BOW DOWN BEFORE THE TRIBUNE!

Apparently, that is what Illinois "commenter" Diersen believes. He's got a fascinating post talking about the virtues of Wheaton, Illinois, but claims that the town's parade has "suffered" because people are reluctant to move to Wheaton.

And it is all because of the Chicago Tribune.

For those who talk about the death of the daily newspaper: Don't dare mention that to Diersen. According to Diersen, the Chicago Tribune can make or break a town. And it does it because it hates PATRIOTISM!

How long is Rich Miller going to continue allowing that guy to fill space on Illinoize?

How Do THEY Know What Happens?

There is a very funny post over at Illinois Review. It concerns the "Pride Parade" that took place over the weekend. People at IR are wound up into a tizzy because of events that the IRs have "witnessed" over there.

I used to live in the area (Halsted and Addison) so I've got a pretty good idea of what happens along the parade. A lot of people having fun, and maybe a few are a bit extreme, but I lived in the area for about three years, and yet, 15 years later, I'm still hetero. Nothing I saw changed my mind.

Apparently, the IRs think that if people see what goes on, they might be converted.

I know what goes on because I lived in the area. I'm curious though -- how do the IRs know what goes on? Is there some reason that they are so fascinated by those events?

Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and, I'm sure, a lot of people from IR. They sure do spend a lot of time thinking about that stuff.

What About the Parents, Part 1

There was a tragedy this weekend. A three year old boy was crushed to death when a gate fell on him.

The real tragedy though, is that the accident could have been prevented.

The boy and several others were playing on a gate at Cabini Green. While they were climbing on the gate, it collapsed, crushing the child.

The boy's mother was watching. The boy's mother is likely going to sue the City and others. One resident, Willie J.R. Fleming, who is a director of Coalition to Protect Public Housing, is already blaming the CHA and others.

Blame for this accident is clear though. The tragedy occurred because of the boy's mother. She allowed him and others to play on the gate, when any concerned parent would have stepped in and played the role of a parent. Being a parent means that sometimes, we must tell our children not to do things that are dangerous. This boy's mother saw him doing something dangerous, but did nothing.

Parents need to watch their children. If you see your children and four others swinging from a heavy gate, you need to step in and play the role of the parent.

Moreover, this tragedy once again points to problems with DCFS. The organization needs more counselors, and it needs better trained counselors. If we lived in a society that really cared about children, then parents would have parenting skills training easily available.

The accident was a tragedy. It was not the fault of the CHA or the property manager though. It was the fault of the mother. To some extent though, we need to look at what we as a society are doing to put parents in situations where they can learn to be effective parents.

We are Different from China -- Really!

But we wouldn't be if Eunice Conn of Illinois Review had her way. According to Eunice, things would be far better if we could just hire kids to work at a sub-minimum wage.

Eunice is upset because the Department of Labor want to tell HER that she can't use kids a cheap labor. Eunice claims to have high moral motives -- taking the kids off the streets and all. I believe the Chinese and the Indonesians feel the same way. By putting kids in factories, they are keeping them off the street! How great for the kids!

America is civilized. We don't believe that children should work in dangerous condictions and we sure don't think we should pay children low wages and in doing so, take a job from adults. We think that $1 a day for labor is a bad idea, no matter what the market says. We have minimum standards of decency. That's part of the reason that the standard of living in America is far better than the living standards in China or Indonesia, which allow cheap child labor.

And we can keep it that way, as long as we can keep safe from people like Eunice Conn.

Response to the Gun Nuts

In response to a particular gun nut:

Ken in Aurora,

Rich deleted my first response to your attack on me. While I found it humorous, he apparently thought it was too rude. Reasonable minds can differ on that one, but I can’t say the deletion was entirely unreasonable. As such, let me respond in a bit more polite manner:

Ken, I DON’T CARE if you like guns. I DON’T CARE if the Chicago ordinance stays or goes. Although I find people’s love for guns to be a bit ridiculous, it just doesn’t matter. You can own as many guns as you want. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

If you had taken time to read my posts, you would realize that I never took a position on the constitutional issue. The reason is simple: Despite all the talk from both sides as to how clear the issue is, I still don’t have a clue as to the ultimate answer.

I note that the 2nd A states “keep and bear” arms. It says nothing about “own.” A court could have reasonably concluded that “own” was part of a penumbra surrounding keep and bear — that “keep and bear” are meaningless without “own.”

In the alternative, a court could reasonably have found that only members of the militia have a right to “keep and bear” arms owned by the militia. I don’t know the answer, but I can definitively say that the 2A is not clear. It is, no matter anyone says, ambiguous.

When you have an ambiguous constitutional amendment and you use it to toss out a 36 year old law, you are being “activist.”

Being “activist” does not necessarily equate with being wrong, but the alleged conservatives should be up front and say “Sure the court was activist, but we like the result so that’s OK.”

If people had read my comments rather than just my name, they would note that my criticisms of the opinion were based on the fact that the opinion is poorly (and at time offensively — see my notes above as to Scalias uncivil comments about the dissent) written, and that it leaves many questions unanswered. I think judges should be civil and I think opinions should be clear and this opinion is neither.

Not once did I say that the end result was right or wrong since unlike nearly everybody else here, I will freely admit that I don’t have a clue what the 2A means.

For me, had people read my comments, the issue here is the court’s process — how it got to the decision. Was the decision right or wrong? I don’t know and frankly, I don’t really care. I’m not offended by guns. Guns don’t matter. I am, however, offended by poorly drafted court opinions. That matters.

Paranoia Strikes Deep

And it certainly has hit "Diersen", who blogs at Illinoize and at Illinois Review. Today, Diersen claims that his co-workers [Diersen spent much of his life on the government payroll] "to make an anti-American statement. . . started buying foreign nameplate cars as soon as they became widely available."

Fascinating, deeply paranoid (buying a car to make an anti-American statement? I'm sure there are less expensive ways), and most likely, completely untrue.

Diersen talks a lot about his Corvette. Does he talk about how much of it was made with parts outside the U.S.? Did Diersen buy his Vette to make an anti-American statement?

Moreover, he misses some obvious points which would counter his claim that his co-workers were out to get America. For instance, foreign car makers responded to the 1970s gas crisis by making fuel efficient cars. American manufacturers were slow to pick up that trend. It seems likely that Diersen's payrolling pals bought those foreign cars because they got 15 miles per gallon more than the American products did.

Finally, Diersen ignores the truth behind why so many of his Vette parts are made outside the U.S. The reason is that because his union-busting pals in the GOP were able to gain control in certain states. They passed laws busting those unions. Companies saw that they could pay lower wages there, so they closed plants paying real wages to Americans, and they shipped those jobs south. What happened next? Those companies saw that by continuing to move south -- across the border -- they could pay even less to the workers. That great move south -- which destroyed jobs for Americans -- started with Diersen's pals in the GOP.

Maybe they did it to make an anti-American statement. Maybe not, but that sure was the result.

Sickening Humor at Illinois Review

The people at Illinois Review have often made comments that are deeply offensive. It it was that they do.
Now, however, they have sunk to a new level. For those people, coffins of American servicemen have become a joke.
How completely disgraceful.