A college kid in Illinois has learned a hard lesson about Chicago machine politics – you know, the ones that produced our last President. Excerpt:
The history of the little guy being squashed by massive Chicago political clout at election time is just too long to print without weeping.
But the story for today is so amazing that some Chicago election officials have never seen the like.
“No one can remember anything approaching this,” said an election official.
It’s overkill of epic proportions, like using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat, or firing off a nuclear weapon to kill a sparrow. A Southwest Side David vs. Goliath story.
The David is David Krupa, 19, a freshman at DePaul University who drives a forklift part time. He’s not a political powerhouse. He’s just a conservative Southwest Side teenager studying political science and economics who got it in his head to run for alderman in a race that pits him against the most powerful ward organization in Chicago.
The Goliath is the 13th Ward Democratic Organization run by House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, aka Boss Madigan, the most powerful politician in the state. Boss Madigan has long hand-picked his aldermen. He likes them loyal and quiet. The current silent alderman of the 13th Ward is Marty Quinn.
Boss Madigan wields a big stick:
To get on the ballot, Krupa was required to file 473 valid signatures of ward residents with the Chicago Board of Elections. Krupa filed 1,703 signatures.
But before he filed his signatures with the elections board, an amazing thing happened along the Chicago Way.
An organized crew of political workers — or maybe just civic-minded individuals who care about reform — went door to door with official legal papers. They asked residents to sign an affadavit revoking their signature on Krupa’s petition.
Here’s the onion:
The number of revocations far exceeds the number of signatures Krupa collected. That means false affidavits were filed with the elections board.
Why would thousands of people lie on a legal document of revocation, and say they’d signed Krupa’s petitions, when they didn’t sign Krupa’s petitions? Were they just being nice?
Now, there are felonies here – hundreds if not thousands – organized, aided and abetted Boss Madigan’s crew. (Note his party affiliation, which is hardly a surprise, this being Chicago.) So should we hold our breath waiting for prosecutions? No, because, in corrupt machine politics, some people are above the law.
This is another example of something I’ve been saying for some time; equal treatment under the law is effectively a dead letter in this nation now, and has been for some time.
No, I’m not talking about people living in hobbit-houses. I’m talking about far more primitive life much, much farther underground. Excerpt:
There’s life on Earth, and there’s life in Earth. And the latter, overlooked for so long, is coming into focus as a wild menagerie of strange, diverse organisms.
We’ve known for some time that life can thrive even under the surface of the planet, within the very crust beneath the ocean floor.
Today a group of international scientists from the Deep Carbon Observatory reports at the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting on nearly 10 years of discovering such organisms. The life they found beneath the planet’s surface expands our notions of its limits and opens up new terrain in the search off the Earth, for extraterrestrial life.
What Kind of Life We Talking About Here?
The deep biosphere — sometimes termed a “subterranean Galapagos” — is dominated by microbial life, organisms that derive their energy from rocks. Even though two types of microbes, bacteria and archaea, are the main discoveries, other types of life, including multicellular animals, have been found as well. Genetically, life below the surface is as or even more diverse than what’s above.
Where Are These Things?
All over the globe researchers are finding life by boring holes into the crust, examining deep mines or studying cracks in the Earth.
“Nature brings the samples to us through volcanic fluids leaking out of the sea floor,” says Julie Huber, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution microbiologist specializing in the study of life around underwater volcanoes. “Almost a mile beneath the surface of the ocean we were able to witness deep-sea lava eruptions — molten lava bombs going off. Yet right nearby the erupting pit, there were lush microbial mats and they were shrimp eating.”
The damn near omnipresence of life on Earth, in habitats we would have thought impossible only a few years ago – hell, we would have thought many of them impossible when I was studying biology in college – makes me wonder if life isn’t more prevalent elsewhere than we think. Maybe life arises plenty of places; maybe conditions being even halfway favorable are enough.
Intelligent life, though? That’s another story. I’d be surprised to find intelligent life to be very common at all, especially given the activities of people in our Imperial City.
Ever wonder how various European countries stack up against the United States, economy-wise? The Mises Institute looked into it, and it turns out that the nations of Europe don’t even stack up too well against individual states.
Like, say, Mississippi. Excerpt:
Last year, a debate erupted over how Britain would compare to individual US states. In the UK Spectator, Fraser Nelson explained “Why Britain is poorer than any US state, other than Mississippi.” A week later, TIME shot back with an article titled “No, Britain Is Not Poorer than Alabama.” The author of the TIME article, Dan Stewart, explained that, yes, Britain is poorer than many US states, but certainly not all of them. (See below to confirm that the UK is, in fact, poorer than every state.)
The main fault of the Spectator article, its critics alleged, was that it relied primarily on GDP and GDP per capita to make the comparisons. The critics at TIME (and other publications) correctly pointed out that if one is going to draw broad conclusions about poverty among various countries, GDP numbers are arguably not the best metric. For one, GDP per capita can be skewed upward by a small number of ultra-rich persons. After all, it is just GDP divided by the total population. That gives us no idea of how the median household is doing is those areas. Also, it’s best to avoid averages and stick with median values if we’re looking to avoid numbers that can be pulled up by some wealthy outliers.
But, I’m really being too conservative with the US numbers here. I’m comparing OECD countries to US states based on a single nation-wide purchasing power number for the US. We’ve already accounted for cost of living at the national level (using PPP data), but the US is so much larger than all other countries compared here, we really need to consider the regional cost of living in the United States. Were we to calculate real incomes based on the cost of living in each state, we’d find that real purchasing power is even higher in many of the lower-income states than we see above.
We now see that there’s less variation in the median income levels among the US states. That makes sense because many states with low median incomes also have a very low cost of living. At the same time, many states with high median incomes have a very high cost of living.
Now that we’ve accounted for the low cost of living in Mississippi, we find that Mississippi ($26,517) is no longer the state with the lowest median income in real terms. New York ($26,152) is now the state with the lowest median income due to its very high cost of living.
This has had the effect of giving us a more realistic view of the purchasing power of the median household in US states. It is also more helpful in comparing individual states to OECD members, many of which have much higher costs of living than places like the American south and midwest. Now that we recognize how inexpensive it is to live in places like Tennessee, Florida, and Kentucky, we find that residents in those states now have higher median incomes than Sweden (a place that’s 30% more expensive than the US) and most other OECD countries measured.
That, True Believers, is an irony that must have old Charles Martel spinning in his grave.
A while back the People’s Republik of Boulder passed an ordinance demanding owners of nebulously-defined “assault weapons” register, surrender or move their arms out of the city. So far the city has registered 85 weapons, which would seem to indicate most Boulder gun owners responded with “fuck off, slavers!” Excerpt:
With only 21 days left to go before the certification period closes, a total of 86 certificates have been issued (there are just over 100,000 residents in the college town). Two of those certifications were for the same firearm shared by a husband and wife (for some reason), that means only 85 guns have been certified so far.
City Attorney Tom Carr, who drafted the law to try to fit “the council’s vision,” openly admits that it’ll be difficult to enforce.
“I can’t imagine a way to do proactive enforcement,” Carr said. “Obviously, there’s no circumstance where we go door-to-door and ask people if they’ve violated the law. So, I think it would mostly be responsive.”
Boulder resident John Ramey, who worked together with Councilwoman Mirabai Nagle to propose an alternative to the ban, made the following statement via email when the law was being proposed:
“By definition, effective governing must be practical and enforceable. When something isn’t enforceable, like the war on drugs, that’s a huge sign that the underlying legal model doesn’t match the actual problems and realities.”
Take a good look at that last sentence. Boulder has done precisely this; created a law that is impossible to enforce. In fact it’s worse, it is a law that potentially – indeed, almost certainly – makes criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens. Feature or bug? Ayn Rand may have foreseen it:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
Boulder has done some stupid shit; this is really just the latest in a long string. And, sadly, the rest of the once and former Colorado may not be far behind in the Stupid Sweepstakes where gun control is concerned, despite growing evidence that the would-be gun-grabbers proposals simply don’t work.
It’s not just Colorado. New Yorkers’ compliance with their misnamed “SAFE Act” is so low as to be barely noticeable.
So where does this end? On the one hand, when new laws have no effect, or a negative effect, on lowering crime, pols clamor for more laws, with which the formerly law-abiding increasingly show disregard; thus spawning calls for more restrictions, which piss off more gun owners who reply by refusing to comply…
Odds are this won’t end well.
Thanks as always to The Other McCain and Pirate’s Cove for the Rule Five links! Also, be sure to check out my latest article over at Glibertarians, this one the first part of a multi-part series on the history of the sixgun. I think you’ll enjoy it.
Mrs. A and I spent Friday and Saturday last week in San Diego, which was… interesting. It’s a pretty place though, and the harbor tour was fun; some photos follow. Enjoy!
This Friday finds Mrs. Animal and yr. obdt. in San Diego, where we have some local business to transact, after which we’ll enjoy a warm and sunny Friday afternoon and Saturday far from the chilly environs of New Joisey, to whence we return on Sunday. It may be daffy old Californey, but at least it’s a change of scene.
In the meantime: After thinking a little about this week’s post on electoral shenanigans, I have an idea. Let’s propose an amendment to the Constitution!
Yes, I know. It’s a wild shot in the dark. The Constitution is hard to amend on purpose, and this amendment would have the blue states lined up against it from the start. Plenty of folks in the red states wouldn’t like it, either. But anyway, here it is, my proposed 28th Amendment, the Electoral Integrity Amendment:
- All voters shall be required to identify themselves via government-issued photo ID or biometric to a certified election official prior to casting any vote.
- All votes must be cast and entered by the actual voter. Voting by proxy and delivery of ballots by third party is prohibited.
- All votes will be cast on one day, that day being the first Tuesday in November, excepting special elections, recall elections and runoff elections. Absentee voting is allowed for military members and persons working outside the country.
- Citizens and residents who have been on any form of taxpayer funded public assistance within the twelve months prior to the election day are denied the franchise.
That last one in particular would cause a RHEEEEE that you could hear from orbit. But let’s look at each part:
- This is voter ID, but modernized. A while back I proposed a few ways to modernize our voting system that this amendment specifically allows for, namely a biometric ID as part of a validated, secured online system. I can’t believe that the high foreheads at the NSA can’t come up with something at least as secure as our present system, which ain’t saying much. And I can think of only one reason anyone would object to making voters identify themselves prior to voting.
- No more “ballot harvesting” horseshit. Each state can work out systems for invalids and so on, but everyone must cast their own vote. Note that an online biometric system would make it much easier for, say, senior citizens and the severely disabled to cast their votes. And biometrics joined to a validated, secure database would eliminate multiple voting shenanigans.
- Election day is election day. If you don’t care enough to show up at the polling place – or open a damned app on your phone or computer, if we go that route – then you shouldn’t be voting.
- I’ve proposed this before, in my Manifesto among other places, but as a matter of principle, if you ain’t get skin in the game, you cain’t have a say in how things are run. I’d want to work out the details to exempt retirees, disabled veterans and so on, but that can be handled.
So, True Believers – thoughts? Additions? Subtractions?
No, not me. Wall Street. Excerpt:
No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.
In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?
Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.
Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.
Interviews with more than 30 senior executives suggest many are spooked by #MeToo and struggling to cope. “It’s creating a sense of walking on eggshells,” said David Bahnsen, a former managing director at Morgan Stanley who’s now an independent adviser overseeing more than $1.5 billion.
Now I’m the least threatening guy in the world to women young or old. At 57, I’m well past the hormone-driven stage; as a happily married man for 26 years, I’m not interested in shopping around. I enjoy women aesthetically, but I also enjoy golden aspens in the fall, beautiful sunsets, kittens and wildflowers for much the same reasons.
And yes, I’ve adjusted my behaviors because of all this crap. No one-on-one meetings behind closed doors. I’m probably speaking more deliberately because my natural tendency is towards rough language and I have to watch that more carefully now. And unlike years gone by, I never, ever complement a woman (other than Mrs. Animal, my Mom or my daughters) on their appearance. My one exception to the above rule is a 30-something colleague who a few years back asked if I could mentor her through her advancing career, and I have agreed to do so, but have known her for a long time, she and Mrs. Animal are great friends, and I trust her.
It’s a shame that things like this have to suck every last bit of enjoyment we have in human interaction. I like women; I enjoy being around them and talking with them, even though I’m not interested in hitting on them or sidling up to them.
But even I, as harmless a sort as you’re liable to find, have cut way back on my interactions with female coworkers. It’s not worth taking the chance. No way. And that’s just too damn bad.
It seems Congrescritter-elect Crazy Eyes is at it again. Excerpt:
Democratic Socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t even been sworn into office yet and she’s already shaking things up in Washington, D.C. Scratch that. She hasn’t even been sworn in as a Congresswoman yet and she’s already making demands of her fellow legislators…before meeting and working with them.
First, she complained that she couldn’t find adequate housing that she could afford. Then, she complained about health insurance as a means of advocating for Medicare For All. And who could forget her crazy comparisons between the Central American caravan and the Holocaust? Or that she didn’t know what the three branches of government are?
Now, she’s telling her colleagues that they need to pay staffers a living wage:
This week I went to dive spot in DC for some late night food. I chatted up the staff.
SEVERAL bartenders, managers, & servers *currently worked in Senate + House offices.*
This is a disgrace. Congress of ALL places should raise MRAs so we can pay staff an actual DC living wage.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) December 3, 2018
Hasn’t anybody yet told her that hypocrisy is not only not disqualifying for Congress, it’s practically a requirement?
Now, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez will be being paid $174,000 a year as a member of Congress, starting in January. Will she, like a good little socialist, take only what salary her living expenses require and donate the rest to her staff, to take them closer to a “living wage,” whatever that is? Granted the Imperial City is a pretty damned expensive place to live, but there’s no reason it should be; Harry Truman (a Democrat, but one who probably wouldn’t recognize what his party has become) said you can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.
He was right.
Dan Quayle once misspelled “potato” and was castigated as a moron forever more. Karla Marx here flunks Civics 101 on national news daily and is still a darling of the socialist left. Go figure.