RANDOM THOUGHTS ON CHRISTMAS, CRUISES, KARAOKE, PERSONAL HYGEINE, THE RIGHT TO VOTE, ETC.

12/26/19

During the run-up to Christmas, I had some time to slow down and reflect a bit.   Having not written anything on this blog for over a month, I came up with some seemingly random thoughts, most of which are not at all political and few of which have anything to do with Christmas.

·         The highlight of the pre-Christmas season was a short cruise my wife and I took to escape the then wintery weather.   It was terrific and a bargain with the proverbial capital B, especially since we did it “Quinn-style” and spend a grand total of $10 beyond the laughably reasonable cost of cruise itself.   Okay, we did throw in some tips beyond the recommended and seemingly mandatory tip level, which, I suppose, is also “Quinn-style.”  But we bought no excursions, making our own fun by finding public beaches in both ports of call, which we, and especially water loving yours truly, thoroughly enjoyed.  One should draw two conclusions from our cruise experience.  First, I would encourage any of you who like to cruise, and those of you who have never cruised, to look for last minute deals; they are real and they are cheap; we spent nearly as much on the decrepit and shady-looking Ft. Lauderdale hotel we stayed in on the night before departure as we did for one of us to cruise for four nights.   We couldn’t have eaten for what we paid for the cruise.   Second, we LOVED this cruise, so don’t let any of my subsequent comments disabuse you of that notion.

·         The highlight of the post pre-Christmas season was that all our kids were with us and that we were able to celebrate the birth of our Savior together.  Our church, Sacred Heart, had a terrific crowd at both Masses on Christmas Eve (and I presume on Christmas), so the old place soldiers on in faith.   See my now seminal 9/29/19 post THANKS, RON GROSSMAN, AND THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE FOR HELPING A HOLY PLACE WORTHY OF HELP.  Thanks, God, for coming to redeem us and for keeping the faith alive, even during this season during which the real meaning of Christmas has been ravaged nearly beyond recognition by the materialistic bacchanal our society has chosen to make of it.

·         Why do so many people consider washing their hands after using the bathroom to be such an onerous, backbreaking task that they have succumbed to the utter futility of even attempting such an impossible feat?   I notice this everywhere I go, i.e., guys walking straight from the urinal, or, worse, the stall, to the bathroom door, completely bypassing the sinks, but I noticed it especially on the cruise.   Disgusting.

·         Whenever Sue and I hear yet another tale of an outbreak of norovirus or some other such ghastly affliction breaking out on a cruise ship, we are not the least bit surprised and do not hold the afflicted cruise line responsible.    How many more “reminders” can the ships provide to seemingly adult cruisers to wash their hands?    See the last bullet point.   And I hope this observation does not dissuade my readers from taking the advice dispensed in the first bullet point.   Just pack prodigious quantities of hand sanitizer (You can never have enough…anywhere, but especially on a cruise ship.) and never, ever open a bathroom door, anywhere, with your bare hand.   Ever.

·         Referring to the last, and the second, comment…I am not a big fan of laws, as my regular readers know.   But it might make sense to make a law requiring all bathroom doors to open out so that they can be more easily opened with an elbow or a posterior, eliminating the need to make open hand contact with said doors.  

·         I’m not much for the death penalty, either, but perhaps we could re-invigorate it for such offenses as texting while driving and failure to wash one’s hands after performing the more disgusting yet necessary bodily functions.

·         While this was a wonderful Christmas season, yours truly made no progress in getting over the more obsessive aspects of his thought processes and behavior, as evidenced by several of the previous comments.  

·         I heard lots of things on the news during this holiday season, which should not be surprising because I rarely am not listening to, or reading, the news; see the last comment.   One particular piece of news I found especially troubling is that The Kelly Clarkson Show is now the most popular day time television talk show.   The saving grace of such news is that it stopped dead in its tracks any degree of sanguinity I may have been developing regarding the future of American democracy.   While I don’t know much about Kelly Clarkson, other than that her rendition of O, Holy Night, yours truly’s far and away favorite Christmas carol, is terrific and that hence she seems to be quite a talented singer.   However, I did see an episode of her talk show in the waiting room of my Subaru dealer while having some service done.  (One of the downsides of owning a Subaru, other than a sudden and nearly irresistible urge to drive far into the woods and hug trees, is that maintaining these vehicles is nearly as expensive as servicing European luxury cars, but I digress.)   My conclusion, as it is for any of these popular daytime TV talk shows, was that I don’t mind if people choose to fritter away their precious time on such fluff and drivel…as long as their right to vote is immediately canceled after they have done so on more than, say, three (3) occasions.   I might paraphrase Winston Churchill and observe that the greatest argument against American democracy is a twenty-minute conversation with any voter who watches daytime TV talk shows…or just about anything on network prime time television, while I’m at it.   My other conclusion is that I should consider my local Subaru dealer for service because it has multiple televisions in its waiting room, one of which is normally tuned to CNBC.

·         One thing my wife and I especially noticed, and liked, about our cruise was that everyone got along.    Race, ethnicity, nationality, social status, geographical location of home, etc., all faded into irrelevancy.   Everyone enjoyed everybody else’s company and were, generally, courteous and kind to, and genuinely interested in, his or her shipmates.  It was great.   People were even nice enough to not cover their ears and flee in horror during karaoke nights when yours truly delivered his renditions of Frank’s That’s Life (which, by the way, I’d like to have played as the recessional hymn at my funeral.   Don’t get the wrong idea; the test results of late have been wonderful, so no exit from this mortal coil by yours truly is imminent.  I just want someone out there to remember that request when the time comes.) and Nat King Cole’s Unforgettable, the second dedicated to my lovely, ever patient and tolerant, and wonderful wife.   You should have been there; see my first bullet point.  

Merry and blessed Christmas to those of you who celebrate this wonderful holiday; just because the calendar moves along, the true spirit of Christmas should remain throughout the year and our entire lives.   And happy and prosperous new year to all of you.

WHY DO THE SILLY RICH INSIST ON PROVIDING SUCH A TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT FOR THE LIKES OF SENATOR WARREN?

11/7/19

With the 2020 presidential election less than a year away, we are waist deep in the political silly season.   Presently, the most salient manifestation of the nonsense that passes for political discourse in modern day America is Democratic front-runner Elizabeth Warren’s familiar whoop-whoop about taxing, or worse, the rich.  Such addle-brained plans would be bad enough if delivered in a measured tone with a veneer of sensibility and genuine concern for the future of the Republic.   However, Senator Warren amps up the general dyspepsia of such proposals by delivering them with healthy helpings of vitriol and downright nastiness, calling into question not only “rich” people’s patriotism but also their morality and, one supposes, worthiness to escape a 21^st Century version of the 18^th Century Terror.   It would be bad enough if she merely wanted to go after “the 1%” for their money, but she appears to want to go after them for who they are and what they represent in her mind.

Perhaps Senator Warren does not harbor as much hatred for the “rich” as her rhetoric would indicate; maybe this is all politics, red meat for those who will ultimately decide who will bear the standard of her Party next Fall.   Whether the feelings that underlie her rhetorical and policy attacks on those she considers the maleficent rich are genuine or born of the political necessities of the moment, one almost has to commend her for going after the easy targets the most visible of “the rich” have made of themselves.

Yours truly is fortunate enough to know and have known, to use a now quaint expression, a few people of means.   Most of these acquaintances of mine are sensible, reasonable people who have worked hard, live well but act sensibly, and deserve our respect as people of accomplishment and, Senators Warren’s and Sanders’ presuppositions notwithstanding, genuine appreciation for whence they came and hence a concern for those who are far less blessed, at least financially, than they.   I hasten to add, though, that not all of the extremely well-off that I know display such traits.   Some of them are, to put it succinctly, silly.   They are probably not stupid; they wouldn’t be where they are if they were stupid.   But they are, at the very least, silly.   They buy silly things.  They engage in silly activities.  Their lives seem to be dominated by the pursuit of the unachievable, i.e., coming out on top in a race to see who can acquire the most stuff they don’t need in order to impress people they don’t like.   It’s a pointless existence.    Yours truly does not know whether these people choose such an existence because of their inability to see its very vacuity or because of some deep internal psychological and spiritual emptiness that they condemn themselves to attempt to fill with the pabulum of crass and tacky materialism.  However, it is not important that I, or anyone, other than those caught in the throes of such a Sisyphean existence, know the reasons for such gormless behavior; yours truly is neither a psychologist nor a spiritual seer.

As I mentioned before, I am blessed that I know enough people with money to realize, or at least suspect, or maybe just hope, that the truly silly among them are in the minority.    However, the average person, and the average voter, has not been blessed with proximity to people with money.   What this voter sees is the headlines about the multiple palatial, and rarely occupied, homes, the incessant competition to snare the record for most money paid for a property in a particular locale, the yachts, the helicopters, the personal submarines, the space tourism, and other baubles, trinkets, gimcracks, and geegaws that comprise the all-consuming efforts by the maybe wealthy but the definitely insecure to display their real or supposed wealth and, one presumes, to rub it in the noses of those who have no such wealth.    (See, for purposes of elucidation, my long seminal 6/28/15 post   WSJ:  THE MAGAZINE FOR PORTENTOUS POPINJAYS AND POLTROONS.)    The average voter, or at least the voter to whom the likes of Senators Warren and Sanders are trying to appeal, looks at the much-trumpeted behavior of the silly rich and concludes that all successful people are similarly idiotic and hence deserve not only to be taxed and soaked but also to be vilified, pilloried, and exposed as enemies of the people.   The reaction of the aforementioned voters thus becomes “Yeah, go get those rich b…ards, Lizzie!    Show ‘em we mean business, Bernie!” and the like.   Mission accomplished for those seeking the Democratic nomination.

A long running theme of my writing has been this tendency of the rich, and/or those who simply want to appear rich, to excrete away their money in vain attempts to attain God knows what pointless goal.  Yours truly simply doesn’t understand the things people do with their money.   Why do people, as I pointed out in the aforementioned post, think they need $4,000 handbags, $4,500 blazers, or $12,000 side tables designed to look like a bird’s silhouette?   Why do people spend six figures on their cars and similar amounts on their vacations?   Yes, I know I’m, er, frugal and I don’t expect people, and especially people of vastly greater wealth than I, to derive as much joy as my wife and I do from a simple dinner at the local Greek joint and a movie at home or maybe even a trip to Costco or Walmart.   Still, I simply don’t get the reasoning behind the gormless expenditures that people make.

But so what?   Why is what people do with their money yours truly’s business?  It isn’t.   And, in general, I pursue a live and let live policy toward much of what people choose to do.   However, in this case, the outright asinine behavior of many who are considered wealthy does have an impact, and quite a direct impact, on you and me.   Such behavior makes people easy targets for demagogues pursuing policy that reduce the egregious income inequality that currently characterizes our country, but will do so only by reducing the wealth of the rich, not by enhancing the wealth, or prospects for attaining wealth, of those who occupy the lower economic strata of our society.   Destroying capital by disincentivizing people to create capital cannot possibly have positive ramifications for those who are trying to attain wealth.   Policies that are now laughingly called “progressive” have never led to much economic progress.   To the extent that people’s behavior with their wealth makes it harder to defend policies, such as low taxes, light-handed regulation, and a minimal role for government, that are vital to creating such wealth, such behavior hurts all of us, and hurts most of us more than it will hurt the silly rich that make themselves such easy targets for ridicule from the likes of Senators Warren and Sanders.

“POLITICIANS SAY ‘MORE TAXES!’ WE’RE STARVIN’ IN VAIN…AND THE BAND PLAYS ON”

10/22/19

Late last week, in her continuing quest to address Chicago’s fetid financial footing, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot proposed increasing the Chicago food and beverage, or restaurant, tax by 0.25%.   The Mayor argues that, in the great scheme of things, this is a negligible increase, and she has a point.   Right now, the total tax rate on restaurant meal in Chicago is 10.50%, composed of

General sales tax                                                              10.25%

Existing food and beverage (restaurant) tax                        .25%

Total                                                                                 10.50%

unless one is eating in the McPier taxing area, in which diners must pay another 1.00% in order to provide the politicians funds to develop Navy Pier, McCormick Place, and the like, which is a more palatable way of saying to give politicians the spondulicks to fund massive projects designed to reward politically connected contractors, but those of you who know Chicago-ese had no need of this translation.  The McPier tax goes back nearly thirty years and was supposed to expire once Navy Pier was “developed” into what it is today (Yours truly will reserve aesthetic judgment to his readers.) and McCormick Place was brought up to competitive standards.  However, the politicians have, mirabile dictu, found new, vital projects to fund, such as Wintrust Arena and the infrastructure supporting another new hotel, and even more remunerative sinecures to reward to their various coat-holders and hangers-on, so the McPier tax continues.   But I digress.   When we add the McPier tax, diners masticating in the McPier area face an additional 1.00% tax on their meals, bringing the total tax on such meals to 11.50%.   The McPier area, by the way, is not geographically inconsequential, reaching from the Lake on the east to Ashland on the west, Diversey on the North, and the Stevenson on the south, i.e., into areas that rarely, and restaurants that never, serve conventioneers or Bear fans looking to drown their sorrows after another stellar performance by the erstwhile Monsters of the Midway.   Last Spring, the McPier area was to be expanded as far north as Irving Park, as far west as Western Avenue, and as far south as Hyde Park.   Much to the Mayor’s credit, she strongly opposed that idea and it died in the state House.   Yours truly, a huge fan of the Italian restaurants on Oakley Avenue in the near southwest side neighborhood now trendily referred to as “Heart of Chicago,” thanks the Mayor from the bottom of his heart, but, again, I digress.

The Mayor’s logic in adding another 0.25% to the Chicago diner’s already colossal sales tax bill is the old “drop in the ocean” argument, and that logic has a certain appeal given that the total tax is “only” being increased from 11.50% to 11.75%, or 2.2%, for McPier area diners and from 10.50% to 10.75%, or 2.4%, for non-McPier area diners.    Compared to the tax increases that are coming for, say, homeowners, Uber riders, or maybe even suburbanites working in the city, this is indeed a drop in the proverbial ocean.

However…

Think of the underlying logic behind the “drop in the ocean” argument.   The additional tax appears small because the existing tax is already so large.   The implication is that it is in the best interests of politicians to keep taxes really high so that any additional taxes look Lilliputian by comparison…as if the pols, in Chicago or anywhere, need any further incentive to keep taxes high.   And this is, of course, a self-regenerating argument…additional tax increases make taxes higher making additional tax increases look smaller making taxes higher making additional tax increases look smaller in a seemingly never ending upward spiral.   Such is the logic, or at least the logical conclusion, of the Mayor’s argument, and it’s perfect for politicians.

One concluding note of caution…

Am I arguing against the additional quarter of a percentage point restaurant tax?   No more than I argue against just about any tax.   But at least this tax is understandable, given Chicago’s desperate need for revenue because the city can’t, and surely has no desire to, cut its way out of the cavern it has dug for itself.   Further, the additional restaurant tax is, at the risk of falling for the aforementioned argument, small.  Finally, it is placed on an avoidable activity, i.e., eating out, which, by the way, means that it will probably not generate the projected revenue, but that is grist for future mills.   So if yours truly is going to get excited about opposing a tax increase, I wouldn’t do so in response to this one.   It is not the additional restaurant tax per se that has inspired this post; it is the argument the Mayor is using, that argument’s implications for future taxes, and the approach to public finance that argument implies, that inspired this missive.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

SENATOR WARREN IS DOING HER PARTY AN IMMENSE SERVICE, HOWEVER UNWITTINGLY

10/16/19

Since she has assumed the role of front-runner in the race for her Party’s presidential nomination, and especially at last night’s debate, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has helped her party craft a convincing argument for the general election…unless that election involves her.

As some of us had suspected, the latest Democratic whoop-whoop surrounding the Ukrainian machinations of President Trump has had, at least up to this point, been far more damaging to Joe Biden than to Donald Trump.   No matter how this comes out, the voters now know that the Biden father/son tag team of Joe and Hunter are, even if probably not criminal, just part another part of the old Washington system, a process by which pols enrich themselves and their families through years of “public service” and private “don’t mind if I do”ness.   While it would be foolhardy to count Mr. Biden out of the nomination race, his star has surely fallen as a result of the revelations regarding Hunter’s excellent financial adventures in places in which his father was able to wield considerable influence.  

Senator Bernie Sanders has been done in by the havoc age has a habit of wreaking on our bodies.   One would think that his cockamamie, hare-brained ideas would have done him in years ago, but this is, after all, the modern Democratic Party, so it took a heart attack to effectively finish his candidacy.

This leaves Senator Warren as the front-runner, which shouldn’t surprise anybody who has been paying attention.   She’s Bernie without the Bernie baggage, Bernie-lite, if you will, piously proclaiming that she is a capitalist to her bones, or some such rhetoric, while still spouting the same socialistic, necessarily authoritarian nonsense that Bernie has been dangling before the dim for years.  She’s smart, smarter than Bernie and, while calling her likeable would be something of a stretch, she is certainly less irascible than the crotchety, creaking, costermonger of cantankerousness from Brooklyn via Vermont.   Senator Warren’s combination of attributes seems to be what the Dems are looking for as 2020, as evidenced by Ms. Warren’s consistently remaining at or near the top of the pack while the Dems have quickly alternately embraced and abandoned their innumerable flavors of the day.

(I feel obliged to digress here for a moment to compliment Senator Sanders.   Clearly, yours truly does not harbor warm thoughts toward the man or his politics, but it’s nice to have someone genuine in public life.   Bernie Sanders really believes in his socialist credo and is not ashamed to admit it.   If he were to donate the millions he has made on his books to one of his socialistic causes, his genuineness would be even more authentic.   Still, it’s nearly heartwarming to see an “I am what I am” kind of guy in politics in this country where duplicity seems to be the key to success.   But I digress; at least I do so parenthetically.)

Ironically, Ms. Warren’s front-runner status could turn out to be a great thing for the Democrats.   The political necessity of going after their front-runner, who happens to on the leftward most flank of their party, allows, indeed demands, that those who pass for moderates in today’s Democratic Party display their moderate bona fides.   And we saw that in abundance last night.   Whether it is…

 “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg proclaiming “We cannot wait for purity tests, we have to just get something done,”  

Senator Amy Klobuchar pointing out, in regards to Ms. Warren’s health care “plans,” that the difference between “a pipe dream and a plan is something that you can actually get done,” (Despite her butchery of the language, one can see what Senator Klobuchar meant by that…I think.)

senatorial wannabe Beto O’Rourke pointing out the obvious, as in “Sometimes I think that Sen. Warren is more focused on being punitive or pitting some part of the country against the other, instead of lifting people up,” or

again, “Mayor Pete” also showing a firm grasp of the obvious in saying to Senator Warren “Your signature is to have a plan for everything, except this,” where “this” means paying for the Senator’s grandiose schemes,

Ms. Warren’s front-runner status has allowed others in the field to point out to, or at least try to convince, the American people that not everybody in the Democratic race is a wild-eyed lefty hell-bent on putting the economy and, by necessity, the country firmly under the thumb of the Washington power structure.   There are some people in the Democratic Party who still retain a sense of what passes for moderation and a degree of faith in the economic system that built this country.   Whether yours truly really believes that is an open question, and my doubts in this regard extend beyond the Democratic Party.   The important thing, however, is not whether any of these Democrats can be reasonably construed as moderates or that yours truly would agree with that proposition; the important thing is that Ms. Warren’s leading from the left gives some of her opponents the opportunity to at least pose as moderates.    And in that sense, Ms. Warren’s front-runner status is doing her Party a great service.

Of course, if Ms. Warren does wind up with the nomination, all the above is moot, and the Dems’ path to the presidency is, though not impossible given the wild and deep-seated, er, unpopularity of the incumbent, imperiled.   And right now, if I were a betting man, my money would be on Ms. Warren to bear the Democratic standard.    But, if she were to stumble, the Dems may have a nominee who can, during the general election, run clips of herself or himself attacking Ms. Warren from the “right.”  And that will surely help in November, 2020.

WHY THE HELL ARE THESE GUYS OUT ON THE STREET?

10/11/19

Early this month, a police officer in the south suburbs of Chicago, had to shoot one Joseph Jesk, who was threatening the officer’s life.   We later found out that Mr. Jesk had been found guilty of murdering his wife fewer than ten years ago but was somehow not still in prison.    Few people made anything of the latter because, one supposes, it is now so common for vicious criminals, including murderers, to be given a relative pass by a justice system that seems confused about the very notion of what constitutes justice, let alone public safety.   And we wonder why we have a growing crime problem.

The cops have long been frustrated by seeing their yeoman efforts at catching the bad guys rendered nearly pointless when the perps are given laughably light sentences by judges who seem eager to demonstrate their perverted views of “social justice.”   The cases of Mr. Jesk and the like continue to fuel this frustration.

I wrote the following letter to the Chicago Sun-Times expressing my frustration at the Jesk affair and the many, many more like it that seem so commonplace today.   The letter wasn’t published, but I thought you’d find it thought provoking.

10/3/19

The Sun-Times reports (10/3/19, page 4) that Joseph Jesk, who was fatally shot by a Bridgeview police officer, pled guilty in December, 2011 to murdering his wife.

Why in the world was this man out on the street less than ten years after killing his wife?   A seventeen-year sentence, reduced to just over six years…for murder?   And a subsequent slap on the wrist for meth possession…by a convicted felon?

Perhaps a justice system that is so eager to demonstrate its compassion by giving violent criminals light sentences ought to reserve some of that compassion for the future victims of these emancipated predators.  Thank God the police officer who successfully defended himself against Mr. Jesk was not one of those victims.

IT’S GREAT TO HAVE ALL THESE HARVARD GUYS WORKING ON MY BEHALF

10/11/19

As first a professional and then an amateur investor, I have for years banged my head against the proverbial wall trying to beat the indices.   Then, years ago, it came to me, slowly, but not as slowly as it has come to most market participants, that I don’t have to bang my head against the wall anymore; I simply had to, as indexing’s detractors like to say, surrender and accept mediocrity.  By doing so, I was virtually guaranteed to improve my investment performance.   Oh, sure, I own a few individual stocks, on which I have done quite well, and I still put on an option position now and then.   Vertical put spreads, which, despite their provocative sounding name, have nothing to do with the recreational habits of those of questionable propriety, are my current fascination in the options world.   However, these few stock positions and even fewer, and more paltry, option positions are put on to amuse, rather than enrich, myself.   The bulk of whatever financial assets we have is in index funds and there it will remain.

So it is heartening, especially to this graduate of a couple of Midwest cow colleges, to know that the great minds at Harvard (aka, the U of I of the East), the notables on CNBC and other bastions of the financial media, and the rocket scientists of Wall Street continue their futile pursuits of the holy grail of active management that consistently, reliably, and durably beats its passive counterpart.   The efforts of these great minds (and I’m not being sarcastically ironic here…really, these people are indeed, for the most part, great minds) only serve to make the markets more efficient and, hence, passive investing even more compelling.

So thanks, guys, for making my life easier and more profitable.

I wrote the below letter to the Wall Street Journal expressing these very sentiments.   It went unpublished, perhaps owing to the academic pedigrees of much of the staff of that estimable Journal:

9/28/19

The Wall Street Journal reported on 9/28 (“Harvard Fund Logs Return of 6.5%,” 9/28-9/29/19, B13, Dawn Lim and Juliet Chung) that the Harvard endowment achieved a 6.5% return in fiscal 2019, far behind the S&P 500’s 10.4%.

While one year does not constitute a performance record, such underperformance is not an anomaly and is virtually certain to repeat itself and be sustained over time.   Surely, the powers-to-be at Harvard are smart enough to realize this.  So why don’t Harvard and its fellow enormously endowed institutions of higher learning pursue a purely passive investing strategy and reap the seemingly inevitable rewards?   One suspects the reason for sticking with active management is that a change to indexing would result a lot of people, many of whom doubtless are Harvard alums, losing their highly paid gigs managing the endowment’s investments.

That Harvard and its similarly situated institutions whistle past the ever-growing evidence and continue to pursue the quixotic mission of beating the indices will have a dyspeptic effect on the endowment.   However, the bad news for Harvard and for those who love it is good news for the rest of us.   The continuing fruitless pursuit of mediocrity by very smart people that constitutes most of active management serves to keep the markets efficient and hence profitable for those of us who have accepted the facts and become proud indexers.

Thanks, Harvard.

LET’S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING LESS CONTROVERSIAL…LIKE ABORTION

10/4/19

The above line is one of my favorites when I am in a group that is getting into a heated discussion about some topic that shouldn’t be capable of melting an ice cube.   For those few of you who aren’t getting it, the line was meant to be ironic.  But I digress.

Last month, it was reported that the abortion rate in this country had reached a recorded low, a rate not seen since records on this, depending on which side you are talking to, medical procedure or murderous abomination had been kept.  

When these numbers, yours truly had two thoughts:

1. Terrific; how can a record low abortion rate possibly be bad news?
2. Still, this is going to generate controversy because a lot of people are in the business of making this most controversial of topics even more controversial.

I was disappointed, at least in a sense, or maybe just surprised, on both counts because the reaction to this news was muted.   Not even the most ardent pro-lifers were vocally delighted and the only controversy that the numbers evoked was an argument (of course) regarding the reasons behind this drop.   And even the latter was conducted at an amazingly low decibel level.

While Clarence Page noticed the numbers and wrote a reasoned column on the reasons behind the drop in abortions, I think he, and just about anybody else, who commented on this issue missed the larger point.   So I wrote the below letter to the Chicago Tribune responding to Mr. Page’s column.  It wasn’t published, which isn’t surprising; both the Tribune and the Sun-Times publish only two or three letters per day.   Nonetheless, this letter, like all of my writings, should not go unnoticed, so I’m sharing it with my readers:

9/22/19

In his 9/22/19 column, Clarence Page attributes our nation’s record low abortion rates to increased use of contraceptives rather than to state abortion restrictions.   The evidence seems to support Mr. Page’s contention, but the reason behind the steady drop in abortions since 2011 is not as important as the fact of the steady drop in abortions during that period.   While there would be some obvious policy implications from the answer to the contraception vs. legal restriction argument, that answer will probably never be found given the highly emotionally charged nature of the arguments on the many sides of the abortion issue.   For now, at least, everybody should simply be happy that fewer abortions are taking place regardless of the reasons for that reduction.

The drop in the abortion rate to record lows provides abundant evidence of the wisdom of Ronald Reagan’s long-ago observation that it is amazing what can get accomplished if we don’t care who gets the credit.  

DOUBLING DOWN ON CHICAGO’S CASINO GAMBLE

10/4/19

A consultant has told the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois that no private operator could make money on a Chicago casino under the onerous tax regime contained in the legislation laying the groundwork for such a gaming emporium.  

Judging from what I’ve been reading, the consultant is probably right.   Further, yours truly might be the last guy who is in favor of taxing anything heavily unless the real purpose behind such taxation is to wipe out the activity being taxed.   However, I think I have come up with a better approach to testing the viability of a casino under existing legislation.   

A couple of points:

First, yours truly realizes that there are pitfalls to my approach, the most salient of which is operators’ bidding with the sure expectation of, after having won the license, coming back after a short period of time asking for relief under threat of closing the place down. 

Second, since I wrote the below letter to the Chicago Sun-Times, 9^th Ward Alderman Anthony Beale has come up with a proposal that involves awarding the license first and then having the licensee negotiate a better deal with the legislature.

The first point does not by any means invalidate my idea; protections can be written into the bidding process.   The second point provides at least a measure of credibility to an approach that does not simply accept the consultant’s report as the final word.

This letter, too, was not published, which isn’t surprising given that the Sun-Times publishes only two or three letters per day.   However, the letter is worth sharing with my growing readership:

9/22/19

As Rich Miller (Opinion, 9/22/19) points out, the tax rate set by lawmakers for a Chicago casino is “astoundingly high” and a consultant’s report concludes that it would be “nearly impossible” for an operator to make a profit under such a structure.  

However, rather than take the word of a consultant, wouldn’t a better approach be for the Lightfoot administration to solicit bids from casino operators under the current tax structure and see what happens?   If the city gets reasonable bids from experienced, competent operators under the existing tax structure, why should the revenue strapped city and state sweeten the deal for the operators?   If the process attracts no bidders, at least the Mayor can go to the legislature with concrete proof that the tax structure it has put in place is unworkable.  Perhaps the bidding process could be expanded to include the tax structure itself.

Soliciting bids, and perhaps bids even extending to the tax structure itself, would seem to at least be a truer test of the onerousness of the proposed tax structure than taking the word of consultant as holy writ.  

THANKS, RON GROSSMAN, AND THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE FOR HELPING A HOLY PLACE WORTHY OF HELP

9/29/19

Today’s (i.e., Sunday, 10/29/19, page 19) Chicago Tribune contained a story by Ron Grossman, a long-time chronicler of all things Chicago, entitled “When Chicago Met John Paul II.”   While the main storyline was a compelling story of a Chicago that no longer exists (perhaps grist for a later mill), yours truly was especially interested in, and gratified by, the sub-story of the efforts of indomitable parishioners of Sacred Heart Shrine to get the Pope’s attention to keep our church open.  

For those of you who don’t normally read the Tribune and/or live outside the Chicago area, here is a link to the story:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-flashback-pope-john-paul-ii-chicago-visit-20190927-3o6tr3rn55fx3iwhxsfqz5t3oi-story.html

As a (very) long-time parishioner at Sacred Heart, I sent Mr. Grossman a note of thanks and thought I’d share it with my readers:

Ron,

I grew up about five blocks from Sacred Heart Shrine.  I attended my first midnight Mass there before I could take Communion, i.e., before I was seven, because, for some reason, our parish, St. Walter, didn’t have a midnight Mass at the time and my Mom loved the traditional first Mass on Christmas.   I remember two things about that Mass…the statue of a stern Mother Cabrini staring down at me that caused a lot more consternation than Christmas joy in my young heart and the woman sitting next to me in that very crowded church, who apparently took a bath once year…on Christmas morning.

We started going to Sacred Heart with regularity when I was in sixth or seventh grade (in the late ‘60s) because my Mom, along with many St. Walter parishioners, had it out with our new pastor, Father Brown, and stopped going to St. Walter.    Back then, the Sacred Heart was so crowded that its pastor, the sainted Father Ken Borchardt, had to have four Masses going on Saturday…4:00 “upstairs,” i.e., in the church itself, 4:05 “downstairs,” i.e., in the church hall, now named Father McNally Hall in honor of Father Borchardt’s predecessor, 5:00 upstairs, and 5:05 downstairs.   Of course, that was a different time, when Mass attendance was far higher than it is today, but, still, the turnout was extraordinary even by that time’s standards.   The immense popularity of Sacred Heart was attributable to a number of things

·         The popularity of Father Borchardt and his two assistants, Father James Gallagher and Father John Kret.   All were, and, in the case of Fathers Gallagher and Kret, remain, humble men who chose to serve God and their people rather than themselves.   While Father Borchardt went to be even closer to God years ago, Father Gallagher still says Mass each week at the Shrine and Father Kret only recently had to step away due to health issues; he may be back and all of us are pulling for him.

·         The habit of all three priests, now engrained at Sacred Heart, to not waste time.   Back then, Sacred Heart was known as the home of the 25 minute Mass, which doubtless led to its popularity among Catholics who had had it with the long-windedness, sense of self-importance, and devotion to pomp and circumstance that characterized the approach of a growing number of Catholic pastors in the area and doubtless beyond.  And, yes, there were plenty of Catholics who just wanted to get their ticket punched as quickly as possible.   But we were happy to have them.   The tempo of the Masses has since slowed down at Sacred Heart, but not much.   We still like to move things along.   As Father Borchardt was fond of saying, if there were any sacredness or holiness missing from his Masses because they were short, he’d slow them down.   But there wasn’t anything missing, so why drag things out?  

Incidentally, none of us could get past the notion that the reason Sacred Heart was shut down by Cardinal Cody in 1979 had nothing to do with the condition of the building and everything to do with Sacred Heart’s drawing parishioners away from the huge and powerful neighboring churches in Beverly and its environs, whose old school pastors at the time, including and perhaps especially, Father Brown at St. Walter’s, had the ear of the Cardinal.

·         The sense of mission, purpose, and holiness that pervaded, and still pervades, Sacred Heart.  Several of our parishioners have reported miracles that have taken place in the wake of prayer at the Shrine.   An old friend of mine from high school, whom I hadn’t seen in years but ran into at Mass one Sunday morning there a few years ago, told me she goes to Sacred Heart rather than her parish church because, as she put it, “it’s easy to pray there; you feel so close to God.”   Truer words have rarely been uttered.

Now I qualify as a senior citizen at most places and live in Naperville.   I can’t count the number of Catholic churches that lie between my home and Sacred Heart.   But my wife and I still go to Sacred Heart at least once a month.  I serve as a lector and commentator and a minister of Communion there.    Our three children, now young adults, were all confirmed there.   It’s still home, it’s still my church, and I hope to be buried from there…. many years from now, of course.

So I’m just writing to say thank you, Ron.   God bless you and all you do and, please, stop by Sacred Heart some time; we’d love to have you, especially on the first weekend of each month, when we have coffee and donuts after Mass.  I read on those Saturdays and would like to shake your hand.

Mark Quinn