« April 2010 | Main | June 2010 »

May 27, 2010

This keeps getting better and better

A few days ago, I wrote about my interesting time along the Lake Monday night. As it turns out, a lot of people had interesting nights, because that area featured eight arrests, and a shooting. Apparently most of the arrests happened before I got there, but damn, that's chaotic.

Naturally, Mayor Daley said don't worry, but I am none too pleased. The God damn Guardian Angels are even on the case. What is this, 1980 New York City?

I think the problem is simple: years of wasting money, cuts to the police force, and warm nights are a recipe for chaos. Living in the third largest city in the country, I come to expect a certain amount of crime. But when street gangs are wreaking havoc on one of the city's greatest public assets, things have got to change. I think Mayor Daley knows this, because without the support of people who are actual voters, he is going to find himself where he deserves: out of office.

Considering the amount of rehabilitation this city has undergone since the 1980's, this is disturbing and discouraging. Get it fixed.

Posted at 12:09 PM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2010

Great PR

Oh gosh. Strange things are afoot in Osh Kosh, Wisconsin. Yes, it's that age-old tension of the authorities versus a gentle apartment renter who wants to display his American flag in the window.

Dawn and Charlie Price have been told by their apartment's management company they must take it down or face eviction.
Charlie Price is a veteran who served tours in Kosovo and Iraq.

Dawn Price says the flag is a way to honor her husband's military service and remember those who made the "ultimate sacrifice."

The apartment management company, Midwest Realty Management, says its rules prohibit the display of flags, banners and political or religious material in order to maintain a consistent living environment for all apartment residents.

The Tribune message board, as usual, is a treasure trove of hilarious comments, which can be broken down into two groups. One is "the rules are rules, tough luck sucka." The other is, "This apartment company is taking away his First Amendment rights." Another person, curiously, said it was illegal to tell someone they can't fly the American flag.

Now, I don't know where I stand on this. I do know the apartment company is perfectly within its rights to tell people they can't display flags, including American ones. People who sign leases there agree to this stuff when they sign. I have such an agreement where I live. It's not unconstitutional, because the Constitution only says the government can't tell you to put away that flag. They display that flag, so they are breaking the rules. Furthermore, it's also perfectly legal to tell people they can fly an American flag, and not a Confederate flag, Canada flag, or any other flag.

However, is it wise to tell people they can't put their flags out? I don't think it is. Every now and then a story comes out like this where some WW2 veteran wants to display his flag, and his apartment/condo/retirement home company vows to evict/fine $100 per day the person or forcibly remove the flag. The management comes out looking like idiots, or even worse, unpatriotic. Is the amount of bad publicity they're going to get for this worth it to enforce a rather petty rule? It's simple: put out an exception for American flags, and nothing else. Not even for the "Don't tread on me flag," which while technically is an American flag, it is not what is commonly understood as The American flag.

Also, I know I bitched about this before, but I'm still really irritated I can't put out my Don't Tread On Me flag without looking like a Tea Partier.

Posted at 04:31 PM | Comments (0)

May 25, 2010

Trailing

Although I got home from work about 6:45 last night, I managed to fudge around until 8:30. That was when I realized I wanted to run for an hour, meaning I was going to have the pleasure of running in the dark.

Fortunately, the lakefront bike trail is lighted for most of the way. I don't normally like running exclusively on that trail, because it's crowded, filled with idiots, and not as interesting to me as running on the street. This is not to say I never run on the trail, because at the right time of day it is positively lovely.

Monday nights, I would say, are one of the more interesting times to run on the trail. In my route from Belmont to Chicago Avenue and back, I encountered three or four clouds of marijuana smoke, two police cars, a garbage truck, and many clumps of teenagers. I try my best not to be judgmental, but large clumps of teenagers irritate me. Always have, even when I was a teenager. In terms of lakefront trail runners, they have this tendency to take up an entire lane, wander aimlessly in front of people, and be a general nuisance. I even had one gentleman push his friend into my path, but fortunately I avoided him.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I felt unsafe on the path, but it certainly felt much rougher than it does during the daytime. Notwithstanding that, it was a perfect night for running, and none of the usual dangers of night running - unseen holes and unseeing cars - bothered me. As long as one can avoid the potential muggers and unruly teens, nighttime lakefront running is great.

Posted at 04:45 PM | Comments (0)

Forbidden love

The story of the three Americans who, rather stupidly, went hiking along the Iraq-Iran border and now find themselves in Iranian prison has taken an interesting turn. Two of the hikers are engaged to be married. Aww.

Shane Bauer and Sarah Shourd, two of the three American hikers detained in Iran for almost 10 months, intend to marry and are wearing engagement rings that Bauer made of thread from his shirt.

Bauer, 27, proposed in January in the prison's exercise yard. He and Shourd, 31, have been a couple for more than three years and had been discussing marriage before their arrests.

Now, I really was kind of hoping this love of theirs blossomed in prison - am I the only one, by the way, who is surprised Iranian prisoners get an exercise yard? When I first heard the story, I assumed the three hikers had been involved in some kind of love triangle. It is a well-known fact that when there is a group of consisting of two dudes and a girl, who are not already involved in a relationship, those two dudes are both going to try to score with the girl. Thus, in my mind, these two hikers eventually fell in love, until the third hiker was squeezed out of the picture, only to get the marginalized as the best man. I do believe this is also what happened in "Pearl Harbor."

When I read they had been dating for some time before this misadventure, my whole story crumbled into little bits. But it does raise questions about the wisdom of this third guy, who apparently thought it was a good idea to tag along with the two lovebirds. He probably laid in his sleeping bag at night, being completely bitter about how annoying those two are. That's what I would have done at least. [Of course, this guy also agreed to go hiking on the border of a country that hates Americans, so maybe he isn't the wisest in the first place.]

Anyway, I hope these three come back soon. It's obvious they're pawns in a power struggle between Iran and the US, and one would hope they get out of there sooner, rather than later. I don't know if the US does prisoner exchanges, which I think is what Iran is trying to get. However, I don't know if that's a price the US should be willing ti pay.

Posted at 04:20 PM | Comments (0)

May 24, 2010

I'm feeling Rand-y

The big to-do over the weekend concerned Rand Paul, son of perennial Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul. The younger Paul, you will recall, won the Kentucky Republican primary and will now face off against the Democrats for the Senate seat held by the retiring Jim Bunning.

Mr. Paul is a small-government proponent, meaning the Tea Party movement loves this guy. However, he *really* doesn't like government getting all up in your business, to the point where he admitted he didn't think the part of the Civil Rights Act that said businesses couldn't discriminate based on race was a bad idea. He also said he thought the federal government is being too hard on BP for not cleaning up the oil spill fast enough. D'oh!

Now, I'm not going to say I think Rand Paul is a racist, or a bigot, or anything else one might call a person who is against civil rights legislation. If anything, I'd say he's terribly, terribly misguided.

Despite what some hardcore Tea Partiers think, I do not believe most Americans want the federal government to disappear. That's what Rand Paul seems to want.

It's an interesting philosophical debate. The Ron and Rand Paul camp thinks everything will be sorted out through the free market. In response to questions about the Civil Rights Act, Mr. Paul said the proper way to punish a business that won't serve blacks is to organize boycotts. I am not sure how he thinks BP will get its comeuppance for the oil spill.

However, I tend to think everything should not be left to the free market. Especially not today. A million people could decide they are never going to buy BP gas again, and it would have nary and effect on its bottom line. Meanwhile, they'd be free to run amok because there is nobody there to stop them. Likewise, I don't think a racist business would suffer terribly through the free market.

Simply put, some government intervention is required for certain things. Without Civil Rights legislation, I truly do not think the steps to a truly equal society - and this is the most equal America has ever been - would exist. Libertarians, Tea Partiers, what have you, are living in a fantasy world. Most voters, I think, will see through the absurdity come November. Democrats or moderate Republicans are not always right. But I also know Rand Paul is wrong.

Posted at 02:48 PM | Comments (0)

May 21, 2010

A mockery of a mock trial

I was reading the good old Lancaster Eagle Gazette, where one of the big stories of the day was a fifth grade class's participation in a mock trial. The accused? "Gold E. Locks." The crime? Trespass.

A critical piece of testimony came when the prosecuting attorney, Bayley Fields, asked "Pop A. Bear," portrayed by Connor Huff, what he saw upon returning home from the family's morning walk.

"I found that someone had been sleeping in my bed. The covers were all rumpled. Then I found someone had been sleeping in Mom's bed, and someone had been sleeping in Babe's bed, and she was still there," Huff said.

...

Locks' defense was Babe E. Bear had broken a window to her home while hitting a rock with a stick. Locks said she wanted to speak with his parents and decided to wait in their house for them to return.

As a lawyer, you would guess that I've participated in a few mock trials in my life. You'd be right. And this mock trial is kind of a bummer of a case, because in mock trial you want a crime that isn't so open and shut. I'm talking a murder mystery with no eyewitnesses. [Yes, I know, fifth graders shouldn't be doing murder. Work with me here.] Or a theft.

Unsurprisingly, Gold E. Locks was convicted. Maybe it's because "I wanted to wait for you because your son broke my window" is not a legitimate excuse for trespassing. Jack McCoy would have had a field day with this. So, in reality, the defendant was almost guaranteed to lose this case.

If this was me, I think it would have been much more interesting to argue over whether or not Gold E. Locks stole the porridge. She could have used the "some dude gave it to me" defense, which, incidentally, was what 90% of my clients at the public defender used as their defense when they got arrested driving a stolen car.

However, I also think getting thrown in jail was the best possible outcome for Gold E. Locks. If I'm not mistaken, the original fairy tale ends with the blonde one being devoured by the bears. Come to think of it, that's another good mock trial... Were the three bears justified in devouring the trespasser?

Posted at 03:20 PM | Comments (0)

May 20, 2010

Oh North Korea!

I don't know what to make of North Korea. On the one hand, they're a dangerous country with a very large military who may possess nuclear weapons; on the other hand, they're comical. Take, for example, their reply to a new report which concludes a North Korean torpedo is responsible for the sinking of a South Korean naval ship near the North/South border:

A North Korean defence spokesman said the country would "respond to reckless counter-measure with an all-out war of justice", the state KCNA news agency reported.

It gets better. The official news agency website, which, by the way, looks like it was designed for Netscape Navigator, has even more to say about the matter:

This being a hard reality, they are pointing a dirty accusing finger at us like a thief crying "Stop the thief!"
It is a trite method of the successive south Korean puppet regimes to fake up a shocking case and use it for floating a story about "north wind" whenever they find themselves in a crisis.
These days they are using for this plot even "deserters from the north" who had found their ways to a dumping ground and human scum.

What does this even mean? After reading this, I'm convinced whoever is teaching English in North Korea learned it from a boxing promoter. How else to explain "war[s] of justice," and "dirty accusing fingers" and constant stupefying proclamations? Maybe the only thing they have in English is the quotable Don King? I can think of nothing else.

Keep digging that comedy gold, North Korea. Just please don't nuke us in the meantime.

Posted at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)

May 19, 2010

A "moo"sdemeanor

I grew up in what most people would probably consider the country. I had a farmer for a neighbor, I've fended off raccoons, and I've had close encounters with deer. It's not all that glamorous, really. However, some kids up in Glenview decided they needed to experience The Simple Life for themselves, and what better way to do it than tipping some cows? Unfortunately, seeing as Glenview is a little more civilized - and crowded- than Southeastern Ohio, they wound up in the klink:

Glenview residents Spencer Olson, 21; John Kofod, 21; Timothy Plewa, 20; and Brian Snider, 21, entered Wagner Farm in an attempt to tip several cows, police said. They.were cited for trespassing after residents reported suspicious people running through back yards in the 1400 block of Kaywood Lane around 4:30 a.m. Monday, Glenview police said. Snider also was cited for interfering with police.

Wagner Farm is off limits to the public during non-business hours, and there are security guards on the premises, said Wagner Farm director Todd Price. But cow tipping has never been a major concern, he said, mostly because it's harder than people think.

Way to go, dingleberries. Apparently since they wanted to do the full redneck, I think this whole escaped was sponsored by the cool mountain waters of Busch Beer.

Now, I have never actually tipped a cow. According to Wikipedia, it is impossible to do. I really don't know, except that tipping over a 1,000 lb animal takes a few people, unless you're Magnus ver Magnusson.

Like I said, I've never actually tipped a cow, or engaged in other country fun like shooting things. Another particular legend around town deals with the old pastime of hanging out a car window and smashing mailboxes with a baseball bat at 60 mph. Supposedly a local kid was doing that, and the mailbox was particularly sturdy. Bat met box, bat bounced, and the unfortunate prankster was decapitated. Think about that one, Good Time Charley.

Posted at 04:01 PM | Comments (0)

May 18, 2010

Gimme shelter

Robert Vicino doesn't want to alarm you, but OMG the world is ending soon and you really need to pay me $50,000 for a bomb shelter in the desert!

He says the 13,000-square-foot area will include an atrium, gym and jail on the inside and sloppy joes and pearl potatoes on the menu.

Experts say the demand for bunkers is growing because the strong earthquakes, terrorism and predictions of the world's end in 2012 when the ancient Mayan calendar ends.

About $50,000 will get you a spot in Vicino's facility. He says he has collected deposits on half the 132 spaces planned in the bunker and is still taking reservations: $5,000 for adults and $2,500 for kids. Pets are free.

So, wait a minute - the world is going to end in 2012, and a bunker is supposed to protect me? I'm no expert in apocalypses, having never experienced one, but I understand hiding is not usually going to save you. Are the demons or whatever going to rampage over North America and not see the hatch to this bunker as they pass over, instead continuing on to destroy some crappy High Desert town?

Speaking of the end of the world, my dad is convinced the world is on the brink of collapse, because he is growing his own crops and wants to start raising chickens. I also noticed he has a bunch of canned food stored up, but it's nothing but soup and his favorite candy. I didn't see a can opener.

Posted at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)

May 17, 2010

Whole lot of shake-in goin on

I just learned a very strange thing about competitive eating. This all started when a certain desperado came into Crown Candy Kitchen, a heretofore unknown to me establishment in St. Louis. Apparently this mystery man took an eating challenge - 7 malts in 30 minutes. He vanquished the confections with ease. [Personally, the prospect of all that brain freeze is more than enough to turn me off.]

When it came time for the champion to reveal his name, things took a strange turn:

The man told Andy Karandzieff, the co-owner of Crown Candy, that his name was Kevin Ross, of San Bernardino, California.

However, the blogosphere, specifically the website Punching Kitty, says that is not the case, and that's where this story takes a weirder turn; weirder than a man sucking down more than a gallon of liquid in a few minutes.

Kevin Ross is a champion eater, one of a select group of people who eat dozens of hot dogs or other foods for prize money.

Now, it turns out the "Kevin Ross" from the Crown Candy incident is not the same man. Instead, bloggers say the man who was in Crown Candy sucking down the malts was Ben Monson, another famous eater, who is actually higher ranked in competitive eating circles than Ross.

So why would this guy lie about his identity, when anyone who quaffed 7 milkshakes in a half hour would want to brag to the whole world?

Bloggers say it's all about competitive eating and arcane rules that limit heavy eating to actual contests, not freelancing.

That's kind of an interesting rule. Competitive eaters aren't supposed to put on displays outside the eating circuit? I presume this is because the competitive eating administrators don't want to devalue their competition by having eaters giving free exhibitions.

However, eating isn't exactly like other sports. For example, it's fairly easy to tell Usain Bolt not to race people down at the local track. Or to tell Tiger Woods not to engage in putting contests at the miniature golf course. But it's eating! People have to do it every day.

I imagine these meetings go something like this: "Okay Bob, please, go ahead and eat. But for God's sake, limit yourself to 5 hamburgers, 25 chicken wings, and a quart of clam chowder!"
Then Bob says, "But sir! What if I want a gallon of Hagen Dasz for dessert? I never should have gotten into competitive eating! It's true, never do for money what you would gladly do for free. Woe is me!"
Boss: "Allright, you can eat the Hagen Dasz. Throw in a package of Fudge Rounds while you're at it. Just don't let anyone see you."
"Gee thanks, Mister!"

By the way, whoever wrote the description of Fudge Rounds in Wikipedia is a genius. He's managed to make them sound as unappetizing as possible:

They are made by taking two smaller chewy chocolate cakes, and gluing them together with a light brown fudge-creme.

Who wants seconds!?

Posted at 04:52 PM | Comments (0)

May 13, 2010

Today's Buffalo story

Now that I've managed to maintain an almost semi-regular pace on this here Commentary, I realized it's been awhile since I've posted a story about Buffalo.

Luckily the President of the United States has given me an opportunity. See, he's in the Queen City today to talk about the economy - not that it matters, really, because the economy always sort of sucks in Buffalo. Before he went to meet some regular folks, the President did what any sort of dignitary who comes to Buffalo does: he snacked on some chicken wings.

President Obama discovered more than hot wings during an unannounced stop at Duff's in Depew this afternoon.

He also found Louann Haley of Chaffee.

"You're a hottie with a smokin' little body," Haley told the president.

Obama's response?

He hugged her.

Before entering Duff's, Obama was asked what he would eat and answered, "Wings — it's the wings capital."

Now, chicken wing enthusiasts know that Duff's is one of two places often mentioned as having the best wings in Western New York. The other is the Anchor Bar, ancestral home of the chicken wing. I'm partial to the Anchor Bar myself, but Duff's isn't too shabby either. Now if we can just get him to try a beef on weck.

However, there is probably something for people to quarrel about. The President ordered medium wings. Doh! Is this indicative of Obama's wussiness? Is that why he wants to appease Iran? Or does he simply not want to sweat when he eats? I know half the country will say it's because he's a sally. George W. Bush would've gotten the hot wings - but he also probably would have choked on the bone. Snap!

Posted at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)

Toothiness

I was stumbling around the always interesting Eric Zorn blog, where I read an article about what is an acceptable amount for the Tooth Fairy to leave. Apparently some parents, nowadays, are leaving $20 under the pillow of a child who loses a tooth. The Zorn post also links to another article, where it stated 25 cents used to be more than enough... in the '80's.

Now, the '80's were my prime tooth-losing years. I think when I lost a tooth, I'd get something on the order of a dollar. When you're a kid, a whole dollar seems like a nice big wad of cash. Especially if you convert it to pennies. You could use it to buy a candy bar! Maybe two candy bars, if you went to the right store.

But 25 cents? In the '80's? Sorry, it just didn't have a lot of wallop. I can think of a few things 25 cents would buy back then - a newspaper, maybe a can of pop, a gum ball, or perhaps a game of skiball. If you wanted to get something truly awesome, like a pack of those green plastic army soldiers, you needed a whole damn dollar.

I mean, to an 8 year old kid, a gum ball is, dare I say, rad. A game of skiball is 45 seconds of joy, but you really need three or four games to get in the groove. A can of pop? Not the best thing to be drinking post-tooth loss. What I'm saying is, the 25 cents didn't get my motor running.

Twenty dollars, however, is a ridiculous prize. That almost encourages kids to lose teeth. It's an entitlement, really. You'd see kids who never do their chores, never obey their parents, and probably never do their homework yet still have rims on their bikes and big-screen TVs, bought with Tooth Fairy money. We cannot have a Tooth Fairy welfare state!

Anyway, here's a good tooth story. I had this tooth that was falling out, hanging on by the barest bit of tissue. I told my mom about it, and she told me to go see my dad. I went and found him working outside in the yard, chopping down brush and digging holes for some reason. I showed him my tooth. Saying nothing, he reached into my mouth with his dirty, soil-infused fingers, yanked out the tooth and put it in his pocket. You'd better believe that traumatic moment was worth more than 25 cents!

Posted at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)

Toothiness

I was stumbling around the always interesting Eric Zorn blog, where I read an article about what is an acceptable amount for the Tooth Fairy to leave. Apparently some parents, nowadays, are leaving $20 under the pillow of a child who loses a tooth. The Zorn post also links to another article, where it stated 25 cents used to be more than enough... in the '80's.

Now, the '80's were my prime tooth-losing years. I think when I lost a tooth, I'd get something on the order of a dollar. When you're a kid, a whole dollar seems like a nice big wad of cash. Especially if you convert it to pennies. You could use it to buy a candy bar! Maybe two candy bars, if you went to the right store.

But 25 cents? In the '80's? Sorry, it just didn't have a lot of wallop. I can think of a few things 25 cents would buy back then - a newspaper, maybe a can of pop, a gum ball, or perhaps a game of skiball. If you wanted to get something truly awesome, like a pack of those green plastic army soldiers, you needed a whole damn dollar.

I mean, to an 8 year old kid, a gum ball is, dare I say, rad. A game of skiball is 45 seconds of joy, but you really need three or four games to get in the groove. A can of pop? Not the best thing to be drinking post-tooth loss. What I'm saying is, the 25 cents didn't get my motor running.

Twenty dollars, however, is a ridiculous prize. That almost encourages kids to lose teeth. It's an entitlement, really. You'd see kids who never do their chores, never obey their parents, and probably never do their homework yet still have rims on their bikes and big-screen TVs, bought with Tooth Fairy money. We cannot have a Tooth Fairy welfare state!

Anyway, here's a good tooth story. I had this tooth that was falling out, hanging on by the barest bit of tissue. I told my mom about it, and she told me to go see my dad. I went and found him working outside in the yard, chopping down brush and digging holes for some reason. I showed him my tooth. Saying nothing, he reached into my mouth with his dirty, soil-infused fingers, yanked out the tooth and put it in his pocket. You'd better believe that traumatic moment was worth more than 25 cents!

Posted at 12:43 PM | Comments (0)

May 12, 2010

A prickly situation

In case you've been living in a cave, or maybe you just really don't care about such things, you probably know about the big hullabaloo over Arizona's new law designed to drive away illegal immigrants. Predictably, there's a group of people who think this will send Arizona into a new Golden Age, and there's another group of people who are convinced Arizona will soon be Bavaria, circa 1941.

Some administrators at Highland Park High School clearly fall into the latter, because they've decided to scrap the school's girls basketball team's trip to Arizona over "safety concerns":

Reveling in its first conference championship in 26 years, the Highland Park High School girls varsity basketball team has been selling cookies for months to raise funds for a tournament in Arizona. But those hoop dreams were dashed when players learned they couldn't go because of that state's new crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Safety concerns partly fueled the decision, but the trip also "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values," said District 113 Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson.

This is terrible. The administrators are doing nothing but injecting their political opinions into the educational process. The rationale is likely that the administrators, in good conscience, could not support Arizona businesses. The only people who are getting punished, though, are the Highland Park girls basketball team. Although the school has said they can go to a tournament somewhere else, they must have picked Arizona for a reason.

On a bigger level, it's another example of adults acting like children and ruining things for the actual children. You hear of canceled proms and kids suspended for wacky hairstyles. These are nothing but adults using their power to advance their own agendas at the expense of children. The "leadership" at Highland Park HS needs to do some serious introspection - if not, one must seriously question their suitability for jobs like that.

Also, I took that picture of a cactus when I was in Arizona. Pretty cool, eh?

Posted at 10:32 AM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2010

Terrorists would be honored to blow us up

I've noticed on my trip to work every morning, a police dog is standing watch at the Belmont train station. He looks like a bomb-sniffing dog, and I have seen quite a few more since the failed attempt to bomb Times Square in New York. So, this is a response to the increased likelihood of a terror attack. I have no complaints about this.

I also chuckle a little bit. It's a cliche that we here in Chicago have a New York inferiority complex. Oh yeah New York? We've got pizza too! And tall buildings! And two baseball teams!

Hey Osama! Why don't you expand your horizons a bit? Chicago has lots of important landmarks to attack that will garner lots of sympathy! We'd get more sympathy than Los Angeles even! And so on.

So it's natural to assume, then, that Chicagoans think terrorists want to blow us up too. I read, or heard, something about how it's universal to think wherever we are, terrorists want to attack us. I remember on 9/11, all of us Dayton were absolutely sure the terrorists were coming for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Now, I think Chicago is a legitimate terrorist target. Lots of places are, and Chicago is one of them. Of course, violence happens everywhere, in small cities as well as large ones. The main thing is to be prepared, and the bomb-sniffing dogs are hopefully one small part of that.

Fortunately, to make our bustling metropolis on the prairie even more enticing to a terrorist, Fox Chicago has already done the legwork. That's right, for some ridiculous reason, the station has published a list of the ten places in Chicago most likely to suffer a terrorist attack:

Attack during summer event at Grant Park or Millennium Park
Attacking mass transit
Attacking the Mag Mile
Attacking O'Hare or Midway
Attacking Willis (Sears) Tower
Attacking government buildings like City Hall and the Thompson Center
Attacking sports stadiums like the United Center, Wrigley, The Cell, and Soldier Field
Setting off a bomb in Daley Plaza
Poisoning the water mains
Contaminating Lake Michigan

Really classy, Fox Chicago. Why don't you tell them the best place to get the 22 bus while you're at it?

Posted at 09:46 PM | Comments (0)

Humm-dinger

I was puttering around home today before I left for work, and by happenstance I glanced at the "trending topics" on Yahoo. I'm not entirely sure how they measure that, but it's usually some people in the news who make up the list. Today, for example, MSNBC star Rachel Maddow was number one. But, and it elicited a genuine "wtf" moment - Hummus was number nine.

Hummus? I had to figure out what that was about. Turns out, there was a pretty good, and tasty, reason for a lot of people to be talking about hummus:

More than 300 cooks were brought in to make the world’s largest plate of hummus that was so massive that it needed to be concocted in a satellite dish with assistance of a robotic arm.

Whoah! That's a lot of hummus!

Now, I am a relatively recent convert to hummus, and I enjoy it in a variety of forms. My favorite is probably using it as chip dip. It's also good in sandwiches. But man - a satellite dish full of hummus? Who is going to eat all that?

Remember those stories you'd hear about a kid whose mom catches him with cigarettes, and then the mom makes him smoke the entire pack? The kid then can't even stomach the idea of smoking another cigarette. It would be like me with all that hummus.

On the plus side, at least nobody here is spelling hummus with an o - hummos. It reminds me of the people who spell yogurt like yoghurt. I don't care if it's more akin to the original spelling - you look like an elitist!

Posted at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)

May 10, 2010

A supreme mess

The big news this Monday is that President Obama has made his pick to replace Chicago's own John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. It's solicitor general Elena Kagan, former U of Chicago law professor and dean of Harvard Law School. She's probably most famous for trying to ban military recruiters from campus because the don't ask/don't tell policy is fundamentally unfair.

Anyway, the Supreme Court nomination is such a charade at this point. When President Bush nominated someone, the Democrats launched tirades calling the person a far right-winger, reactionist, etc. When President Obama nominates someone, the Republicans say that person is an out-of-touch liberal activist wacko. Activist judge, by the way, means a judge who disagrees with what you think.

Abraham Lincoln himself could get nominated to the Supreme Court, and somebody would find a reason to ding him. You mean he learned to read by candelight? We need Harvard men in the Supreme Court!

The nominees, in the meantime, do their best to reveal nothing during the confirmation process. Chief Justice Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, famously said the role of a judge is like an umpire - calling balls and strikes. It was a bit of spin that really revealed nothing, especially considering some of the goofy decisions the Court has made under his watch.

So, Elena Kagan will go through the nomination process, Republicans will grandstand and Democrats will accuse Republicans of sabotaging the will of the people. She'll say nothing substantial, and get confirmed, and enjoy a long career on the Supreme Court.

Posted at 09:55 AM | Comments (0)

May 06, 2010

I have a bad feeling about this

I didn't know this, but two days ago was Star Wars Day, because May 4 sounds like "May the Force be with you." I guess this is allright. I never thought of Star Wars as something that needed to be celebrated, but then again, I never thought we needed a Talk Like A Pirate Day, a Pi Day, or, you know, a Mother's Day. Gotcha, just wanted to see if you were paying attention.

Part of me thinks holidays like that are a little silly, but another part of me thinks they ought to be embraced. People should be free to celebrate something they feel passionate about, even if it's something particularly nerdy like Star Wars. Though, as I have said before, that's the beauty of the internet - people with even the most obscure interests can find each other.

Plus, a nerdy sort of person like me should think twice before rolling his eyes at it. I don't think there's any strange holidays I celebrate, except, of course, Dyngus Day. It's something everyone should celebrate though, especially if you are of the Polish Persuasion.

So, although I sort of snort at the Star Wars Day folks, I also raise my figurative glass to them. I myself will not participate, but to you I say, "Wah uh uhhhhhhh!" (That's some Chewbacca for you.)

Posted at 04:44 PM | Comments (0)

May 05, 2010

What's in a name?

An interesting survey came out, gauging how certain people reacted to certain politically-charged words. The words with the lowest positive reactions were milita (21% had a favorable view) and socialism (29%). The words with the highest score were family values (89%) and civil rights (87%).

Things got more interesting when the results were broken down by political party. "Capitalism" garnered a 52% overall favorable rating, and 62% of Republicans but only 47% of Democrats approved. Other words with a significant split included "Progressive" (81% Democrat, 56% Republican) and the afore-mentioned "Militia" (27% Republican, 15% Democrat) and "Socialism" (44% vs. 15%, you guess who approves more.)

These were interesting results, to be sure. I am not sure how indicative of actual thinking they are, but it was a scientific poll so it must be somewhat rooted in reality.

I would have really liked to know what the favorable rating of the word "liberal" is. Talk radio, and dear old El Rushbo, have done a superb job of making the word liberal a derogatory slur. Back during the first Clinton years, I was an impressionable adolescent who enjoyed listening to Rush in the car. (Rush Limbaugh, not Rush the band, about whom I have no opinion. I am sure someone will correct me, though.) In retrospect, that was dumb. Adolescents, however, do a lot of dumb things, like eating whole pizzas and drinking a 2-liter bottle of Coke a day, or thinking farts are funny.

Anyway, Rush used to spend hours and hours talking about how horrible liberals are. Even now, the preferred GOP campaign slogan is "so-and-so is a tax-and-spend liberal." Boom!

This extreme negative connotation of liberal, I think, is why a lot of Democratic candidates now bill themselves as Progressive. Nevertheless, Glenn Beck and his crew are trying to attach the same kind of label to progressive as Rush did to liberal. Democrats, for their part, are trying to do the same thing to conservative, but it's obvious conservative talk types are way better at this than their progressive ilk. The results of that survey, though, seem to show the hatchet job on "progressive" isn't succeeding, yet. I'll be interested to see where this goes in the future.

Posted at 03:22 PM | Comments (0)

May 04, 2010

Go fishin

I loves me some sushi, and lately I've noticed a lot of sushi places in the city offering all-you-can-eat deals for $20 a person. I can eat a good amount of sushi, so this is a nice deal for me. A lot of these places have rules whereby if you order something but don't finish it, you'll get charged full price.

So, naturally I waltzed into one of these places tonight, and set about eyeing my catch. I settled on three rolls, and told the waitress my order. Her eyes widened, and she told me she was required to inform me that I'd have to pay for anything I didn't eat. I can only assume I sounded rather gluttonous, because I said, "Oh don't worry, I'll eat it."

She brought out the rolls, and I polished it off with ease. The waitress was impressed, and I felt like a terrible, piggish man. Not that three sushi rolls is a staggering amount, but that waitress made me feel like it. I think there's a video on Youtube of some guy eating fifty pieces of sushi. I wonder what *that* guy's waitress thought?

Posted at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)

Taser phanatics

[Pic]

Wowzers, so how about the story of the teenager who ran onto the field at the Phillies game, only to get tazed? I am deeply conflicted over this.

First, the general feeling is that streakers and people who run onto the field at sporting events are idiots. That is undeniable. But, if you get a streaker (yes, I know technically streakers are supposed to be naked, but it's a lot easier to say streaker than "clothed guy who runs onto the field at sporting events") who is elusive and gives the cops a run for their money, it's entertaining. Especially if the game is a particularly boring affair. Obviously, a streaker right before, say, a field goal attempt in overtime of the Super Bowl is not welcome. But if it's the Bears blowing out the Oakland Raiders, streak away.

Second, part of the great entertainment of streakers is when they finally get caught. Youtube has scads of videos of streakers getting their comeuppance, including one at a soccer match in England who gets blasted by the *mascot*. How great is that? I can recall many Sundays at Rich Stadium in Buffalo, watching invaders meet their unceremonious ends at the hands of the neon-yellow Event Staff.

I have no doubt that seeing somebody get tazed was hilarious to at least some of the fans who were present, especially for bloodthirsty Philadelphians. But, I think it's fair to say, the taser was a tad excessive. I don't know the guidelines for using tasers, but this had to be the near the limit of justifiable force. The kid wasn't harming anyone, and certainly wasn't an obvious danger to anyone. (This wasn't Comiskey Park, ha ha ha!)

He would have been caught eventually, they almost always are. Tasers are dangerous - they can kill people, albeit mostly those with underlying health problems. So, they should be used judiciously, and not as a first resort. As stupid as running onto a field is, it's not worthy of death.

Posted at 03:43 PM | Comments (0)

May 03, 2010

They needed research to know this?

School bullying has always been a problem, but with social media and constant technological contact, it is far, far worse than it used to be. Massachusetts just passed a very tough anti-bullying law, and I hope other states will do the same.

Some University of Michigan researchers, however, have apparently unlocked the key to bullying. Yes, the chubby kids get picked on the most:

New research suggests that just being overweight increases the risk of being bullied. And factors that usually play a role in the risk of being bullied, such as gender, race and family income levels, don't seem to matter if you're overweight -- being overweight or obese trumps all those other factors when it comes to aggressive behavior from other children.

The study found that being overweight increased the risk of being the target of bullying by 63 percent.

"One of the reasons we started this study is that obesity is so much more common today. Now that about half of kids are overweight or obese, it doesn't make you such an outlier anymore, so we thought maybe kids wouldn't be bullied for being overweight anymore," said study author Dr. Julie Lumeng, an assistant research scientist at the Center for Human Growth and Development at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She added that the researchers also hoped they might be able to find some protective factors against being bullied, such as doing well in school.

"What we found, much to our dismay, was that nothing seemed to matter. If you were obese, you were more likely to be bullied, no matter what," she said.

Really?! The chubby get kids bullied? Have these "eggheads" not read Lord of the Flies? Or seen Bad Santa? Or pretty much every high school movie? Sheesh.

The article suggests that because more and more children are obese, the rate of bullying will go up. However, if all the kids are obese, does that mean the unusual skinny kids will get ridiculed? Something to ponder.

My cavalier attitude isn't meant to say I condone bullying. Far from it. Yes, dear readers, your ultra-cool and with-it author was himself sometimes the victim of such things in school. Thankfully it was nowhere near as bad as what some people experience, but it sure was enough to give my sympathy for the marginalized and downtrodden.

Posted at 05:14 PM | Comments (0)