A Chicago Blog

This letter appeared in the Tribune’s Voice of the People Wednesday:

On my way to lunch recently, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama; I need the money.” I laughed. In a restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie. Again I laughed. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Barack-Obama-redistribution-of-wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need—the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

This is awesome. From the Trib:

A 49ers spokesman confirmed to ESPN on Thursday a report by Arizona radio station XTRA that Singletary, the interim coach, dropped his pants in front of his team at halftime during his team’s 34-13 throttling at home to the Seahawks.”He was just dramatizing how embarrassing it was,” 49ers spokesman Aaron Salkin told ESPN.

Beachwood Reporter fancies himself the Chicago odds-maker. Here’s the line on all sorts of things you might want to bet on, or not bet on:

-Rod Blagojevich names himself to the Senate if Obama wins the presidency: 50 percent. Wholly dependent on how it could help his legal defense.

-Jesse Jackson Jr. replaces Obama: 20 percent. Up ten ticks based on his explicit campaigning for the job. FAA chief will get him that airport sooner, though. UPDATE: Doubled to 40 percent as he stokes the buzz; but can he win re-election statewide?

-A President Obama gets re-elected after four years of talking about change he hasn’t brought about: 62.5 percent. Holding steady.

-President Bush commutes George Ryan’s sentence: 25 percent. Only if a favor to Rove figures in somehow.

-Todd Stroger hires more relatives: 50 percent. Would be higher but are there any left not on the payroll?

-Todd Stroger gets dumber: 90 percent. Hey, I’m just tracking the trends.

Full List

I am disappointed in Ben Stein. We’re not really sure how the movie got into our Netflix queue, but I’m glad it did. Not because I found it particularly enlightening, but because arguing with the television is a very enjoyable activity for me. I rarely get to really debate someone on the really big issues, not since college. And Expelled gave me an opportunity to do just that.

What is frustrating is that Stein’s film pretends to be one thing and turns out to be about something else. On the surface, it is about hubris in the academic community, something I truly believe exists. There is always a tendency for academics who have dedicated their entire careers to a particular paradigm to defend that paradigm, even in the face of counter evidence.

But this justified complaint, it turns out, is a disguise for a film proselytizing intelligent design and criticizing Darwin. Stein characterizes Darwinism as a degradation of human dignity that can, in the wrong hands, lead to Fascism and genocide.

I’m no scientist and don’t profess to have complete knowledge of the issue. But here’s my quick argument against intelligent design (though, not necessarily for Darwinism).

1. Intelligent design (ID) criticizes evolution for not explaing adequately the origin of life, but Intelligent Design cannot and does not offer any explanation for the origin of “intelligence.” This seems to me to be a logical incoherence.
2. We do not yet understand our own intelligence and so the notion of understanding a higher intelligence at work in the universe seems absurd. Admittedly, this does not prevent such an intelligence from existing. But it does beg the question of how the hell we’d recognize it even if we did. (Revelation is an unacceptable answer).

Intelligent Design, as far as I am concerned, is a polemic not a science. We shouldn’t pass laws preventing it from being taught. But we also shouldn’t pass laws mandating it be taught either.

I take issue with Ben Stein’s suggestion that life without “design” means there is nothing sacred, human life becomes cheap and meaningless. In fact, evolution (broadly speaking) is a liberating principle because it means no one on earth understands the “purpose” of life and therefore no one can demand others live in accordance under their version of it.

Stein can point out the affinity Hitler had for Darwin as much as he wants, I’ll just borrow a question from Ronald Reagan. By and large, are we better off now than we were before Darwin? I think so.

I was going to post on this anyway this morning. BarackObama has posted a clever little “tax cut calculator” on his website. Just enter in your tax bracket, answer a few questions and voila! It tells you how much money you will get back in a “cut.” Of course, this still doesn’t explain how people who are already receiving a EIC tax refund because they don’t make enough to have a tax liability, are going to receive a cut. And since the media doesn’t seem to care about gross inaccuracies (nothing new), I guess we’ll never know.

Another interesting tid-bit about the tax-cut calculator. The ad created to promote the gizmo implies support from a Heritage Foundation Analyst. Needless to say, the Heritage Foundation isn’t too happy about this.

So the election isn’t even over and already the post-mortem discussion are beginning. Actually, it is a testament to the pathetic state of Republican politics that this is really just a continuation of discussion that started two years ago.

The question: What could “the right” do better online?

Read the rest of this entry »

I know, I know. This is old news. But I just now watched it. And while I am, of course, concerned about Barack Obama’s proclivity for “spreading the wealth around,” I do have to give him credit for a couple of things.

First, I don’t remember the last time I heard a conservative politician (except maybe Reagan) talk about the Constitution in terms of positive and negative rights. While I vehemently disagree with Obama’s position on the subject, I give him credit for understanding the libertarian position better than most conservatives do (even though they share the position): that the Constitution is about what the government cannot do to its people. Reinterpreting that Constitution to mean otherwise is radical and Obama admits it.

Second, I give Obama credit for preferring the legislature over the courts as the driver of change. This is incredibly important to me and betrays a somewhat conservative view of the role of the courts.

So don’t ever say I can’t say something something nice about Obama.

I have to clarify something. I’m not against voting for Obama. The guy probably deserves to win given the political environment and the fact he’s run a stellar campaign. I’m not against Obama per se, I’m just against the childish naivety that many Obama voters embrace. It’s this childishness that seduces people into believing the government, under control of a particular “leader,” is going to take care of them or solve all the world’s problems. There is plenty of childishness on the right too. Don’t get me wrong. But I’ve just been sickened this year by the total lack of intelligent discussion amongst my peers. Everyone seems content to vote for Obama solely for “charisma” and “leadership.”

I guess the good news is that when Obama tries to nationalize health care, these will be the first voters to fall off the wagon because they never actually looked into what “progressivism” means. A reader emails some interesting info about the -ism, just in case Obama voters are reading. Read the rest of this entry »

As much as I hate it, Republicans deserve to lose this election. If for no other reason than that they have given Howard Dean the freedom to say this … honestly: “You cannot trust Republicans with your money. They will borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend.”

The Alliance to Protect the Illinois Consitution has officially begun its last minute ad blitz trying to suppress support for the Constitutional Convention vote. I saw a commercial with Jim Edgar this morning repeating the standard talking point: It’s not the Consitution that’s wrong in Springfield, it’s the politicians.

To which I say, that’s why we need term limits.