amen, EZ, to your concerns about harris' proposal to remove the filibuster to 'ensure' abortion roghts.[note - see my related post to the the Tues 9/24 Picayune].
removing the filibuster - if it were even possible for Dems anytime soon - would only provoke a harsh counterraction by Repubs when they hit the trifecta [presidency, house, senate]. at the very least, abortion rights would be undone, likely along with many other rights & programs near & dear to the hearts of center-left and progressives.
be careful what you ask for, supporters of this harris proposal - you just might get it.
Aren't Democrats the minority in the Senate more often than not? Since most states are red and every state get 2 senators, I would think so. It is very short sighted by Harris. But then this campaign cycle more than most is about promising instant gratification.
The Democrats held the majority in the Senate from 1955 to 1981. Since then the Republicans have been in the majority for 12 Congresses, the Democrats 10 for 10 Congresses -- and one time 107th Congress (2001–2003) when control ping-ponged back and forth. How this will all shake out now that we are in the Great Sort, I'm not sure.
maybe the best set of quips in a long time - i voted for 9-of-10.
i love the dad jokes - wish i had had and told them to my kids back in the day. now i copy and text the good/best ones to my 2 sons, late 30s, raising their own kids.
"Did you know that if you live within the city limits of Chicago, you can't legally be buried in Graceland Cemetery?" "Really?" "Yeah. It's against the law to bury people who are alive."
re the White Sox - careful what you wish for, EZ, as you get ready to attend today's game. this team will go down in infamy, regardless of the outocmes of their last 4 games.
i'm a lifelong WS fan - been going to WS games since 1959. i attended only 1 game this yr - my least since 1989, when reinsdorf threatened to move the team to tampa-st pete.
and they won that game this yr! vs Minn, a game rescheduled form the prior nite's rainout, just before the A-S break. got to see M Kopech's 'immaculate inning'.
Sox proceeded to lose the next 21 in a row.
regardless, i always keep in mind harry caray's admonition - You can't beat fun at the ol' ballpark.
I wonder if the Angels aren't tanking these games as they don't want to be the answer for the trivia quiz on what team did help the wretched 2924 White Sox achieve their record breaking loss season?
The problem is living in a relatively limited knowledge world. My sister and brother-in-law are long time Angels season ticket holders. They are no happier about their team than we are. They also want the owner to sell. And they have more resources in Anaheim than we do. They have already changed and upgraded most of the area surrounding the ballpark. And in Anaheim, unlike Florida, what Disney wants, Disney gets.
The White Sox also need a new owner. Reinsdorf is a gonnif & a schande. After screwing the taxpayers out of a free stadium 33 years ago, he's unhappy with it, even though he's the reason everyone hates it. There's no neighborhood around it like at Wrigleyville. No bars or restaurants, he had them all bulldozed for parking lots. So now he wants a newer taxpayer one at 15th & Clark in the 78, which will have a neighborhood around it, eventually. Supposedly even a fill-in subway station on the Red Line.
And if he can't get what he wants, he'll take his team & his 88 year old body to Nashville, which will then probably be stupid enough to give him the free stadium, knowing he'll be dead before it's finished & the team sold off the local owners, probably music industry people & renamed something about music.
What's the last time you drove Roosevelt Road in either direction between the Dan Ryan and DuSable Lake Shore Drive at much more than a crawl? Add home-game traffic 81 days a year and you get traffic hell. Way better to put the new Bears stadium there: around 10 home games (pre- and regular season) and just one playoff game per round (if the have the better record) than baseball's best-of-5 or -7 series. The only way to make economic sense at the 78 is with year-round appealing destinations in addition to the sports anchor and keep parking really cheap. (Unlike the Icon movie theaters just across Roosevelt Road, which were usually crowded for their first few years, but cratered after a strip parking fee was added, and recently closed.)
I realize it’s unpopular (to put it mildly) to close underutilized schools, but that’s what needs to be done. At least in combination with finding additional revenue. Pritzker could probably put together a plan that gets some additional state funding to CPS while requiring it to start closing a handful of schools each year. That would also lead to, at the very least, some reassigned staff and some layoffs.
In the 1990s, right after Desert Storm, the Pentagon went on a much-needed belt-tightening program - closing and realigning bases, reducing force strength, etc. As bloated as the defense budget is today, I can only imagine how much worse it would be had they not gone through that.
amen, John. not justifiable to keep open schhols at 20%/15%/10% of student capacity. waste of $$ on admin, teachers, utilities, etc, which could better be redistributed/spent on other schools - or narrowing CPS budget deficit.
i wish i shared your optimism about what pritzker and the state might do - whatever he thinks of mayor johnson [apparently not much], he would never cross the CTU on such a major issue.
CPS is too big, too bloated, dysfunctional [like CTU], and mostly unaccountable. needs radical reform - which is unlikely to happen in my lifetime. and soon it will have a 21 member board - astoundingly bad move. if you were starting a school system from scratch, and wanted to program it for failure, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a 'better' model than CPS-CTU.
No doubt CTU has a lot of pull, but Pritzker does too. It will take leadership to wrangle the interests of all concerned, and since it looks like nothing is likely to happen unless the state steps in, it’s going to take Pritzker stepping up.
Let's hope. But when asked about the CPS issues yesterday, Pritzker said it was a local Chicago situation and he had no position. Also, in the past he has been very friendly to the public sector unions and has supported the passage of all of their requested legislation. He will put his finger to the wind.
The CTU and the mayor are also committed to continuing the increase in CPS staffing. The staffing increased by 4.1% in the 2024 budget, while the wage costs increased by 7.1% and the benefit costs increased by 12.9%. The CTU is demanding more staff, higher wages, and higher benefits.
I read the linked Chalkbeat article about the high school with 33 students and find it heart-wrenching. I cannot fathom how awful it must be for those students to not have access to any of the resources or possibilities of larger school (e.g., sports, music, probably science labs, counselors, decent library, etc.) and why they - or their parents! - would prefer to stay there versus transfer to a more populated school. (Or teachers for that matter.) I mean, I guess I understand that a large vacant school building in a community is bad and presents its own problems. But must the children suffer for the sake of not having to deal with an empty building?? I honestly cannot wrap my head around this and why those who supposedly care about the 'students' best interests' are not 100% focused on dealing with this problem.
there's actually an easy answer to the vacant school in the neighborhood problem - sell or lease it to a charter school network. not something the CTU would care for - but there are huge waitlists at the current charter schools in Chgo. that's what the market - parents of school age children - wants.
The sooner CPS files for bankruptcy the better it will be for the students & the taxpayers! That school system is totally out of control. Not closing & consolidating schools with under 35% capacity is mind numbingly insane!
Right now that out of control union is calling the shots at CPS, with their stooge in the mayor's office doing their main legwork. School's CEO Martinez is correct, you don't borrow hundreds of millions to pay for pay increases, that's a prescription for a financial disaster down the road!
So on a similar note, I got my first campaign call last night from a woman pushing an elected school board candidate. I specifically asked if the one she was pushing was from that rotten fucking teachers union. That wording didn't faze her a bit & she said no. That made me happy & I looked into her a bit more, in a Block Club article on the candidates in my district & she is one of a few that have absolutely no contact with that rotten out of control fucking union!
And I've been pro-union my life, but not this one! Not ever!
As far as Johnson being a puppet for the Chicago Teachers Union, I think most people knew that before he was elected, so nothing surprising there. But as dumb as he and his administration is in public imagine how dumb they must be when nobody's looking. Look for about year 3 when someone for some people get caught with their hand in the cookie jar or where it doesn't belong. Illinois might get a bad rap for crooked politicians, but they do get caught here. Not the place to be crooked anymore.
We're used to routine graft in civic institutions around here, so sure: CTU-City Hall connections are probably generating their share. I'm more dismayed that we as voters haven't yet awakened to the requirements for being a functional, responsible mayor--or haven't found them in a candidate whose inclinations aren't reactionary (my reason for not voting for Mr. Vallas).
One more example of the unseriousness of #45: He is saying we should have a tariff for goods coming from Mexico. He’s the same guy who gave us USMCA which does the exact opposite .
I know Republicans are afraid to disagree with Trump about anything, but the mayor and the governor in Ohio need to forcefully denounce his attacks on Springfield Haitians. What are they waiting for, crowds of pitchfork and torch-wielding MAGAs to "get 'em out"? Their hesitant responses so far emphasize their cowardice.
Having nothing to do with today’s PS, I’m at the point in my life where I tape Jeopardy every day. 🤷♂️The current 3 day champion is David Erb. He’s a solid player married to the author of one of my favorite books of the last couple years. “Lessons in Chemistry ”. I’m also of the age that I still say “tape”…
Waste in government? What a shocker. In addition to your CPS piece, I read about the bipartisan senate assassination report. Among their findings: Drone operator was inexperienced and unable to get his drone in the air to detect gunman’s drone. Two minutes before a shot was fired, SS knew the gunman was on the roof.
Senate recommended an increase in budget including 230 million in emergency funding. That should do it!😂
Yesterday, TMZ had a report about the utter incompetence of the Secret Service protecting Obama at a restaurant in LA. There was a bar mitzvah going on in the same building, with multiple armed guards & the guards were told some sort of police action was going on outside, so one guard was sent down & ended up walking directly past Obama sitting in an SUV in an alley & the Secret Service did nothing to prevent the armed guard from doing so. 30 minutes later, the Secret Service asked the guard's boss for an explanation of what was going on.
It's obvious that moving the Secret Service from the Treasury Department to the Department of Homeland Security has been a disaster & it needs to go back to being part of Treasury!
Not a foolish thing to do with all the insane Jew Haters running around today. Several years ago for Open House Chicago, Temple Sholom on Lake Shore Drive was open on Sunday for a look around & they had an armed security guard wanding everyone for weapon as we entered.
Armed guards are now common at every synagogue in the Chicago area. Just at my own north suburban synagogue, we are spending a ton of money every year now (and even more after Oct. 7) for armed guards during any service or program (meaning, most of the day/evening. )Meanwhile, I went to a church funeral last week----and walked right in! What a contrast, sigh.
Hey, they only have a $1 billion annual budget now to cover the 36 people that they protect. But to be fair the money is also pissed away on the redundant investigations into counterfeit U.S. currency, bank and financial institution fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, illicit financing operations, and cyber crimes. The functions should fully transfer to the FBI, which then would only be redundant with SEC, Fed, and six other agencies responsible for financial crimes. And the completely redundant intelligence operations run by the secret service.
"View: The filibuster cools majoritarian passions yet gives even more outsized power in the Senate to small states. Getting rid of it for U.S. Supreme Court nominees has not been good for the Democrats, and I worry about the wild swings in legislation that might occur if one party and then another holds both houses of Congress and the White House at the same time."
Me too!
Regarding the filibuster giving "even more outsized power to small states," though, hold on a sec. The Senate is a deeply counter-majoritarian institution. It's highly possible, therefore, that *some* filibusters will actually vindicate majority sentiment. That is to say, in some filibusters, those Senators opposing cloture represent more people than those in favor of the bill or appointment. Call such filibusters "majoritarian" filibusters. There have been many over the years. Such majoritarian filibusters actually mitigate the Senate's malapportionment. Others, of course, have the opposite effect. Those non-majoritarian filibusters, those where those opposing cloture represent not only a minority in the Senate but a tiny minority of the population, do indeed exacerbate the Senate's unfairness.
There is a systematic partisan asymmetry here. Democratic filibusters are more likely to be majoritarian ones, while Republican ones are more likely to exacerbate the Senate's malapportionment. (This is because all those low-population red states outnumber the low-population blue ones.) Therefore, when Republicans are in charge, the filibuster mitigates the Senate's unfairness, but when Democrats are in charge, it exacerbates it. Because the Senate is more likely to end up Republican over time -- so long, that is, as the Big Sort persists -- I prefer keeping the filibuster to mitigate the unfairness. It also seems to me that it's more important in general to block bad stuff from the other side than to pass fresh stuff we like. (I'm tempted to think that we've basically passed all the laws we need.)
The senate is only malapportioned if the assumption is that only population is relevant to government. The House is the purely population-oriented part of the legislative. The Senate is supposed to also represent regional interests that are not directly aligned with population.
Fiddlesticks. The Senate doesn't systematically represent any metric at all, nor was it designed to. A legislature could give points for land, but the Senate doesn't. Rhode Island and Wyoming have the same two senators. A legislature could attempt to systematically represent different interests, be they regional, urban/rural, occupational, racial/ethnic, etc., but the Senate doesn't do that. The makeup of the Senate is determined by one thing and one thing only: the happenstance of statehood. Why two Dakotas should have twice as much clout as Minnesota, say, is beyond me and everyone else.
The real reason for Senate malapportionment -- which Madison was very much against, lest you think that the founders really loved this idea -- is quite simple: Small states did not want to be dominated by larger states, and agreeing to equal suffrage in the Senate was a necessary concession to secure passage of the Constitution. This makes sense. If you want to enter into a federation, it's natural to demand points just for being a state, just as European nations do in the EU and every state does in the UN. But let's not pretend that it's actually plausibly fair. It's so palpably unfair, in fact, that if we were to do something similar at the state level -- say, give two senators to each county -- it would be held unconstitutional as violating the principle of one person, one vote.
I believe there is tension in the Constitution between the idea of equal representation -- one person one vote -- and the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College. The Supreme Court could resolve that tension theoretically by declaring the winner-take-all system unconstitutional, and require states to apportion their electors by percentage of the popular vote, as nearly as a possible. https://fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all
It's hard to see how winner-take-all is unconstitutional. The Constitution commits to the states the power to decide how to award their electoral votes, including by bypassing a statewide popular vote entirely if they so choose. This power is the fundamental basis for the national popular vote interstate compact, whereby, as soon as enough states agree, states comprising 270 electoral votes would each award all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It's a clever workaround. It may be held too clever by half and not so much a workaround as an end-run. In any case, I think it is a more plausible path toward fixing this particular problem.
After all, I'm not sure that any state has ever done what you propose -- a proportional allocation of all its electoral votes -- and that would suddenly become constitutionally required? Rather, the alternative has been to award all but two by congressional district, as Maine and Nebraska do. That option, which must be permissible, could be worse, in fact, because it would import partisan gerrymandering and an advantage for whichever party benefits most from it across the country (Republicans) into the electoral vote count. This website purports to suggest that this model would have handily handed the election to the Republican in every presidential election from 2000-2016, except Obama's first. He would have lost his second one. https://electoralvotemap.com/what-if-all-states-split-their-electoral-votes-like-maine-and-nebraska/#Election_of_2000
I agree that both the Senate and the Electoral College violate the principle of equality from which the one person one vote standard is derived, the standard that ensures equal voting power *within states*. But the Constitution itself enshrines these particular inequalities by its plain and specific language. They thus stand as prominent exceptions to the one person one vote rule. To hold this system unconstitutional would be akin to holding the Constitution unconstitutional, which can't be right.
i think your recall of history and your analysis are pretty good.
but i question the use of 'unfair' - what's unfair? why is it unfair? i'd say it's unfair only because you, & some people who agree with you on matter, think it's unfair.
would you think it unfair if your POV were minoritarian and dominating?
BTW, i don't like the excessive influence of low population states over so many aspects of american life. but to me, the problem isn't the constitutional govt of the US of A - it's the failure of the democratic party to play the elctoral college game intelligently, and put up candidates for Prez & senate who can get more votes than their repub counterparts.
Senate seats were evenly apportioned among the early states because the less populous ones weren't willing to give up the equal standing they'd enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation. (Recall that what we now call the Constitutional Convention was convened to amend the Articles to make them more workable, not to replace them.) There has never been a way of wresting disproportionate power from relatively low-population states ever since. If New Hampshire, for instance, had been interested in regional power, where's the constitutional mechanism for allying it's power with that of the other New England states? At least New Hampshire has managed to fend off challengers to its first-primary status. Fellow tiny state Vermont: nothing.
I agree, although there are some possibilities available to make the Senate a bit more fair and could eliminate the body's current partisan lean. They're unlikely too, but at least there are ways in theory that don't even require constitutional amendment. One would be to break up states, which requires the approval of the state(s) involved and Congress. I could well imagine, for example, a North and South California. Another is to add states. Puerto Rico and D.C. are often discussed. These measures would only somewhat mitigate the population-based malapportionment, but they could do much to address the partisan imbalance.
I tend to think, though, that the most likely approach -- a tall order, but still the most likely -- to address the partisan imbalance of the Senate is for Democrats to widen their appeal. Ohio should be at least purple, for example.
A few random thoughts. Eric is off base about Trump not knowing that tariffs are bad for consumers. It doesn't matter if he knows or not. Just wave the flag at his followers. Firing Martinez is worse than meaningless. Suppose Mayor Rake Stepper gets who he wants in there and the borrowing is made. Have we forgotten that due to financial status and academic negativity that the state can take over CPS pretty much whenever they want? That the state won't much care what CTU thinks if they do? Of all the ridiculous claims Burger Boy has made, this time he has surpassed himself. Using Russia's proud military history to praise Putin? Napoleon penetrator deep into Russia. He was only defeated by the horrid Russian winter. The Japanese brutalized the Russians in the Russian Japanese War. Ineffectiveness in World War I helped bring down the Tsar and put in the Communists. Hitler nearly took down Moscow. Only winter, American Lend Lease aid and the attack on Pearl Harbor stopped him. And we all know how the Russian military is performing against Ukraine. Once again did Burger Boy know any of this or did he simply not care as long as it suited his politics?
The Russians did pretty well at the Battle of Stalingrad. Many historians view that battle as the turning point in the European theater of World War II.
Agreed. One battle does not make for a proud history. Hitler's screwup in military strategy cost them in Stalingrad as much as anything. What is Trump doing praising this despot, no matter what their history?
As stated in Wikipedia, the Battle of Stalingrad (now known as Volgograd) was “the bloodiest and fiercest battle of the entirety of World War II—and arguably in all of human history.” More Russian soldiers died in that one battle than American soldiers died in the entirety of World War II. Again in Wikipedia: “Historian William Craig, while researching for his book, stressed the incredible death toll of the battle, stating that ‘Most appalling was the growing realization, formed by statistics I uncovered, that the battle was the greatest military bloodbath in recorded history. Well over a million men and women died because of Stalingrad, a number far surpassing the previous records of dead at the first battle of the Somme and Verdun in 1916.’ [267] Historian Edwin P. Hoyt states that ‘In less than seven months the Stalingrad dead numbered over three million.’ [268] Historian Jochen Hellbeck described the lethality of the battle as such, ‘The battle of Stalingrad—the most ferocious and lethal battle in human history—ended on February 2. With an estimated death toll in an excess of a million, the bloodletting at Stalingrad far exceeded that of Verdun, one of the costliest battles of World War I.’ [39] According to military historian Louis A. DiMarco, ‘In terms of raw casualty numbers, the battle for Stalingrad was the single most brutal battle in history.’” I’d say that makes for a pretty proud history. Don’t get me wrong. I am no supporter of Russia today. But it does bother me to hear Americans say “we defeated the Germans,” as if we and Great Britain defeated the Nazis by ourselves.
I hate to disagree with you because of my respect for you. One battle does not make for a proud military history. How about the failures I noted? And no matter how you slice it, how does this make Putin praiseworthy? What pride is there is the performance of the military against Ukaine? What does this have to do with a despot ruler who brutalized the people of an independent country to steal their territory and throws his political opposition in prison? Or is that why Trump likes Putin? I'll bet he would love to throw Harris and her supporters in prison.
I respect you as well. As I said, I am no supporter of Russia today. The Battle of Stalingrad has nothing to do with Putin, nor does it make Putin praiseworthy. Putin wasn’t even born until 1952.
Laurence, you and Garry better be careful about your continued references to Trump as "Burger Boy" and "Fat Traitor" or "otherwise alluding to (Trump's) weight". EZ may add you to his one man (Kass) fat shaming crusade. "It’s a puerile, bullying attack rooted in what is clearly a medical issue". Hopefully neither of you are overweight giving your humor "a certain pot/kettle quality". Somehow, I think he may make exceptions in your cases... Haha.
I think "Burger Boy" is a reference to his taste for fast food and how he served burgers to a championship football team that visited the White House, not his weight. "Fat Traitor" is out of bounds by me, but it's odd to do it in defense of Trump who never stints from unfair namecalling.
it's known that trump's diet consists mostly of mcdonald's and other fast food.
so the Burger Boy moniker is more likely due to his girth than just the one-off serving the nat'l championship FB team visitors with fast food burgers.
but i've got better slurs for trump than fat shamers.
I thought Harry Reid leading the charge to dismantle the filibuster for judicial nominations (during the Obama administration) was idiotic, thinking at the time, correctly, that as soon as the Republicans had the Senate majority they'd kill it for Supreme Court nominations as well. After Harris suggested this the other day, a Democrat, I believe, warned against it, saying that the GOP could then turn around and make all abortions illegal. You'd think by now politicians of any stripe could look ahead at possible consequences of their actions.
By the way, Eric, I was about to type "very" in a sentence above and edited myself, per the style book selections you posted. :)
Wow, did those big shots actually says "physical" in their release rather than "fiscal?" Or was this simply a transcription error?
"to address budgeting shortfalls should be lauded, not punished. Chicago needs more physical discipline, not less."
Yeah, that was a transcription error that we missed. Fixed online!
Fair enough. I edited my comment.
I got a chuckle out of the error, as I thought they might be right about the necessary means of persuasion. :)
amen, EZ, to your concerns about harris' proposal to remove the filibuster to 'ensure' abortion roghts.[note - see my related post to the the Tues 9/24 Picayune].
removing the filibuster - if it were even possible for Dems anytime soon - would only provoke a harsh counterraction by Repubs when they hit the trifecta [presidency, house, senate]. at the very least, abortion rights would be undone, likely along with many other rights & programs near & dear to the hearts of center-left and progressives.
be careful what you ask for, supporters of this harris proposal - you just might get it.
That's quite true
Aren't Democrats the minority in the Senate more often than not? Since most states are red and every state get 2 senators, I would think so. It is very short sighted by Harris. But then this campaign cycle more than most is about promising instant gratification.
The Democrats held the majority in the Senate from 1955 to 1981. Since then the Republicans have been in the majority for 12 Congresses, the Democrats 10 for 10 Congresses -- and one time 107th Congress (2001–2003) when control ping-ponged back and forth. How this will all shake out now that we are in the Great Sort, I'm not sure.
https://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm
maybe the best set of quips in a long time - i voted for 9-of-10.
i love the dad jokes - wish i had had and told them to my kids back in the day. now i copy and text the good/best ones to my 2 sons, late 30s, raising their own kids.
I couldn't vote for the pool table one, all the ones I've seen had just four legs!
You are pretty much correct, I concede, but there are these https://royalbilliard.com/product/venetian-pool-table/ https://www.kdclick.com/en/product/kd-premium-pool-table-6-legs-marble-based-imported-pool-game-table
Well Eric and now you BobE have set off my bad Dad joke meter…
1. Q. What always makes me smile? A. My Face muscles.
2. Some people say the glass is half empty, some half full. Engineers say the glass is twice the size necessary.
3. Why did the mailman die? Because everybody dies.
4. Why did the dinosaur cross the road? Because chickens hadn’t evolved yet.
5. Good health is merely dying as slowly as possible.
Okay, okay I will stop, Eric’s are better, I could not help myself.
Apologies, just had to scratch my itch.
The mailman joke is just my speed. Reminds me of: "Hey, do you know who's in the hospital?" "Who?" "Sick people."
"Did you know that if you live within the city limits of Chicago, you can't legally be buried in Graceland Cemetery?" "Really?" "Yeah. It's against the law to bury people who are alive."
Reminds me of this quiz question from David Letterman’s old show:
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he would be:
A) Writing his memoirs
B) Advising the President
C) Scratching desperately at the inside of his coffin
Graceland Cemetery is extremely popular. People are dying to get in there.
I jut can't get on board for the Dad Jokes Quips of the Week. (Although, as a dad, I've produced my share.)
re the White Sox - careful what you wish for, EZ, as you get ready to attend today's game. this team will go down in infamy, regardless of the outocmes of their last 4 games.
i'm a lifelong WS fan - been going to WS games since 1959. i attended only 1 game this yr - my least since 1989, when reinsdorf threatened to move the team to tampa-st pete.
and they won that game this yr! vs Minn, a game rescheduled form the prior nite's rainout, just before the A-S break. got to see M Kopech's 'immaculate inning'.
Sox proceeded to lose the next 21 in a row.
regardless, i always keep in mind harry caray's admonition - You can't beat fun at the ol' ballpark.
I wonder if the Angels aren't tanking these games as they don't want to be the answer for the trivia quiz on what team did help the wretched 2924 White Sox achieve their record breaking loss season?
The problem is living in a relatively limited knowledge world. My sister and brother-in-law are long time Angels season ticket holders. They are no happier about their team than we are. They also want the owner to sell. And they have more resources in Anaheim than we do. They have already changed and upgraded most of the area surrounding the ballpark. And in Anaheim, unlike Florida, what Disney wants, Disney gets.
The White Sox also need a new owner. Reinsdorf is a gonnif & a schande. After screwing the taxpayers out of a free stadium 33 years ago, he's unhappy with it, even though he's the reason everyone hates it. There's no neighborhood around it like at Wrigleyville. No bars or restaurants, he had them all bulldozed for parking lots. So now he wants a newer taxpayer one at 15th & Clark in the 78, which will have a neighborhood around it, eventually. Supposedly even a fill-in subway station on the Red Line.
And if he can't get what he wants, he'll take his team & his 88 year old body to Nashville, which will then probably be stupid enough to give him the free stadium, knowing he'll be dead before it's finished & the team sold off the local owners, probably music industry people & renamed something about music.
amen to that. i think a new stadium in The 78 would be great - as long as the Sox owner, whoever it may be, arranges private financing.
What's the last time you drove Roosevelt Road in either direction between the Dan Ryan and DuSable Lake Shore Drive at much more than a crawl? Add home-game traffic 81 days a year and you get traffic hell. Way better to put the new Bears stadium there: around 10 home games (pre- and regular season) and just one playoff game per round (if the have the better record) than baseball's best-of-5 or -7 series. The only way to make economic sense at the 78 is with year-round appealing destinations in addition to the sports anchor and keep parking really cheap. (Unlike the Icon movie theaters just across Roosevelt Road, which were usually crowded for their first few years, but cratered after a strip parking fee was added, and recently closed.)
Garry, you might be on to something - Sox just won again, 7-0, swept the series!
hey, EZ, did you enjoy the game today? Sox win, 7-0!
would you have preferred to see a loss?
Of course! I wanted to see history!
I realize it’s unpopular (to put it mildly) to close underutilized schools, but that’s what needs to be done. At least in combination with finding additional revenue. Pritzker could probably put together a plan that gets some additional state funding to CPS while requiring it to start closing a handful of schools each year. That would also lead to, at the very least, some reassigned staff and some layoffs.
In the 1990s, right after Desert Storm, the Pentagon went on a much-needed belt-tightening program - closing and realigning bases, reducing force strength, etc. As bloated as the defense budget is today, I can only imagine how much worse it would be had they not gone through that.
amen, John. not justifiable to keep open schhols at 20%/15%/10% of student capacity. waste of $$ on admin, teachers, utilities, etc, which could better be redistributed/spent on other schools - or narrowing CPS budget deficit.
i wish i shared your optimism about what pritzker and the state might do - whatever he thinks of mayor johnson [apparently not much], he would never cross the CTU on such a major issue.
CPS is too big, too bloated, dysfunctional [like CTU], and mostly unaccountable. needs radical reform - which is unlikely to happen in my lifetime. and soon it will have a 21 member board - astoundingly bad move. if you were starting a school system from scratch, and wanted to program it for failure, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a 'better' model than CPS-CTU.
No doubt CTU has a lot of pull, but Pritzker does too. It will take leadership to wrangle the interests of all concerned, and since it looks like nothing is likely to happen unless the state steps in, it’s going to take Pritzker stepping up.
Let's hope. But when asked about the CPS issues yesterday, Pritzker said it was a local Chicago situation and he had no position. Also, in the past he has been very friendly to the public sector unions and has supported the passage of all of their requested legislation. He will put his finger to the wind.
The CTU and the mayor are also committed to continuing the increase in CPS staffing. The staffing increased by 4.1% in the 2024 budget, while the wage costs increased by 7.1% and the benefit costs increased by 12.9%. The CTU is demanding more staff, higher wages, and higher benefits.
https://www.civicfed.org/CPS_FY2024#:~:text=Property%20tax%20revenue%20is%20projected%20to%20increase%20by
I read the linked Chalkbeat article about the high school with 33 students and find it heart-wrenching. I cannot fathom how awful it must be for those students to not have access to any of the resources or possibilities of larger school (e.g., sports, music, probably science labs, counselors, decent library, etc.) and why they - or their parents! - would prefer to stay there versus transfer to a more populated school. (Or teachers for that matter.) I mean, I guess I understand that a large vacant school building in a community is bad and presents its own problems. But must the children suffer for the sake of not having to deal with an empty building?? I honestly cannot wrap my head around this and why those who supposedly care about the 'students' best interests' are not 100% focused on dealing with this problem.
there's actually an easy answer to the vacant school in the neighborhood problem - sell or lease it to a charter school network. not something the CTU would care for - but there are huge waitlists at the current charter schools in Chgo. that's what the market - parents of school age children - wants.
The sooner CPS files for bankruptcy the better it will be for the students & the taxpayers! That school system is totally out of control. Not closing & consolidating schools with under 35% capacity is mind numbingly insane!
Right now that out of control union is calling the shots at CPS, with their stooge in the mayor's office doing their main legwork. School's CEO Martinez is correct, you don't borrow hundreds of millions to pay for pay increases, that's a prescription for a financial disaster down the road!
So on a similar note, I got my first campaign call last night from a woman pushing an elected school board candidate. I specifically asked if the one she was pushing was from that rotten fucking teachers union. That wording didn't faze her a bit & she said no. That made me happy & I looked into her a bit more, in a Block Club article on the candidates in my district & she is one of a few that have absolutely no contact with that rotten out of control fucking union!
And I've been pro-union my life, but not this one! Not ever!
As far as Johnson being a puppet for the Chicago Teachers Union, I think most people knew that before he was elected, so nothing surprising there. But as dumb as he and his administration is in public imagine how dumb they must be when nobody's looking. Look for about year 3 when someone for some people get caught with their hand in the cookie jar or where it doesn't belong. Illinois might get a bad rap for crooked politicians, but they do get caught here. Not the place to be crooked anymore.
We're used to routine graft in civic institutions around here, so sure: CTU-City Hall connections are probably generating their share. I'm more dismayed that we as voters haven't yet awakened to the requirements for being a functional, responsible mayor--or haven't found them in a candidate whose inclinations aren't reactionary (my reason for not voting for Mr. Vallas).
One more example of the unseriousness of #45: He is saying we should have a tariff for goods coming from Mexico. He’s the same guy who gave us USMCA which does the exact opposite .
I know Republicans are afraid to disagree with Trump about anything, but the mayor and the governor in Ohio need to forcefully denounce his attacks on Springfield Haitians. What are they waiting for, crowds of pitchfork and torch-wielding MAGAs to "get 'em out"? Their hesitant responses so far emphasize their cowardice.
The mayor has been doing so, loudly.
Having nothing to do with today’s PS, I’m at the point in my life where I tape Jeopardy every day. 🤷♂️The current 3 day champion is David Erb. He’s a solid player married to the author of one of my favorite books of the last couple years. “Lessons in Chemistry ”. I’m also of the age that I still say “tape”…
“You never, ever hear about Rush Limbaugh any more.” Say hello to Yogi Berra: “Nobody ever goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”
Waste in government? What a shocker. In addition to your CPS piece, I read about the bipartisan senate assassination report. Among their findings: Drone operator was inexperienced and unable to get his drone in the air to detect gunman’s drone. Two minutes before a shot was fired, SS knew the gunman was on the roof.
Senate recommended an increase in budget including 230 million in emergency funding. That should do it!😂
Yesterday, TMZ had a report about the utter incompetence of the Secret Service protecting Obama at a restaurant in LA. There was a bar mitzvah going on in the same building, with multiple armed guards & the guards were told some sort of police action was going on outside, so one guard was sent down & ended up walking directly past Obama sitting in an SUV in an alley & the Secret Service did nothing to prevent the armed guard from doing so. 30 minutes later, the Secret Service asked the guard's boss for an explanation of what was going on.
It's obvious that moving the Secret Service from the Treasury Department to the Department of Homeland Security has been a disaster & it needs to go back to being part of Treasury!
My favorite part of that story is that there was a Bar Mitzvah with armed guards! 😊
Not a foolish thing to do with all the insane Jew Haters running around today. Several years ago for Open House Chicago, Temple Sholom on Lake Shore Drive was open on Sunday for a look around & they had an armed security guard wanding everyone for weapon as we entered.
Armed guards are now common at every synagogue in the Chicago area. Just at my own north suburban synagogue, we are spending a ton of money every year now (and even more after Oct. 7) for armed guards during any service or program (meaning, most of the day/evening. )Meanwhile, I went to a church funeral last week----and walked right in! What a contrast, sigh.
Hey, they only have a $1 billion annual budget now to cover the 36 people that they protect. But to be fair the money is also pissed away on the redundant investigations into counterfeit U.S. currency, bank and financial institution fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, illicit financing operations, and cyber crimes. The functions should fully transfer to the FBI, which then would only be redundant with SEC, Fed, and six other agencies responsible for financial crimes. And the completely redundant intelligence operations run by the secret service.
Hey at least the White Sox finished their home games with a winning streak.
The Tigers currently have a 2 game lead in the Wild Card standings so if they split the series, everyone wins. Except the White Sox.
"View: The filibuster cools majoritarian passions yet gives even more outsized power in the Senate to small states. Getting rid of it for U.S. Supreme Court nominees has not been good for the Democrats, and I worry about the wild swings in legislation that might occur if one party and then another holds both houses of Congress and the White House at the same time."
Me too!
Regarding the filibuster giving "even more outsized power to small states," though, hold on a sec. The Senate is a deeply counter-majoritarian institution. It's highly possible, therefore, that *some* filibusters will actually vindicate majority sentiment. That is to say, in some filibusters, those Senators opposing cloture represent more people than those in favor of the bill or appointment. Call such filibusters "majoritarian" filibusters. There have been many over the years. Such majoritarian filibusters actually mitigate the Senate's malapportionment. Others, of course, have the opposite effect. Those non-majoritarian filibusters, those where those opposing cloture represent not only a minority in the Senate but a tiny minority of the population, do indeed exacerbate the Senate's unfairness.
There is a systematic partisan asymmetry here. Democratic filibusters are more likely to be majoritarian ones, while Republican ones are more likely to exacerbate the Senate's malapportionment. (This is because all those low-population red states outnumber the low-population blue ones.) Therefore, when Republicans are in charge, the filibuster mitigates the Senate's unfairness, but when Democrats are in charge, it exacerbates it. Because the Senate is more likely to end up Republican over time -- so long, that is, as the Big Sort persists -- I prefer keeping the filibuster to mitigate the unfairness. It also seems to me that it's more important in general to block bad stuff from the other side than to pass fresh stuff we like. (I'm tempted to think that we've basically passed all the laws we need.)
Law review article on this issue: https://akhilamar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/The-Majoritarian-Filibuster.pdf
The senate is only malapportioned if the assumption is that only population is relevant to government. The House is the purely population-oriented part of the legislative. The Senate is supposed to also represent regional interests that are not directly aligned with population.
Fiddlesticks. The Senate doesn't systematically represent any metric at all, nor was it designed to. A legislature could give points for land, but the Senate doesn't. Rhode Island and Wyoming have the same two senators. A legislature could attempt to systematically represent different interests, be they regional, urban/rural, occupational, racial/ethnic, etc., but the Senate doesn't do that. The makeup of the Senate is determined by one thing and one thing only: the happenstance of statehood. Why two Dakotas should have twice as much clout as Minnesota, say, is beyond me and everyone else.
The real reason for Senate malapportionment -- which Madison was very much against, lest you think that the founders really loved this idea -- is quite simple: Small states did not want to be dominated by larger states, and agreeing to equal suffrage in the Senate was a necessary concession to secure passage of the Constitution. This makes sense. If you want to enter into a federation, it's natural to demand points just for being a state, just as European nations do in the EU and every state does in the UN. But let's not pretend that it's actually plausibly fair. It's so palpably unfair, in fact, that if we were to do something similar at the state level -- say, give two senators to each county -- it would be held unconstitutional as violating the principle of one person, one vote.
I believe there is tension in the Constitution between the idea of equal representation -- one person one vote -- and the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College. The Supreme Court could resolve that tension theoretically by declaring the winner-take-all system unconstitutional, and require states to apportion their electors by percentage of the popular vote, as nearly as a possible. https://fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all
It's hard to see how winner-take-all is unconstitutional. The Constitution commits to the states the power to decide how to award their electoral votes, including by bypassing a statewide popular vote entirely if they so choose. This power is the fundamental basis for the national popular vote interstate compact, whereby, as soon as enough states agree, states comprising 270 electoral votes would each award all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It's a clever workaround. It may be held too clever by half and not so much a workaround as an end-run. In any case, I think it is a more plausible path toward fixing this particular problem.
After all, I'm not sure that any state has ever done what you propose -- a proportional allocation of all its electoral votes -- and that would suddenly become constitutionally required? Rather, the alternative has been to award all but two by congressional district, as Maine and Nebraska do. That option, which must be permissible, could be worse, in fact, because it would import partisan gerrymandering and an advantage for whichever party benefits most from it across the country (Republicans) into the electoral vote count. This website purports to suggest that this model would have handily handed the election to the Republican in every presidential election from 2000-2016, except Obama's first. He would have lost his second one. https://electoralvotemap.com/what-if-all-states-split-their-electoral-votes-like-maine-and-nebraska/#Election_of_2000
I agree that both the Senate and the Electoral College violate the principle of equality from which the one person one vote standard is derived, the standard that ensures equal voting power *within states*. But the Constitution itself enshrines these particular inequalities by its plain and specific language. They thus stand as prominent exceptions to the one person one vote rule. To hold this system unconstitutional would be akin to holding the Constitution unconstitutional, which can't be right.
i think your recall of history and your analysis are pretty good.
but i question the use of 'unfair' - what's unfair? why is it unfair? i'd say it's unfair only because you, & some people who agree with you on matter, think it's unfair.
would you think it unfair if your POV were minoritarian and dominating?
BTW, i don't like the excessive influence of low population states over so many aspects of american life. but to me, the problem isn't the constitutional govt of the US of A - it's the failure of the democratic party to play the elctoral college game intelligently, and put up candidates for Prez & senate who can get more votes than their repub counterparts.
Senate seats were evenly apportioned among the early states because the less populous ones weren't willing to give up the equal standing they'd enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation. (Recall that what we now call the Constitutional Convention was convened to amend the Articles to make them more workable, not to replace them.) There has never been a way of wresting disproportionate power from relatively low-population states ever since. If New Hampshire, for instance, had been interested in regional power, where's the constitutional mechanism for allying it's power with that of the other New England states? At least New Hampshire has managed to fend off challengers to its first-primary status. Fellow tiny state Vermont: nothing.
I agree, although there are some possibilities available to make the Senate a bit more fair and could eliminate the body's current partisan lean. They're unlikely too, but at least there are ways in theory that don't even require constitutional amendment. One would be to break up states, which requires the approval of the state(s) involved and Congress. I could well imagine, for example, a North and South California. Another is to add states. Puerto Rico and D.C. are often discussed. These measures would only somewhat mitigate the population-based malapportionment, but they could do much to address the partisan imbalance.
I tend to think, though, that the most likely approach -- a tall order, but still the most likely -- to address the partisan imbalance of the Senate is for Democrats to widen their appeal. Ohio should be at least purple, for example.
A few random thoughts. Eric is off base about Trump not knowing that tariffs are bad for consumers. It doesn't matter if he knows or not. Just wave the flag at his followers. Firing Martinez is worse than meaningless. Suppose Mayor Rake Stepper gets who he wants in there and the borrowing is made. Have we forgotten that due to financial status and academic negativity that the state can take over CPS pretty much whenever they want? That the state won't much care what CTU thinks if they do? Of all the ridiculous claims Burger Boy has made, this time he has surpassed himself. Using Russia's proud military history to praise Putin? Napoleon penetrator deep into Russia. He was only defeated by the horrid Russian winter. The Japanese brutalized the Russians in the Russian Japanese War. Ineffectiveness in World War I helped bring down the Tsar and put in the Communists. Hitler nearly took down Moscow. Only winter, American Lend Lease aid and the attack on Pearl Harbor stopped him. And we all know how the Russian military is performing against Ukraine. Once again did Burger Boy know any of this or did he simply not care as long as it suited his politics?
The Russians did pretty well at the Battle of Stalingrad. Many historians view that battle as the turning point in the European theater of World War II.
Agreed. One battle does not make for a proud history. Hitler's screwup in military strategy cost them in Stalingrad as much as anything. What is Trump doing praising this despot, no matter what their history?
As stated in Wikipedia, the Battle of Stalingrad (now known as Volgograd) was “the bloodiest and fiercest battle of the entirety of World War II—and arguably in all of human history.” More Russian soldiers died in that one battle than American soldiers died in the entirety of World War II. Again in Wikipedia: “Historian William Craig, while researching for his book, stressed the incredible death toll of the battle, stating that ‘Most appalling was the growing realization, formed by statistics I uncovered, that the battle was the greatest military bloodbath in recorded history. Well over a million men and women died because of Stalingrad, a number far surpassing the previous records of dead at the first battle of the Somme and Verdun in 1916.’ [267] Historian Edwin P. Hoyt states that ‘In less than seven months the Stalingrad dead numbered over three million.’ [268] Historian Jochen Hellbeck described the lethality of the battle as such, ‘The battle of Stalingrad—the most ferocious and lethal battle in human history—ended on February 2. With an estimated death toll in an excess of a million, the bloodletting at Stalingrad far exceeded that of Verdun, one of the costliest battles of World War I.’ [39] According to military historian Louis A. DiMarco, ‘In terms of raw casualty numbers, the battle for Stalingrad was the single most brutal battle in history.’” I’d say that makes for a pretty proud history. Don’t get me wrong. I am no supporter of Russia today. But it does bother me to hear Americans say “we defeated the Germans,” as if we and Great Britain defeated the Nazis by ourselves.
I hate to disagree with you because of my respect for you. One battle does not make for a proud military history. How about the failures I noted? And no matter how you slice it, how does this make Putin praiseworthy? What pride is there is the performance of the military against Ukaine? What does this have to do with a despot ruler who brutalized the people of an independent country to steal their territory and throws his political opposition in prison? Or is that why Trump likes Putin? I'll bet he would love to throw Harris and her supporters in prison.
I respect you as well. As I said, I am no supporter of Russia today. The Battle of Stalingrad has nothing to do with Putin, nor does it make Putin praiseworthy. Putin wasn’t even born until 1952.
Laurence, you and Garry better be careful about your continued references to Trump as "Burger Boy" and "Fat Traitor" or "otherwise alluding to (Trump's) weight". EZ may add you to his one man (Kass) fat shaming crusade. "It’s a puerile, bullying attack rooted in what is clearly a medical issue". Hopefully neither of you are overweight giving your humor "a certain pot/kettle quality". Somehow, I think he may make exceptions in your cases... Haha.
I think "Burger Boy" is a reference to his taste for fast food and how he served burgers to a championship football team that visited the White House, not his weight. "Fat Traitor" is out of bounds by me, but it's odd to do it in defense of Trump who never stints from unfair namecalling.
Ahhh. That makes sense. Laurence, you’re off the hook!
JB can dish it out, too.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jim-dey-pritzker-reveling-self-145200876.html
Belittling anyone because of their obesity is sophomoric and churlish, but when the target is Trump, you can’t say it’s undeserved.
it's known that trump's diet consists mostly of mcdonald's and other fast food.
so the Burger Boy moniker is more likely due to his girth than just the one-off serving the nat'l championship FB team visitors with fast food burgers.
but i've got better slurs for trump than fat shamers.
I thought Harry Reid leading the charge to dismantle the filibuster for judicial nominations (during the Obama administration) was idiotic, thinking at the time, correctly, that as soon as the Republicans had the Senate majority they'd kill it for Supreme Court nominations as well. After Harris suggested this the other day, a Democrat, I believe, warned against it, saying that the GOP could then turn around and make all abortions illegal. You'd think by now politicians of any stripe could look ahead at possible consequences of their actions.
By the way, Eric, I was about to type "very" in a sentence above and edited myself, per the style book selections you posted. :)