows.
It’s an unrelated topic. I have seen no one here defending illegal immigration at this time. No matter what you think of elected officials, there is a better way for top elected officials to express themselves- no matter disagreement on policies.
Pretty rich that EZ takes this position when he has no issue with regularly doing the same thing himself regarding governors, mayors and legislators in other states. Just as he does not criticize our governor or mayor when they do the same. Or when Newsome or other Democratic governors do the same. Federal officials are usually less rudely blunt, but their comments are no different in meaning.
EZ usually makes specific criticisms and gives his reasons. I do not recall him saying anything like "Greg Abbott sucks." There are exceptions for targets where he has already made clear his reasons for his criticisms on people such as Dan Proft.
There is another issue here that really irks me. First of all, I need to repeat that I am not a liberal. My positions, liberal or conservative, depend on individual issues. Why do so many conservatives feel compelled to bring up liberal sins, when they respond to critiques about Trump? Liberal sins among Democratic politicians have been well documented including the so-called liberal media. The media is constantly reminding us that Chicago and Iilnois are two of the most corrupt places in the country. That hasn't changed since I was a kid. How many Democratic politicians have been caught with their hands in cookie jars and sent away to grey bar hotels? I would like to see more conservatives, including those on this forum, simply admit that their heroes are sometimes wrong without comparing them to the other side. There are no liberals forcing them to act bad. What bad things liberals do has nothing to do with them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Today, Kennedy, Trump's latest nonsense pick, said he'd like to ban the polio vaccine. Based on what? This vaccine has helped to mostly eradicate polio in this country. There is no proven link between the vaccine and autism in children. Everyone in my family has been immunized. No one in my family is autistic. Now if any of the conservatives here agree with me on this point, can they admit Kennedy is wrong without qualifying it by saying something stupid said or done by a liberal? It's not a zero sum game where if someone on one side is wrong, there has to be fault on the other side.
Hi Bob - I'm going to agree with your on the highly warranted criticism of both Brandon Johnson and Pritzker. Pritzker has presided over a period of large increases in state spending while at the same time literally hundreds of thousands of people have fled the exorbitant taxes and unfriendly business climate of Illinois for better places. (As former residents of the People's Republic of Evanston, my wife and I are among them!)
Brandon Johnson has made himself into a national joke with his dysfunctional mix of hard left ideology, rank incompetence and staff who embarrass Johnson and offend Chicago on an ongoing basis. Sadly, the 83% of Chicago voters who either voted for Johnson or did not bother to vote are getting the government's they deserve.
my wife & i abandoned the PROE too! i loved Evanston; still do - live there 30 yrs. and i love the city of Chgo - but neither is/was worth the price anymore. [side note - Evanston K-8 board & admin have driven the district into a financial sinkhole - while building a new school that the district doesn't need.]
i'll add one more thing about Pritzker, whose supporters and sympathizers just won't get over: his support of the so-called 'fair tax'. they try to make it out that people were fooled by the opposition. the connotation of that: 'no' voters, especially middle and low income 'no' voters, were too stupid to see that they were voting agianst their own interest.
when the truth is they were acutally smart - they understood that the 'progressive' tax proposal was just the camel's [or the bear's] nose under the tent. it would never raise enough $$$ to fund the level of expenditures that the governor and his liberal/progressive supporters want; only by increasing taxes on the middle class, eventually, could their 'steal from the rich' model work. 'ask not for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee.'
The part of of EZ's statement that I think is key is that outsiders should not give *blanket* criticisms. I agree with that, and I think insiders, whatever that means, it applies as well. A summary statement like "they are bad" is almost meaningless. Also, it would only appeal to people who already agree. It is much more powerful to be specific. For example, he could have said that having asylum cities has the effect to increase crime. That is something which could conceivably be backed up or refuted with data and analysis.
What I wonder is what was his motivation for making such a statement. Clearly, it is not going to get him cooperation from the Governor or Mayor.
Hi Skeptic - Tom Homan reminds me of some of the no-nonsense First Sergeants I had the privilege to serve with in their blunt outspokenness. Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson are among a host of local and state Democratic elected officials who are publicly vowing to oppose ICE apprehension of illegal immigrants which is by law a federal offense. So Homan is communicating his willingness to have a showdown with them on this issue. New York mayor Adams met with Homan just this morning and stated his willingness to cooperate with Holman in the apprehension of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in this country. But Pritzker and Johnson remain adamantly opposed to doing even this common sense level of cooperation. This is going to get interesting.
Hi David. Homan stating, "Chicago's in trouble because your mayor sucks and your governor sucks," is unprofessional and does not help him. There are much better ways he could have made the same point and been very direct about it.
There is no legal requirement that the state spend its law enforcement dollars on enforcing federal law. There is no requirement that the state cooperate with federal law enforcement in enforcing federal law.
Good morning Joanie - provide in shelter and other aid to illegal immigrants would appear to fall within harboring in the federal statute. Further, active attempts to conceal or otherwise prevent apprehension of illegal immigrants would also be obstruction of justice, another federal offense. Tom Homan began his career as a patrolman, then investigator and supervisor, and deputy director of ICE under President Obama and he received an award from Obama for his service. He knows border security and illegal immigration and is just the person we need in these times to restore the rule of law to immigration.
Hi Joanie - I don't believe your reference to using state and local tax dollars for federal enforcement is at all material. It is not an expense of tax dollars to notify ice when illegal immigrants are in custody for crimes. It is using tax dollars to provide them three housing at taxpayer expense and I believe that clearly falls within the definition of a harboring in the federal statute. Or if officials surreptitiously move illegal immigrants to avoid their apprehension by ice - that certainly seems like obstruction. So the use of local and state tax dollars is not the issue, but rather harboring and or transporting people coming here illegally, and in any way actively obstructing their apprehension.
On laundry sheets: I'm no doubt not the first environmentalist warrior to throw shade on your devotion, but there's concern out there that they are not as green as advertised. Google "laundry sheets plastic" and read on. I ditched them for Nellie's Laundry Soda, which works fine, if messier than sheets. Alas, it comes in a non-recyclable plastic bag. We do what we can.
The only reason I still add dryer sheets to the balls once in awhile is because the balls don't prevent massive amounts of static. Thanks for the tip on the soda!
I heard a trick that putting a wadded up ball of tinfoil eliminates static cling. I'm not 100% sure it does, but I haven't tested that in a while. Note that a baseball-size wad will become a golfball-size one over time but should still serve the purpose for a while.
Yes, well, Trump is promising to deport millions of people costing an estimated $1T over the next decade, so logic isn’t exactly a winning argument at this point.
Can you imagine a store calling the real police to arrest someone over not paying for one bag, a tax of 10¢ or even 10 bags, at a dollar. The cops who showed up would probably tell the store manager if they did that again, they'd be the one getting arrested.
Or even better, being the state's attorney who must argue in court over someone not paying 10¢ for a bag!
Hi Tom - Even if the estimated it cost of deportation over the next decade reaches $1 trillion dollars, that is dwarfed by our present estimated cost of 1/2 trillion dollars annually to house, feed, transport, provide medical and education benefits to people who are here illegally.
It's a protest against a ridiculous & unnecessary tax, passed because of an idiot 11 year old's request to Pat Quinn to allow bag taxes in Illinois!
Unlike Africa & parts of Asia, we actually have garbage pickup here & you rarely see plastic bags flying around. In fact you can use them to line wastebaskets, instead of buying bags for that & you can also reuse them in your kitchen for all that garbage. So what if it takes three of them to do the job instead of a single 13 gallon kitchen bag!
Also good for carrying wet things homes from the beach or pool!
I can't endorse this. I doubt that stores have to audit their bag distribution and so I doubt they'd care all that much, but it's still a form of tax fraud. Maybe someone in retail can weigh in about if and how and why this kind of thing in monitored.
Though I see that you're portraying it as a form of civil disobedience.
I have gotten tons of mileage out of my reusable bags in grocery stores. In addition, when I can carry my purchase without a bag in other stores, I tell them not to bag it. And I just realized that my habit of only using reusable bags for groceries is my own silly mental block.
Do you have any suggestions for a policy the would effectively reduce this form of plastic consumption? We have a horrific level of plastic waste in our society and suggestions/encouragement/reminders were not successful in getting people to bring reusable bags. A tiny fee has clearly shown effective. I would honestly like to hear other ideas for reducing plastic.
After decades of use, we still don't know definitively the biological impact plastics (and now microsplastics) have on us or the ecosystem. Fortunately, there are some promising technologies on the horizon to more thoroughly recycle plastics into their base constituents.
The #1 problem is plastic packaging at the factories. Everything now comes in a hard plastic shell. Many glass jars with food now has a plastic cap, other than a few things that are under a vacuum. Pop is now sold in either half liter or 2 liter plastic bottles, sure they're the most recyclable plastic out there, but how much is recycled?
Why not half liter & 2 liter aluminum cans?
I understand it's lighter in weight & saves fuel to ship, but at what cost to the rest of the environment?
The added weight in shipping would burn TONS of additional energy. As I posited months ago, our future in (most) flavored beverages ultimately will be in highly concentrated fluids/tablets that folks will mix/re-constitute at home. Easier and cheaper to transport - although due to wildly differnces in the quality of municipal (and well) water systems, quality (taste) control will be an issue.
I do like the idea of larger aluminum containers. Recycled aluminum uses up only 10% of the energy as new aluminum cans.
i also object to the non-recyclable coated cardboard cartons for milk and veg milk [soy, almond, oat]. why can't these be packaged in something readily recyclable?
Hi Monica - states that have instituted a mandatory beverage container deposit - 10 cents per can or bottle, have proven to dramatically reduce littering of cans and bottles. The beverage manufacturers are adamantly opposed to this, but it seems to work to good effect and I wish it was the law in every state.
I agree with you up to a point. As I previously posted, the city is selling it as a form of revenue. If people actually did what they should, the city would make nothing. I associate that with speed cameras and parking cameras. The city is hoping for illegal behavior to make money. I'm with you to help the environment. What does Brandon think? I also remind you that I have seen this tried in California. People doing their family shopping and spending hundreds of dollars don't seem to be concerned with ten cents a bag from my visits to supermarkets. And if this passes, I can't wait for the howl from poor communities about yet another tax on the poor.
I'm having a hard time relating to this whole "paying for plastic bags" because I can't imagine wanting plastic bags at all. Having grown up with a dad in the plastics industry, my guilt makes me shun all things plastic as much as possible. I've been using the reusables since before it was cool.
You reminded me of an anti- vaping commercial where a teen is disgusted watching her friend digging into a school toilet to retrieve her vaping device which then goes into her mouth.
Both. It's usually both. He makes stuff up on the spot and says whatever will rile up his supporters. He has no idea or interest in whether any of it might by random chance have any relationship to reality.
Actually, what Trump has is no moral compass. He is obviously not the first politician to make promises he has no intention of actually carrying out. But he takes it to an extreme. Anything to get votes is okay with him. Once in office, what difference does it make, especially considering he can't run again? A politician can't accomplish anything unless getting elected.
I bought 500 dryer sheets [two, 250 in a box sealed together] of Costco's Kirkland brand years ago. They certainly weren't anywhere near 30¢ a piece. I doubt they were more than a nickel each at the time.
I love Costco's Kirkland Signature, but my disdain for dryer sheets is because of the waxy feel clothes get from them. Any price is too much in my opinion.
What an incredibly sad state we’re in that we’ve re-elected a man who, in a national network interview, tells an obvious and easily proven lie about how other countries handle birthright immigration. My god, what the hell are we doing here?
People in other countries are torn between laughing at us and cowering in fear because we're once again giving the nuclear codes to a toddler in a man's body.
Remember during his first term when he attended a summit of world leaders in Europe. Foreign leaders were actually laughing at behind his back and commenting on his idiocy. His supporters think world leaders are quaking in their boots. The quaking is from withholding guffaws. It also makes me think about what they must think about us for electing him.
He makes it up as he goes along. And he thinks that make-believe is OK because that's what most children's stories are, and he has shown no interest in reading anything beyond that level ever.
Hah, you just reminded me that Reagan advisors got used to the idea of not presenting him with long detailed reports because he publicly admitted that he didn't read anything past the first page.
David Frum’s quip was in bad taste and he should have been more thoughtful, so on its face Mika Brzezinski’s apology was appropriate. But it’s also a bad look for her following so closely the seemingly obsequious off-the-record visit to Mar-a-Lago.
Let me also just say that, if what Frum said was that offensive, why didn’t Mika call him out in real-time? It’s not unlike the criticism of Kristin Welker for not challenging Trump’s absurd comments in that interview (in which he still managed to say she was biased and unfair towards him). I’m not much of a fan of Bill Maher, but one thing he does well is call out the bullshit his panelists try to peddle.
I think Brzezinski’s apology was less about placating Trump than it was just plain old hypersensitive p.c. resonance, a hallmark, unfortunately, of our times. Like when that guy got bounced off of Abby Philip’s show and banned from CNN for life because of his “hope your beeper doesn’t go off” quip. Quick, someone fetch my pearls!
I'd like to see Time choose Elon Musk as person of the year. The only reason is so we could watch the fallout between the two massive egos as they have a wrench thrown into their government-trashing bro fest.
The vulgarity of the thug Homan is par for the course. The MAGA fish rots from the head down. I do hope Governor Pritzger stands up for decency and the heritage of welcoming all who can contribute as the country is wracked by Mango Mussolini and his minions.
It's all part of Trump's next reality show, The Second Term. Insult, threaten, and harass while kissing Trump's ass. All of his minions are expected to follow the script or they'll lose his favor.
I don't use dryer sheets or diverse additives in my laundry because I have asthma and other allergies. Dryer sheets don't soften clothes; they coat them with an irritating smell, among other things. Waste of money.
I've given up on the Morning Joe TV show and podcast after learning of the Florida visit. I can understand Joe and Mika's fear about the incoming administration but look at Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, they're not bowing down. No matter what Joe and Mika say they have lost a ton of credibility in my book. I'm just not interested in what they have to say anymore.
Did you read the comments from Scarborough about this non-scandal? Why should he and all of the reporters at the NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, CNN etc. be shunned for responsibly doing their jobs?
I haven't read the reports of reporters from the NYT, CNN, etc., flying down to kiss Agent Orange's ... perhaps I have missed them while sniffing sal volatile to get over the inappropriateness of Frum's joke.
Speaking of jokes, have you heard the one abut the drunk who was kicked out of running a 20-person veteran's organisation being put in charge of the most lethal fighting force the world has ever seen and its 3 million+ personnel?
Your college football poll is too binary. While I miss the old geography-based conferences, I still like the rivalries of the conference structure and I am still in favor of granting automatic bids (but not preferential seeds!) to some conference champions. Clemson being able to play their way in to the playoff with a 12-seed by winning a conference championship felt right; Arizona State earning a bye for the same result did not.
I was a fan of the old bowl system where bowl organizers chose who they wanted except for bowls that had automatic conference tieins. I predicted years ago that no one was ever going to be satisfied with a playoff system where many of the schools didn’t play each other or have common opponents. Rankings were purely subjective, which is why playoffs were established in the first place. Have things gotten any better? Now we have switched the debate to who plays in the better conference. All the NCAA did was create a chaotic mess, which is par for the course.
I agree with much of what you've said, but would answer "yes" to whether things have gotten better with the new system. One reason the NCAA basketball tournaments work so well is that no credible national championship contender gets left out of the field. Sure there's dickering over seeds and such, but that fades as nobody can argue the most important point, which is that the best team is somewhere in the field of 68. Football has made progress down that path; with the old bowl system (or even the more recent four-team system) there was a good chance that the best team wouldn't even have an opportunity to play for a title. Now we can at least say the odds of the real national champion being left out of the field are pretty small. Sure, there's always the chance an Alabama could have won the whole thing, but nobody is crying too much about a team being left out who finished fourth in their conference.
Yeah, I thought about the things you said. But there’s still the problem of comparing apples and oranges. Does a Boise State really deserve a first round bye? What is the real purpose of determining a national champion in the first place? The new playoff system is a cash cow. Television loves it. Boosters have more places to travel to. Don’t get me started on a comparison with basketball. I saw no reason to expand the field to 68. I really don’t care if Stetson and Maryland-Baltimore get a chance at the Big Dance. Again, the reason given was to make sure that no deserving teams got left out. Ask number 69 what they think. Is the 7th place finisher in, let’s say, the Big Ten less deserving than the champion of the Ivy League conference tourney? As far as I’m concerned, it’s chaos and the answer is the same as most things in the United States of America- FOLLOW THE MONEY!
It's easier to field more teams in a basketball tournament since those players can (and do) play several games a week. Even with the 12-team format, the football playoffs are still going to take a month to complete (although they could get it done in three weeks with better scheduling). I don't see the football playoff expanding beyond 16 teams because of that, so there will always be those crying over being left out.
John - agree on your assessment of NCAA BB, but not on FB.
Short of adopting a model like BB [60+ team playoff - won't happen, shdn't happen], D1/FBS is left w- the Q: what's the right # of teams for a playoff?
and i wd refine that further: how many of the D1 teams have a legit shot at winning the championship via a playoff?
2 was not enough; 4 was not enough. but i believe 12 is too many. i and the bookies believe Clem, SMU, IU, Tenn, Boise St & ASU have almost 0% chance to win the title. OR, UGA, & Tex have a VG chance of winning; OSU, ND and PSU have a decent chance.
so i conclude that 6 is the ideal size of FB playoff field.
except 1] there will now never be <12, and 2] teams ranked #7 and #8 after the reg season, and [stupid] conf champiosnhip games, will be kvetching about why they weren't given a bid to the playoffs.
Interesting points, Bob. Made me think! My argument for 12-16 teams would be that I like having 5ish auto bids to conference champs, and if there were only 3 remaining spots then ND, OSU, PSU, and Tex. could not all be in. I also don’t think it’s terrible to have a few longshots in there. Your comment prompted me to go back to the basketball odds at the start of the 2024 NCAA tourney, and it appears only about 27 teams had 100:1 odds or better. Just as having some “Cinderellas” arguably enhances that tourney, I’d rather have a few too many teams in the CFP field (again, no more than 16 total) than too few.
Of course Trump is an idiot. Was there ever any doubt? We’re talking about birthright citizenship, right? Beside the fact that he is once again either lying or ignorant of how many other countries are doing it, there’s something else. We’re talking about babies being born here being citizens, right? Trump whines about anyone stepping here with one or two feet becoming a citizen. Not only is it not true, but has it occurred to the stable genius that anyone stepping here with one or two feet has already been born?
I'm on the City of Elgin Sustainability Commission and we want to pass either a ban or a fee to decrease plastic waste and so if we go the fee route we, the Commission, aren't considering the fee a revenue stream but a means to provide people who can't afford them a plant fiber reusable bag that eventually dries up because people have changed their behavior. Considering it a revenue stream is a conflict of interest Mayor Johnson!
Conflict of interest…..So is fronting for his former employer during contract negotiations and doing everything he can to fire the board president at the behest of the teachers union. He is a bloviating fool.
The IPI is not a traffic safety firm nor are they engineers. They are lower tax propoganda outlet. Of course they are against something that raises fees.
Once again, I encourage everyone to read Killed By A Traffic Engineer. Speed cameras work for safety.
first of all, EZ is right, homan is an idiot [my characterization] and is unfit [by out-of-state status and mental capacity] to assess publicly the that Gov of IL and the mayor of Chgo suck.
but, as a current michigander and former long-time Chicagoan [and longer time oak parker and evanstonian], i take issue with the assertion that '... outsiders don't get to tell us our mayor and governor suck.' which outsiders shdn't be expressing publicly negative opinions of the IL guv & the Chgo mayor? i agree, ignorant MAGA appointees of the incoming admin shd STFU when it comes to denigrating politicians of the other party.
but i think many non-Chicagoans and non-IL'ans are well within their 'rights' [not just their 1st amendment rights, but also credibility 'rights'] to opine publicly about these 2 officeholders.
and i believe they both suck, IMO.
The point is that, as adults, we should be able to say it better than that, especially if one is a national leader. And while Mr. Homan is welcome to his opinion, it is very often necessary to remind Trump and those that work for him that that like it or not, the political opposition are also American citizens and not required to agree with them.
I agree and also wish that public officials would stay in their lane and comment exclusively on the issues for which they are responsible.
Hi Laurence - I completely agree with you that everyone associated with government should remain civil in their comments referring to others, and unfortunately Tom Homan is just one of many, many people on both sides of the spectrum who apparently feel no obligation to do so.
But it is interesting that flagrantly ignoring and violating our immigration laws has become normalized for many people, particularly Democrat elected officials at the local and state level, despite the fact that it is explicitly a federal offense to knowingly harbor or transport, or obstruct apprehension of people coming to this country illegally. So when Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson state their intention to actively defy federal apprehension of illegal immigrants, they are indeed in violation of federal law and subject to prosecution.
It’s an unrelated topic. I have seen no one here defending illegal immigration at this time. No matter what you think of elected officials, there is a better way for top elected officials to express themselves- no matter disagreement on policies.
And I am in complete agreement with you on this Laurence!
I don’t want to seem too harsh in my reply to you. My own family consists mostly of liberals. They are still concerned about border controls. My problem with this topic is not border control. It is Trump’s scare tactics. Most of the crossers are not criminals. The other big issue seems to be depression of wages due to illegals. There are certain types of jobs in this country that were never going to pay big wages, illegals or not. Illegals became popular with employers not merely for low wages. They took jobs many natural born workers wouldn’t take anyway, especially whites. I live right next to farm country. There are no whites I know of, not even unemployed ones, vying for crop pickers, the local vegetable canning plant, or in the tree orchards, not unless they are higher paid supervisors.
Laurence - Thank you for your further reply and your as-always reasoned explanation of your position. At the risk of sounding like a bumper sticker slogan, I must take issue with your assertion that most people who come here are not criminals. While I readily agree that the overwhelming majority of people come here for economic opportunity and a better life as law abiding citizens, the fact that people knowingly violated our immigration law to illegally enter the country makes them by definition criminals. Part of the problem is that the left has normalized complete disregard for our immigration laws, and as a nation we must enforce or change our laws for them to have any meaning.
And I cannot disagree with you that illegal immigrants represent a significant and important part of our workforce performing much of the lower wage unskilled labor in this country. If they were to disappear overnight, it would have disastrous consequences for employers and our economy. In tandem with removal of people here illegally, I believe it is imperative that we have comprehensive legislation providing an expedited path for people to be properly vetted and come here in a visa as necessary workers. My belief is that apprehension and removal is going to immediately focus on people who have broken our laws after arriving here. Then I am hoping we may see proposed legislation for strict compliance with e-verify for all employers with serious consequences for violation to remove the economic incentive for people to come here illegally, and then the previously referenced process for admitting workers on a work visa. I believe this would be a great benefit to our country as well as treating people coming here to work very fairly and bringing them out of the shadows.
It’s an unrelated topic. I have seen no one here defending illegal immigration at this time. No matter what you think of elected officials, there is a better way for top elected officials to express themselves- no matter disagreement on policies.
Pretty rich that EZ takes this position when he has no issue with regularly doing the same thing himself regarding governors, mayors and legislators in other states. Just as he does not criticize our governor or mayor when they do the same. Or when Newsome or other Democratic governors do the same. Federal officials are usually less rudely blunt, but their comments are no different in meaning.
EZ usually makes specific criticisms and gives his reasons. I do not recall him saying anything like "Greg Abbott sucks." There are exceptions for targets where he has already made clear his reasons for his criticisms on people such as Dan Proft.
There is another issue here that really irks me. First of all, I need to repeat that I am not a liberal. My positions, liberal or conservative, depend on individual issues. Why do so many conservatives feel compelled to bring up liberal sins, when they respond to critiques about Trump? Liberal sins among Democratic politicians have been well documented including the so-called liberal media. The media is constantly reminding us that Chicago and Iilnois are two of the most corrupt places in the country. That hasn't changed since I was a kid. How many Democratic politicians have been caught with their hands in cookie jars and sent away to grey bar hotels? I would like to see more conservatives, including those on this forum, simply admit that their heroes are sometimes wrong without comparing them to the other side. There are no liberals forcing them to act bad. What bad things liberals do has nothing to do with them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Today, Kennedy, Trump's latest nonsense pick, said he'd like to ban the polio vaccine. Based on what? This vaccine has helped to mostly eradicate polio in this country. There is no proven link between the vaccine and autism in children. Everyone in my family has been immunized. No one in my family is autistic. Now if any of the conservatives here agree with me on this point, can they admit Kennedy is wrong without qualifying it by saying something stupid said or done by a liberal? It's not a zero sum game where if someone on one side is wrong, there has to be fault on the other side.
Hi Bob - I'm going to agree with your on the highly warranted criticism of both Brandon Johnson and Pritzker. Pritzker has presided over a period of large increases in state spending while at the same time literally hundreds of thousands of people have fled the exorbitant taxes and unfriendly business climate of Illinois for better places. (As former residents of the People's Republic of Evanston, my wife and I are among them!)
Brandon Johnson has made himself into a national joke with his dysfunctional mix of hard left ideology, rank incompetence and staff who embarrass Johnson and offend Chicago on an ongoing basis. Sadly, the 83% of Chicago voters who either voted for Johnson or did not bother to vote are getting the government's they deserve.
my wife & i abandoned the PROE too! i loved Evanston; still do - live there 30 yrs. and i love the city of Chgo - but neither is/was worth the price anymore. [side note - Evanston K-8 board & admin have driven the district into a financial sinkhole - while building a new school that the district doesn't need.]
i'll add one more thing about Pritzker, whose supporters and sympathizers just won't get over: his support of the so-called 'fair tax'. they try to make it out that people were fooled by the opposition. the connotation of that: 'no' voters, especially middle and low income 'no' voters, were too stupid to see that they were voting agianst their own interest.
when the truth is they were acutally smart - they understood that the 'progressive' tax proposal was just the camel's [or the bear's] nose under the tent. it would never raise enough $$$ to fund the level of expenditures that the governor and his liberal/progressive supporters want; only by increasing taxes on the middle class, eventually, could their 'steal from the rich' model work. 'ask not for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee.'
The part of of EZ's statement that I think is key is that outsiders should not give *blanket* criticisms. I agree with that, and I think insiders, whatever that means, it applies as well. A summary statement like "they are bad" is almost meaningless. Also, it would only appeal to people who already agree. It is much more powerful to be specific. For example, he could have said that having asylum cities has the effect to increase crime. That is something which could conceivably be backed up or refuted with data and analysis.
What I wonder is what was his motivation for making such a statement. Clearly, it is not going to get him cooperation from the Governor or Mayor.
Hi Skeptic - Tom Homan reminds me of some of the no-nonsense First Sergeants I had the privilege to serve with in their blunt outspokenness. Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson are among a host of local and state Democratic elected officials who are publicly vowing to oppose ICE apprehension of illegal immigrants which is by law a federal offense. So Homan is communicating his willingness to have a showdown with them on this issue. New York mayor Adams met with Homan just this morning and stated his willingness to cooperate with Holman in the apprehension of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in this country. But Pritzker and Johnson remain adamantly opposed to doing even this common sense level of cooperation. This is going to get interesting.
Hi David. Homan stating, "Chicago's in trouble because your mayor sucks and your governor sucks," is unprofessional and does not help him. There are much better ways he could have made the same point and been very direct about it.
There is no legal requirement that the state spend its law enforcement dollars on enforcing federal law. There is no requirement that the state cooperate with federal law enforcement in enforcing federal law.
Good morning Joanie - provide in shelter and other aid to illegal immigrants would appear to fall within harboring in the federal statute. Further, active attempts to conceal or otherwise prevent apprehension of illegal immigrants would also be obstruction of justice, another federal offense. Tom Homan began his career as a patrolman, then investigator and supervisor, and deputy director of ICE under President Obama and he received an award from Obama for his service. He knows border security and illegal immigration and is just the person we need in these times to restore the rule of law to immigration.
You realize that you didn’t contradict what I said, do you not?
Hi Joanie - I don't believe your reference to using state and local tax dollars for federal enforcement is at all material. It is not an expense of tax dollars to notify ice when illegal immigrants are in custody for crimes. It is using tax dollars to provide them three housing at taxpayer expense and I believe that clearly falls within the definition of a harboring in the federal statute. Or if officials surreptitiously move illegal immigrants to avoid their apprehension by ice - that certainly seems like obstruction. So the use of local and state tax dollars is not the issue, but rather harboring and or transporting people coming here illegally, and in any way actively obstructing their apprehension.
On laundry sheets: I'm no doubt not the first environmentalist warrior to throw shade on your devotion, but there's concern out there that they are not as green as advertised. Google "laundry sheets plastic" and read on. I ditched them for Nellie's Laundry Soda, which works fine, if messier than sheets. Alas, it comes in a non-recyclable plastic bag. We do what we can.
I was just glad you quoted the Wirecutter's savage review of them, which I saw months ago.
The only reason I still add dryer sheets to the balls once in awhile is because the balls don't prevent massive amounts of static. Thanks for the tip on the soda!
I heard a trick that putting a wadded up ball of tinfoil eliminates static cling. I'm not 100% sure it does, but I haven't tested that in a while. Note that a baseball-size wad will become a golfball-size one over time but should still serve the purpose for a while.
Agree. We switched to balls a couple of years ago, and the static is terrible.
Thanks for that tip!
You never have to pay the bag tax if you use the self checkout. When the screen asks you how many bags did you use, just touch zero.
Remember, there are no bag police watching you!
For now…
If there are six self checkouts, that would require six bag police paid at least $20 an hour! Just not worth it! They'd lose money on the proposition!
Yes, well, Trump is promising to deport millions of people costing an estimated $1T over the next decade, so logic isn’t exactly a winning argument at this point.
Can you imagine a store calling the real police to arrest someone over not paying for one bag, a tax of 10¢ or even 10 bags, at a dollar. The cops who showed up would probably tell the store manager if they did that again, they'd be the one getting arrested.
Or even better, being the state's attorney who must argue in court over someone not paying 10¢ for a bag!
I of course would demand a jury trial!
Hi Tom - Even if the estimated it cost of deportation over the next decade reaches $1 trillion dollars, that is dwarfed by our present estimated cost of 1/2 trillion dollars annually to house, feed, transport, provide medical and education benefits to people who are here illegally.
https://homeland.house.gov/2023/11/16/what-they-are-saying-homeland-majoritys-fourth-interim-report-on-the-financial-cost-of-secretary-mayorkas-border-crisis/
It appears that deportation in enforcement of our immigration laws is going to save us a lot of taxpayer money.
It’s still stealing.
Not it's not!
It's a protest against a ridiculous & unnecessary tax, passed because of an idiot 11 year old's request to Pat Quinn to allow bag taxes in Illinois!
Unlike Africa & parts of Asia, we actually have garbage pickup here & you rarely see plastic bags flying around. In fact you can use them to line wastebaskets, instead of buying bags for that & you can also reuse them in your kitchen for all that garbage. So what if it takes three of them to do the job instead of a single 13 gallon kitchen bag!
Also good for carrying wet things homes from the beach or pool!
It’s still stealing.
No requirement in the city's laws to account for the bags the store buys! Probably wouldn't be legal anyway.
I can't endorse this. I doubt that stores have to audit their bag distribution and so I doubt they'd care all that much, but it's still a form of tax fraud. Maybe someone in retail can weigh in about if and how and why this kind of thing in monitored.
Though I see that you're portraying it as a form of civil disobedience.
I think it would qualify as civil disobedience only if you tell management that you’re doing it. Otherwise it’s a rationalization.
I have gotten tons of mileage out of my reusable bags in grocery stores. In addition, when I can carry my purchase without a bag in other stores, I tell them not to bag it. And I just realized that my habit of only using reusable bags for groceries is my own silly mental block.
Target actually pays *you* 10 cents if you bring and use a reusable bag.
Do you have any suggestions for a policy the would effectively reduce this form of plastic consumption? We have a horrific level of plastic waste in our society and suggestions/encouragement/reminders were not successful in getting people to bring reusable bags. A tiny fee has clearly shown effective. I would honestly like to hear other ideas for reducing plastic.
I think plastic grocery bags should simply be banned.
After decades of use, we still don't know definitively the biological impact plastics (and now microsplastics) have on us or the ecosystem. Fortunately, there are some promising technologies on the horizon to more thoroughly recycle plastics into their base constituents.
The #1 problem is plastic packaging at the factories. Everything now comes in a hard plastic shell. Many glass jars with food now has a plastic cap, other than a few things that are under a vacuum. Pop is now sold in either half liter or 2 liter plastic bottles, sure they're the most recyclable plastic out there, but how much is recycled?
Why not half liter & 2 liter aluminum cans?
I understand it's lighter in weight & saves fuel to ship, but at what cost to the rest of the environment?
Why not ban plastic bottles completely and go back to glass bottles that you can return for a deposit like Oberweis milk still does?
The added weight in shipping would burn TONS of additional energy. As I posited months ago, our future in (most) flavored beverages ultimately will be in highly concentrated fluids/tablets that folks will mix/re-constitute at home. Easier and cheaper to transport - although due to wildly differnces in the quality of municipal (and well) water systems, quality (taste) control will be an issue.
I do like the idea of larger aluminum containers. Recycled aluminum uses up only 10% of the energy as new aluminum cans.
i also object to the non-recyclable coated cardboard cartons for milk and veg milk [soy, almond, oat]. why can't these be packaged in something readily recyclable?
That's a food preservation/safety/freshness issue, I think.
I'll tell why I like your comment. Nothing that cost corporations more money will pass muster with the Trump administration.
Hi Monica - states that have instituted a mandatory beverage container deposit - 10 cents per can or bottle, have proven to dramatically reduce littering of cans and bottles. The beverage manufacturers are adamantly opposed to this, but it seems to work to good effect and I wish it was the law in every state.
I agree with you up to a point. As I previously posted, the city is selling it as a form of revenue. If people actually did what they should, the city would make nothing. I associate that with speed cameras and parking cameras. The city is hoping for illegal behavior to make money. I'm with you to help the environment. What does Brandon think? I also remind you that I have seen this tried in California. People doing their family shopping and spending hundreds of dollars don't seem to be concerned with ten cents a bag from my visits to supermarkets. And if this passes, I can't wait for the howl from poor communities about yet another tax on the poor.
I'm having a hard time relating to this whole "paying for plastic bags" because I can't imagine wanting plastic bags at all. Having grown up with a dad in the plastics industry, my guilt makes me shun all things plastic as much as possible. I've been using the reusables since before it was cool.
Your clips are downright tame compared to this scene from Trainspotting, where Ewan McGregor has to retrieve his hit from a toilet: https://youtu.be/7RoMaS1pzOE?si=nA9_0-5zPHrg8VmE
There are variations on this same theme in other movies, but I don’t think any of them rise to this level of nastiness.
You reminded me of an anti- vaping commercial where a teen is disgusted watching her friend digging into a school toilet to retrieve her vaping device which then goes into her mouth.
Whoops! I put that same scene in before reading the comments! [Doffs her hat to the first to add the scene.]
"Is Trump ignorant or is he just lying again?"
Both. It's usually both. He makes stuff up on the spot and says whatever will rile up his supporters. He has no idea or interest in whether any of it might by random chance have any relationship to reality.
That's because the fat orange traitor has no connections to reality!
Actually, what Trump has is no moral compass. He is obviously not the first politician to make promises he has no intention of actually carrying out. But he takes it to an extreme. Anything to get votes is okay with him. Once in office, what difference does it make, especially considering he can't run again? A politician can't accomplish anything unless getting elected.
He's an actual sociopath that is only concerned about himself.
I don’t use dryer sheets to begin with, but did start adding baking soda to my wash, which does a decent job as a softener replacement.
I bought 500 dryer sheets [two, 250 in a box sealed together] of Costco's Kirkland brand years ago. They certainly weren't anywhere near 30¢ a piece. I doubt they were more than a nickel each at the time.
I love Costco's Kirkland Signature, but my disdain for dryer sheets is because of the waxy feel clothes get from them. Any price is too much in my opinion.
What an incredibly sad state we’re in that we’ve re-elected a man who, in a national network interview, tells an obvious and easily proven lie about how other countries handle birthright immigration. My god, what the hell are we doing here?
People in other countries are torn between laughing at us and cowering in fear because we're once again giving the nuclear codes to a toddler in a man's body.
Remember during his first term when he attended a summit of world leaders in Europe. Foreign leaders were actually laughing at behind his back and commenting on his idiocy. His supporters think world leaders are quaking in their boots. The quaking is from withholding guffaws. It also makes me think about what they must think about us for electing him.
i'd liken him more to a moody, pampered middle schooler - with the nuclear codes
He makes it up as he goes along. And he thinks that make-believe is OK because that's what most children's stories are, and he has shown no interest in reading anything beyond that level ever.
Hah, you just reminded me that Reagan advisors got used to the idea of not presenting him with long detailed reports because he publicly admitted that he didn't read anything past the first page.
David Frum’s quip was in bad taste and he should have been more thoughtful, so on its face Mika Brzezinski’s apology was appropriate. But it’s also a bad look for her following so closely the seemingly obsequious off-the-record visit to Mar-a-Lago.
Let me also just say that, if what Frum said was that offensive, why didn’t Mika call him out in real-time? It’s not unlike the criticism of Kristin Welker for not challenging Trump’s absurd comments in that interview (in which he still managed to say she was biased and unfair towards him). I’m not much of a fan of Bill Maher, but one thing he does well is call out the bullshit his panelists try to peddle.
I think Brzezinski’s apology was less about placating Trump than it was just plain old hypersensitive p.c. resonance, a hallmark, unfortunately, of our times. Like when that guy got bounced off of Abby Philip’s show and banned from CNN for life because of his “hope your beeper doesn’t go off” quip. Quick, someone fetch my pearls!
I'd like to see Time choose Elon Musk as person of the year. The only reason is so we could watch the fallout between the two massive egos as they have a wrench thrown into their government-trashing bro fest.
Oops - I didn't realize it was a done-deal when I wrote this... Welp, blinders at the checkout line magazine rack again this week.
That is a pretty hilarious ego-battle to imagine though!
Okay, Mary Beth, choose for person of the last century. Adolph Hitler(who got a man of the year award), Donald Trump, or Elon Musk?
None of the above, thank you.
The vulgarity of the thug Homan is par for the course. The MAGA fish rots from the head down. I do hope Governor Pritzger stands up for decency and the heritage of welcoming all who can contribute as the country is wracked by Mango Mussolini and his minions.
It's all part of Trump's next reality show, The Second Term. Insult, threaten, and harass while kissing Trump's ass. All of his minions are expected to follow the script or they'll lose his favor.
I don't use dryer sheets or diverse additives in my laundry because I have asthma and other allergies. Dryer sheets don't soften clothes; they coat them with an irritating smell, among other things. Waste of money.
I've given up on the Morning Joe TV show and podcast after learning of the Florida visit. I can understand Joe and Mika's fear about the incoming administration but look at Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, they're not bowing down. No matter what Joe and Mika say they have lost a ton of credibility in my book. I'm just not interested in what they have to say anymore.
Did you read the comments from Scarborough about this non-scandal? Why should he and all of the reporters at the NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, CNN etc. be shunned for responsibly doing their jobs?
I haven't read the reports of reporters from the NYT, CNN, etc., flying down to kiss Agent Orange's ... perhaps I have missed them while sniffing sal volatile to get over the inappropriateness of Frum's joke.
Speaking of jokes, have you heard the one abut the drunk who was kicked out of running a 20-person veteran's organisation being put in charge of the most lethal fighting force the world has ever seen and its 3 million+ personnel?
Your college football poll is too binary. While I miss the old geography-based conferences, I still like the rivalries of the conference structure and I am still in favor of granting automatic bids (but not preferential seeds!) to some conference champions. Clemson being able to play their way in to the playoff with a 12-seed by winning a conference championship felt right; Arizona State earning a bye for the same result did not.
I was a fan of the old bowl system where bowl organizers chose who they wanted except for bowls that had automatic conference tieins. I predicted years ago that no one was ever going to be satisfied with a playoff system where many of the schools didn’t play each other or have common opponents. Rankings were purely subjective, which is why playoffs were established in the first place. Have things gotten any better? Now we have switched the debate to who plays in the better conference. All the NCAA did was create a chaotic mess, which is par for the course.
I agree with much of what you've said, but would answer "yes" to whether things have gotten better with the new system. One reason the NCAA basketball tournaments work so well is that no credible national championship contender gets left out of the field. Sure there's dickering over seeds and such, but that fades as nobody can argue the most important point, which is that the best team is somewhere in the field of 68. Football has made progress down that path; with the old bowl system (or even the more recent four-team system) there was a good chance that the best team wouldn't even have an opportunity to play for a title. Now we can at least say the odds of the real national champion being left out of the field are pretty small. Sure, there's always the chance an Alabama could have won the whole thing, but nobody is crying too much about a team being left out who finished fourth in their conference.
Yeah, I thought about the things you said. But there’s still the problem of comparing apples and oranges. Does a Boise State really deserve a first round bye? What is the real purpose of determining a national champion in the first place? The new playoff system is a cash cow. Television loves it. Boosters have more places to travel to. Don’t get me started on a comparison with basketball. I saw no reason to expand the field to 68. I really don’t care if Stetson and Maryland-Baltimore get a chance at the Big Dance. Again, the reason given was to make sure that no deserving teams got left out. Ask number 69 what they think. Is the 7th place finisher in, let’s say, the Big Ten less deserving than the champion of the Ivy League conference tourney? As far as I’m concerned, it’s chaos and the answer is the same as most things in the United States of America- FOLLOW THE MONEY!
It's easier to field more teams in a basketball tournament since those players can (and do) play several games a week. Even with the 12-team format, the football playoffs are still going to take a month to complete (although they could get it done in three weeks with better scheduling). I don't see the football playoff expanding beyond 16 teams because of that, so there will always be those crying over being left out.
Agree 100%. I wasn’t advocating for 64+ teams in a football playoff. After 16, the argument for getting a shot at the title gets pretty weak.
John - agree on your assessment of NCAA BB, but not on FB.
Short of adopting a model like BB [60+ team playoff - won't happen, shdn't happen], D1/FBS is left w- the Q: what's the right # of teams for a playoff?
and i wd refine that further: how many of the D1 teams have a legit shot at winning the championship via a playoff?
2 was not enough; 4 was not enough. but i believe 12 is too many. i and the bookies believe Clem, SMU, IU, Tenn, Boise St & ASU have almost 0% chance to win the title. OR, UGA, & Tex have a VG chance of winning; OSU, ND and PSU have a decent chance.
so i conclude that 6 is the ideal size of FB playoff field.
except 1] there will now never be <12, and 2] teams ranked #7 and #8 after the reg season, and [stupid] conf champiosnhip games, will be kvetching about why they weren't given a bid to the playoffs.
Interesting points, Bob. Made me think! My argument for 12-16 teams would be that I like having 5ish auto bids to conference champs, and if there were only 3 remaining spots then ND, OSU, PSU, and Tex. could not all be in. I also don’t think it’s terrible to have a few longshots in there. Your comment prompted me to go back to the basketball odds at the start of the 2024 NCAA tourney, and it appears only about 27 teams had 100:1 odds or better. Just as having some “Cinderellas” arguably enhances that tourney, I’d rather have a few too many teams in the CFP field (again, no more than 16 total) than too few.
Of course Trump is an idiot. Was there ever any doubt? We’re talking about birthright citizenship, right? Beside the fact that he is once again either lying or ignorant of how many other countries are doing it, there’s something else. We’re talking about babies being born here being citizens, right? Trump whines about anyone stepping here with one or two feet becoming a citizen. Not only is it not true, but has it occurred to the stable genius that anyone stepping here with one or two feet has already been born?
I'm on the City of Elgin Sustainability Commission and we want to pass either a ban or a fee to decrease plastic waste and so if we go the fee route we, the Commission, aren't considering the fee a revenue stream but a means to provide people who can't afford them a plant fiber reusable bag that eventually dries up because people have changed their behavior. Considering it a revenue stream is a conflict of interest Mayor Johnson!
Conflict of interest…..So is fronting for his former employer during contract negotiations and doing everything he can to fire the board president at the behest of the teachers union. He is a bloviating fool.
The IPI is not a traffic safety firm nor are they engineers. They are lower tax propoganda outlet. Of course they are against something that raises fees.
Once again, I encourage everyone to read Killed By A Traffic Engineer. Speed cameras work for safety.
Further more, its like Jeff said about the bag tax, us urbanists are not happy he is using this to plug the budget gap! They DO work for safety.