A Chicago Blog

I don’t know how I missed this gem. From the Chicago Sun-Times (back in January):

Hoping to stop lawyers from adopting Irish names to run for judge, Gov. Blagojevich has signed a bill requiring candidates who have changed their names within three years before running to have a “formerly known as” under their name.

The law excuses candidates who changed their names due to marriage, divorce or adoption.

State Rep. John Fritchey IV (D-Chicago) proposed the change after the Sun-Times revealed that attorney Frederick S. Rhine changed his name to “Patrick M. O’Brien” to run for judge.

He followed in a long line of attorneys who adopted their mothers’ maiden names or just adopted an Irish name such as “Fitzgerald” to run even though they had not a drop of Irish blood.

Rhine changed his name in October 2005 but in the end did not run as O’Brien in 2006 judicial elections.

Though the census shows the Irish or part-Irish amount to less than 20 percent of the Cook County electorate, candidates with Irish names — especially female candidates — tend to sweep judicial elections.

What is Lisa Madigan going to do now?

“Because I said so.” Are there any words more infuriating to a ten-year-old with anti-authoritarian streak? Hardly. But as an adult I’ve come to realize the words were not frustrating just because of the prohibition they implied. More frustrating was the notion that there isn’t an answer, at least not one available to me.

Without answers we cannot make sense out of our world. We know this from the very earliest of ages because understanding is the human species’ mode of adaptation. It allows us to escape entrapment in the face changing facts and circumstances.

So it should come as no surprise that only hours after the Virginia Tech shooting we, as a society, started looking for reasons for the tragedy. We have a natural craving for some explanation that will enable us to avoid such tragic events in the future.

For many, the answer lies in the lack sufficient regulations on gun ownership. For others it’s precisely the existence of such laws that left those poor innocent students and teachers defenseless against a malicious predator.

Others think more abstractly. It was a desperate response to the systemic alienation of modern capitalistic society. It was a horribly misguided act of religious piety alerting civilization to its decadent decline. It was teenage angst taken to the ‘nth degree.

But, as is always the case with culturally traumatic events, the shooting is being evaluated through the lens of preconceived notions. Those blaming the gun lobby already “knew” guns were bad; this just confirmed it. Those blaming capitalism already “knew” it caused societal alienation; this was proof.

The danger here is that by reading into cultural trauma only what we want to see, we don’t actually learn anything. Of course we feel like we have. But in almost every case, those who claim to know what such an event “means” will not espouse anything they didn’t already know.
How can we “learn” something we already think? And if we already knew the lessons we claim to be learning aren’t we in fact shamelessly exploiting tragedy for the sake of vanity?

Indeed, to really learn from the Virginia Tech massacre, we must accept the possibility that there’s nothing to learn, that senseless tragedies are just that … senseless.

Unfortunately our cultural arrogance has lead us to believe everything that happens in society has a societal cause. When an individual believes everything that happens around him is a result of his own actions (however indirect) we call it narcissism or neurosis. When a whole society thinks that way we call it “social consciousness.”

The reality we can’t handle is that the only lesson to learn from Virginia Tech may be that our obsession with societal explanation of aberrant and tragic events has been taken to the point of full-blown cultural narcissism. We can pass laws, hold our committee meetings, attend our town hall forums, and write wonky op-eds. We can spare no expense. But at the end of the day we’ll still have to deal with our own vulnerability.

This is not to say we should shut off all attempts to analyze what happened in Virginia on Monday. We should investigate and analyze and study. But we have to be ready to deal with the natural and understandable frustration that results from there not being any discernible reasons for what happened.

It might be that God, Fate, the Tao, or whatever supreme order we happen to subscribe to is answering us “because I said so.” It may be that answer is the hardest of all for us to learn to accept.

For those of you desperately interested in local issues (especially OP-RF-FP issues) a regular reader and commenter you know as Dan had an article today in the Forest Park Review.

The time to assess the need for a better, safer Desplaines Avenue entrance ramp for West bound 290 traffic is now. While housing development in Forest Park continues unabated (a good thing), the recent construction of new town home and condominium units near the Forest Park Blue Line stop off of Desplaines Avenue will contribute to the continuing traffic issues.

As a Forest Park resident who unfortunately requires the Desplaines Avenue entrance ramp to take 290 west to a job in the northwest suburbs, I engage in near-miss accidents attempting to access the ramp on a daily basis. I repeat, near-miss accidents on a daily basis.

I’ll quantify my complaint by stating that in my experience, the insanity of three flows of traffic being merged into one lane occurs during the morning’s rush hours between 7 and 9. In accessing the Desplaines Avenue entrance ramp one must contend with traffic coming from the south, attempting to make a quick left onto the entrance ramp, and often dangerously close to traffic coming from the north that is attempting to make a right turn onto the entrance ramp. In addition, there are those people who don’t have the patience to wait in the ever growing line of cars in the right lane on Desplaines Avenue waiting to take a right turn onto the entrance ramp. Instead, they drive in the left lane heading south, and then shoot into the right lane at the intersection for the Forest Park Blue Line CTA, cutting-off anyone who has left an opening for those turning into the Forest Park CTA parking lot and drop-off.

Potential and actual road rage incidents occur on a near daily basis as well, as cars jockey for position to be the first car at the traffic ramp light. This is compounded by two lanes of traffic coming from Desplaines Avenue, and a third coming from the CTA.

Add to the mix pedestrians who often take their lives in their hands every time they attempt to use the crosswalk (which I assume is there, as there doesn’t appear to be a brightly painted crosswalk in the pavement) to cross the entrance ramp to get to the Forest Park Blue Line CTA. I have witnessed a number of pedestrians crossing the entranceway to 290 in a lackadaisical way that is likely to lead to a tragic accident.

I implore the government of Forest Park to give serious study to the Desplaines entrance ramp to 290 west. I am not a traffic engineer, but the time to assess and propose a safer 290 west ramp is now.

Daniel Messick
Forest Park

Radley Balko is having a good debate with Jonah Goldberg about drug prohibition and the fact that ending prohibition would most certainly lead to a rise in usage. This is, for Balko, reveals the myopic logic of drug prohibition supporters. Writes Balko:

But Bennett & Co. insist alcohol prohibition was a success because it reduced alcohol consumption. This assertion itself is debatable (see Jeff Miron’s terrific research on the subject). But even assuming they’re right, this line of argument is revealing. To call alcohol prohibition a “success,” one would have to consider overall consumption of alcohol in America the only relevant criteria. You’d have to ignore the precipitous rise in homicides and other violent crime; the rise in hospitalizations due to alcohol poisoning; the number of people blinded or killed by drinking toxic, black market gin; the corrupting influence on government officials, from beat cops to the halls of congress to Harding’s attorney general; and the erosion of the rule of law.

The notion that drug use is inherently bad, even worse than the violence resulting from prohibition, is indeed the major barrier to liberalization of drug laws.

But if consumption levels are the main concern to prohibitionists, is there not an argument to be made that we could more effectively discourage drug use if they were legal?

While there would certainly be a boost in usage initially, there are various strategies available for reduce consumption of the formerly-illicit drugs. One has to look no further than the war on tobacco.

For one, the $50 billion a year or so the government spends on fighting the Drug War could be spent on a public awareness campaign about the dangers of drug usage. Granted, such a campaign would be condescending and paternalistic, but it’s better than outright prohibition right?

Second, taxes could be used to effectively discourage over-consumption of mind-altering and potentially addictive drugs.

These two approaches combined have been relatively effective at reducing cigarette consumption in the United States. There’s no reason to think, were drugs legalized, that these methods would not also help reduce the usage of recreational drugs … and, very important, without the collateral damage of over crowded prison and morgues.

This is an actual quote from Red October. Hat tip Vodkapundit(s)

A new poll by CNN seems to show Edwards is getting a little bit of a sympathy-bounce in the polls. Will it last? Probably. Edwards is just as viable a candidate as Obama, but until now hasn’t had any real media attention. That should change with his wife’s situation. I think the press will feel guilty for not covering him.

Interestingly, the same poll shows just how divisive Hillary is. While her “favorability” remains high, when asked who was their LEAST favorite candidate, she came in second only to Al Sharpton.

see poll.

Apparently there’s actually an organized effort to do such a thing. Go figure.

So the day is finally here, the day all Cub fans have been waiting for like kids for Christmas. The Tribune Company is going to sell the franchise. According to many fans, corporate ownership was one of the biggest barriers to success. Since all Tribune cared about was the bottom line, and Wrigley Field alone makes the franchise profitable, there’s no incentive to win. Now, presumably, we’ll get ourselves a real owner and there’ll be no more losing right?

But since Wrigley is consistently among the top-ten hitter friendly parks in the nation. I think the real question is whether Cubs fans would tolerate a new owner moving the team to a new stadium, assuming that stadium was designed to be LESS hitter-friendly.

Thoughts?