I called into the Score AM 670 at about 8:05 last night on my way home from a JVS event in Lakeview. The host had asked for callers to ask him questions about the Bears. I wanted to say, "Do you think the Bears have the ability to increase their win total to 10 or 11 games to make the playoffs in the 2010 season? It seemed to me they dropped a number of winnable games last year, and good teams win close games." Unfortunately I was never able to ask my question as I let it slip that I gave up on the Bears after their miserable loss in Atlanta (Week 6, which left them 3-2 after their bye week). At that point the host hung up on me.
Look, Bub, you can hang up on me for dissing the Bears and giving up on them so quickly. (And I turned out to be right; they missed the playoffs for the third straight season after their Super Bowl season of 2006.) But you can't change the fact that they were pretty mediocre last season. 7-9? 6-10? I don't remember, and it doesn't matter. The point is whether they can make the playoffs this season with a new offensive coordinator. Lovie Smith's job depends on it.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Only in Israel
Jack Berger told this story:
He hails a taxicab in Israel and asks the driver to take him to the Jerusalem bus station.
The driver asks him, "Where are you going?"
"The Jerusalem bus station."
"I heard you. No, where are you taking the bus?"
"I don't think you want to take me."
"Try me."
"To Chevron (Hebron)."
"I'll take you."
"You're driving a new Mercedes. Are you sure?"
"Sure, I'll take you."
So they leave Jerusalem and take the highway to Chevron. They pick up a trio of teenage girls along the way who need a ride. When they arrive at the outskirts of Chevron, they run into a military roadblock, and the commander tells them they can't enter the city. (He probably says, "Eee efshar"--impossible--they love saying that.) At that point one of the girls hands the commander a card.
"What's this?" he asks.
"It's an invitation to my wedding," she tells him. "I'm getting married at Machpelah tonight."
He waves them through.
He hails a taxicab in Israel and asks the driver to take him to the Jerusalem bus station.
The driver asks him, "Where are you going?"
"The Jerusalem bus station."
"I heard you. No, where are you taking the bus?"
"I don't think you want to take me."
"Try me."
"To Chevron (Hebron)."
"I'll take you."
"You're driving a new Mercedes. Are you sure?"
"Sure, I'll take you."
So they leave Jerusalem and take the highway to Chevron. They pick up a trio of teenage girls along the way who need a ride. When they arrive at the outskirts of Chevron, they run into a military roadblock, and the commander tells them they can't enter the city. (He probably says, "Eee efshar"--impossible--they love saying that.) At that point one of the girls hands the commander a card.
"What's this?" he asks.
"It's an invitation to my wedding," she tells him. "I'm getting married at Machpelah tonight."
He waves them through.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tired of saying tehillim for Gilad Shalit
In 1979, Iranian college students took over the U.S. embassy in Teheran and held 52 men hostage for 444 days.* As a final insult to the American president, Jimmy Carter, the students released the hostages on his successor's inauguration day.
A political cartoon from that period showed the American eagle locked in a birdcage.
I thought of that image when considering Israel's situation regarding its soldier Gilad Shalit held hostage by Hamas since June 25, 2006. Hamas is a secretive, shadowy terrorist organization. But Israel is a sovereign state with an international spy operation that has no rival in the world. When Israel decides to assassinate Hamas leaders, it does so. In fact, the professional execution of a terrorist operative in Dubai last week is widely attributed to Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, which refuses to confirm or deny its involvement. This is its standard plausible deniability tactic.
So what's the problem? Why is Gilad Shalit still being held hostage, after nearly four years?
At the conclusion of a service in many orthodox synagogues, the prayer leader will say a paragraph of tehillim (usually Psalm 130) "because of the ongoing situation in Israel," which refers to the conflict in general but specifically to Shalit. I'm tired of it, not just because it makes the service longer (which is selfish) but because the situation could most likely be easily solved. There's only one way to find out.
There is probably no diplomatic solution to the hostage situation. If Hamas were to release Shalit at all, it would demand a significant prisoner exchange involving dozens or hundreds of convicted murderers. Other than that, there is no good reason for Hamas to give up its one ace in the hole to its sworn enemy. It would lose considerable credibility and respect from the "Arab street" it claims to represent.
When China kept American servicemen hostage for a week or so in 2001, the U.S. president apologized (twice--embarrassing), and the People's Republic allowed the men to go home. When Iran captured British servicemen in 2007, there was intense international pressure on Iran to release the men. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saw a public relations opportunity and released them within two weeks, saying, "This pardon is a gift to the British people." Since the world's conscience doesn't lose any sleep over a captured Israeli, Israel is getting almost no help in securing Shalit's release, despite his French and (awarded since capture) Italian citizenship.
Could Israel please stop acting like a scared little kid and start acting like a regional military power?
Call up Hamas and demand Shalit's unconditional release within 48 hours. Then start hunting down Hamas' murderous operatives and assassinate them--one per day. Shalit would be home soon enough. What would be the world's reaction? The extreme Left would once again be in the uncomfortable position of defending homicide terrorism. Sure, it does that anyway, but when one weighs Shalit's plight against the lives of terrorists, most of world opinion would be on Shalit's side.
Your move, Israel. Do you want to see Shalit grow old in captivity? He turns 24 in August. He should celebrate at home.
_________
*They released the women and children almost immediately after the raid.
A political cartoon from that period showed the American eagle locked in a birdcage.
I thought of that image when considering Israel's situation regarding its soldier Gilad Shalit held hostage by Hamas since June 25, 2006. Hamas is a secretive, shadowy terrorist organization. But Israel is a sovereign state with an international spy operation that has no rival in the world. When Israel decides to assassinate Hamas leaders, it does so. In fact, the professional execution of a terrorist operative in Dubai last week is widely attributed to Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, which refuses to confirm or deny its involvement. This is its standard plausible deniability tactic.
So what's the problem? Why is Gilad Shalit still being held hostage, after nearly four years?
At the conclusion of a service in many orthodox synagogues, the prayer leader will say a paragraph of tehillim (usually Psalm 130) "because of the ongoing situation in Israel," which refers to the conflict in general but specifically to Shalit. I'm tired of it, not just because it makes the service longer (which is selfish) but because the situation could most likely be easily solved. There's only one way to find out.
There is probably no diplomatic solution to the hostage situation. If Hamas were to release Shalit at all, it would demand a significant prisoner exchange involving dozens or hundreds of convicted murderers. Other than that, there is no good reason for Hamas to give up its one ace in the hole to its sworn enemy. It would lose considerable credibility and respect from the "Arab street" it claims to represent.
When China kept American servicemen hostage for a week or so in 2001, the U.S. president apologized (twice--embarrassing), and the People's Republic allowed the men to go home. When Iran captured British servicemen in 2007, there was intense international pressure on Iran to release the men. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saw a public relations opportunity and released them within two weeks, saying, "This pardon is a gift to the British people." Since the world's conscience doesn't lose any sleep over a captured Israeli, Israel is getting almost no help in securing Shalit's release, despite his French and (awarded since capture) Italian citizenship.
Could Israel please stop acting like a scared little kid and start acting like a regional military power?
Call up Hamas and demand Shalit's unconditional release within 48 hours. Then start hunting down Hamas' murderous operatives and assassinate them--one per day. Shalit would be home soon enough. What would be the world's reaction? The extreme Left would once again be in the uncomfortable position of defending homicide terrorism. Sure, it does that anyway, but when one weighs Shalit's plight against the lives of terrorists, most of world opinion would be on Shalit's side.
Your move, Israel. Do you want to see Shalit grow old in captivity? He turns 24 in August. He should celebrate at home.
_________
*They released the women and children almost immediately after the raid.
Monday, February 22, 2010
SCOTUS says corps can advertise for campaigns
A friend and avid blog reader (my favorite kind) asked me to weigh in on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in favor of corporations advertising in favor of or against federal election candidates. The case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporate contributions to individual campaigns remain illegal. Now corporations, previously limited to campaign donations through their own political action committees (PAC's) or independent PAC's, may now advertise and "spend freely on political causes," as mysun.com put it here.
You mean corporations have First Amendment rights too? Outrageous. As the Chicago Tribune pointed out, corporations have always been able to spend freely in state elections in Illinois. While Illinois is a terribly corrupt state, corporate donations are hardly the root of the problem. This is not the end of democracy as we know it. Contributions to candidates for federal office are not made in secret. Anyone can look up individual and PAC contributions at various websites. If a big greedy corporation makes a big splash in favor of or against a particular candidate or member of Congress, then that's public knowledge, and voters can take that into consideration when they go to the polls.
Our democracy--and federal elections--will be just fine.
You mean corporations have First Amendment rights too? Outrageous. As the Chicago Tribune pointed out, corporations have always been able to spend freely in state elections in Illinois. While Illinois is a terribly corrupt state, corporate donations are hardly the root of the problem. This is not the end of democracy as we know it. Contributions to candidates for federal office are not made in secret. Anyone can look up individual and PAC contributions at various websites. If a big greedy corporation makes a big splash in favor of or against a particular candidate or member of Congress, then that's public knowledge, and voters can take that into consideration when they go to the polls.
Our democracy--and federal elections--will be just fine.
Bounce an entrenched incumbent?
How does Jan Schakowsky, who has occupied her seat in the U.S. Congress since 1999, feel about bouncing entrenched incumbents?
Judging from an endorsement she made in 2007, she doesn't have a problem with it at all.
Three years ago, Ald. Bernard M. Stone (50th) was embroiled in a very close, hotly contested race to keep his City Council seat that he had held since 1973. Stone was 80 at the time, and his challenger, Naisy Dolar, was in her mid-30's. In the final two weeks of the runoff election race, Schakowsky threw her support and political capital behind the young challenger. Unfortunately for Dolar, it was too late, and she lost by six points in a race that had accusations of fraud on Stone's part. At his victory party, a triumphant Stone crowed, "Jan Schakowsky, you will never be boss of this ward!"
So Schakowsky thought Stone had been in office long enough. After 34 years (now 37), I would certainly concur. Is 12 years in the U.S. House long enough? Schakowsky turns 66 on May 26. She could retire and spend time with her grandchildren, but she soldiers on. When is long enough? For her predecessor, Rep. Sidney R. Yates, it was 50 years. I certainly hope we won't need to wait that long for Jan to head home. This election year features Jan's first serious opposition to her re-election, which is usually a formality for her. Joel Pollack is challenging her seat. At 66, is she up to the challenge? We'll see.
Judging from an endorsement she made in 2007, she doesn't have a problem with it at all.
Three years ago, Ald. Bernard M. Stone (50th) was embroiled in a very close, hotly contested race to keep his City Council seat that he had held since 1973. Stone was 80 at the time, and his challenger, Naisy Dolar, was in her mid-30's. In the final two weeks of the runoff election race, Schakowsky threw her support and political capital behind the young challenger. Unfortunately for Dolar, it was too late, and she lost by six points in a race that had accusations of fraud on Stone's part. At his victory party, a triumphant Stone crowed, "Jan Schakowsky, you will never be boss of this ward!"
So Schakowsky thought Stone had been in office long enough. After 34 years (now 37), I would certainly concur. Is 12 years in the U.S. House long enough? Schakowsky turns 66 on May 26. She could retire and spend time with her grandchildren, but she soldiers on. When is long enough? For her predecessor, Rep. Sidney R. Yates, it was 50 years. I certainly hope we won't need to wait that long for Jan to head home. This election year features Jan's first serious opposition to her re-election, which is usually a formality for her. Joel Pollack is challenging her seat. At 66, is she up to the challenge? We'll see.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Shabbos terumah
A few notes about last shabbos. My friends I stayed with live in a neighborhood with one orthodox shul, which was where we went Friday afternoon, Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon.
The Saturday morning service was three hours long. I think that's inexcusable. Even a take-your-time shul can finish a shabbos service--with d'var torah--in 2:30 or less. I don't know if the filler is for people who don't go to shul during the week, but it doesn't matter. Who can sit for three hours? The chazzan really dragged out kedusha for mussaf. He has a beautiful voice, but it's too much. When I visit this shul, I'm going to daven all of pesukei d'zimrah (the introduction to the main service) on my own and show up half an hour late. I think that would make the service far more bearable and inspiring to me.
I attended a "learning lunch" at the shul sponsored by Jack Berger, featuring guest speaker Jack Berger. Jack is a Zionist with strong opinions. He frequently takes out ads in Chicago Jewish News to make sure many more people--Jews of all denominations and political views--are privy to his opinions. I mostly agree with him. His knowledge and grasp of Israeli-U.S. history is very impressive, as is his ability to respond to a Torah question with a direct quote. (His Chumash copy is more annotated than any I've seen.) I very much enjoyed his speech.
After Jack's speech, the young man sitting next to me asked Jack a question--supposedly. What he actually did was drone on for an extended period of time, finally getting around to a question he could have asked right away. This reminded me of the Spertus Museum Rules of Asking Questions:
1. You may take no longer than 30 seconds;
2. You must ask a question.
EXACTLY! Someone will stand up to ask a question, and he is shocked, shocked to learn we really didn't show up to listen to him tell his life story. We're just not interested. Ask your damn question or just sit down. Others believe this is their opportunity to offer their opinions on the speaker, his topic, or any number of other topics. No, again, if we want your opinion, we'll invite you for coffee. Until then, you're keeping other people in the audience from asking legitimate questions.
After the Sabbath ended, I went with a friend to the 2010 Chicago Auto Show at McCormick Place. Note to self: the $10 parking is at Soldier Field (18th St. exit). The $19 parking is at the 31st St exit. Thieves, I tell you! I was fortunate to enter gratis as someone handed me his passes. I obviously haven't been to the Auto Show in quite some time--probably not since the 20th Century. News flash: the beautiful women are back. The automakers, famous and notorious for featuring models posing next to their new cars, are up to their old tricks again. They stopped for a while, partly because it was silly--women make the final decision regarding an automobile purchase more than half the time. Maybe these female decision-makers find the models persuasive as well. Most automaker pavilions featured models on the turntables next to the vehicles or walking around, talking to potential customers. I am still amazed at how much money the automakers spend on these shows. The displays appear to be in the mid-five figures. The automakers also need to pay for staff as well as vehicle and equipment transportation to truck everything to the next city. I admit it's helpful to see numerous new car models under one roof, especially if one is in the market for one. But shouldn't the automakers pay us for the privilege of checking out their vehicles? $11 admission is a bit harsh.
The Saturday morning service was three hours long. I think that's inexcusable. Even a take-your-time shul can finish a shabbos service--with d'var torah--in 2:30 or less. I don't know if the filler is for people who don't go to shul during the week, but it doesn't matter. Who can sit for three hours? The chazzan really dragged out kedusha for mussaf. He has a beautiful voice, but it's too much. When I visit this shul, I'm going to daven all of pesukei d'zimrah (the introduction to the main service) on my own and show up half an hour late. I think that would make the service far more bearable and inspiring to me.
I attended a "learning lunch" at the shul sponsored by Jack Berger, featuring guest speaker Jack Berger. Jack is a Zionist with strong opinions. He frequently takes out ads in Chicago Jewish News to make sure many more people--Jews of all denominations and political views--are privy to his opinions. I mostly agree with him. His knowledge and grasp of Israeli-U.S. history is very impressive, as is his ability to respond to a Torah question with a direct quote. (His Chumash copy is more annotated than any I've seen.) I very much enjoyed his speech.
After Jack's speech, the young man sitting next to me asked Jack a question--supposedly. What he actually did was drone on for an extended period of time, finally getting around to a question he could have asked right away. This reminded me of the Spertus Museum Rules of Asking Questions:
1. You may take no longer than 30 seconds;
2. You must ask a question.
EXACTLY! Someone will stand up to ask a question, and he is shocked, shocked to learn we really didn't show up to listen to him tell his life story. We're just not interested. Ask your damn question or just sit down. Others believe this is their opportunity to offer their opinions on the speaker, his topic, or any number of other topics. No, again, if we want your opinion, we'll invite you for coffee. Until then, you're keeping other people in the audience from asking legitimate questions.
After the Sabbath ended, I went with a friend to the 2010 Chicago Auto Show at McCormick Place. Note to self: the $10 parking is at Soldier Field (18th St. exit). The $19 parking is at the 31st St exit. Thieves, I tell you! I was fortunate to enter gratis as someone handed me his passes. I obviously haven't been to the Auto Show in quite some time--probably not since the 20th Century. News flash: the beautiful women are back. The automakers, famous and notorious for featuring models posing next to their new cars, are up to their old tricks again. They stopped for a while, partly because it was silly--women make the final decision regarding an automobile purchase more than half the time. Maybe these female decision-makers find the models persuasive as well. Most automaker pavilions featured models on the turntables next to the vehicles or walking around, talking to potential customers. I am still amazed at how much money the automakers spend on these shows. The displays appear to be in the mid-five figures. The automakers also need to pay for staff as well as vehicle and equipment transportation to truck everything to the next city. I admit it's helpful to see numerous new car models under one roof, especially if one is in the market for one. But shouldn't the automakers pay us for the privilege of checking out their vehicles? $11 admission is a bit harsh.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Chicago, that college hoops desert
UIC played Loyola tonight. I don't know who won. It was a matchup of perennial Horizon League also-rans and frequent cellar-dwellers. I wanted to go. But it started at 7pm, not 7:30, so I wouldn't have been able to be on time for tipoff in Rogers Park.
Chicago has four schools with Division I men's basketball teams. Why are they all so bad?
The Big East Conference has 16 member schools. Nine of these schools are in major cities, and another two are in New Jersey, less than 30 miles from midtown Manhattan. Nearly all of them are competitive in basketball. How does Chicago have four basketball teams that are consistently mediocre or terrible? Forget a college football playoff, President Obama. This is the issue you should investigate!
The Big East's urban schools are: U of Cincinnati, DePaul U., Georgetown U., U of Louisville, Marquette U., U of Pittsburgh, St. John's U., U of South Florida, and Villanova U. I didn't count Providence College or Syracuse University because those are smaller cities. Rutgers U. and Seton Hall U. are in New Jersey.
New York has St. John's, Manhattan and Hofstra. Philadelphia has Villanova, Temple and Penn. Boston has Boston College and Harvard. Washington has Georgetown, George Washington U. and George Mason U. Los Angeles has UCLA. (USC is terrible.) San Francisco has Stanford and Cal. It's just a shame, I think, that for such a great sports town, the men's college basketball programs receive scant media attention and end up with very poor recruiting classes. The schools' athletic programs can't or won't commit the resources to compete with their conference rivals. Loyola's and UIC's Horizon League rivals are mostly small urban schools like themselves. How hard could it be to beat these mid-major or non-major squads? To Northwestern's credit, the Wildcats seem to be on the road to improvement. Still mediocre this year, but they did sweep Michigan and split with Illinois.
When was the last time any of these four went to the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament? Famously, Northwestern has never been invited. DePaul, Loyola, UIC and Northwestern are barely noticeable in the winter, competing with the Bears (even long after their season is over), the Bulls, Blackhawks, and Cubs and White Sox (before their seasons begin) for media and fan attention in the big city.
Northwestern will sell out its 8117-seat Welsh-Ryan Arena if it is playing a Big Ten opponent with many alumni in the area. Other than those dates, the turnout is disappointing for its games and downright embarrassing for the other three teams. DePaul's fall from grace is particularly disappointing. The Rosemont Horizon (now Allstate Arena) was built for DePaul men's basketball in 1980 and 1981, after the Blue Demons had outgrown their aging on-campus dump, Alumni Hall. (Alumni Hall no longer stands.) Now DePaul may have a few thousand fans rattling around a stadium that seats nearly 20,000. It is the third tenant after the Chicago Wolves (minor-league hockey) and Chicago Sky (women's hoops). Students can take a free bus from the Lincoln Park campus. Unfortunately parking and tickets are awfully pricey for average fans. DePaul's tickets run $20-$100 for most games. Northwestern sells all individual Big Ten tickets for $20. Loyola and UIC charge less--about $12-$15. I'm not going to look up DePaul's records, but I suspect the Blue Demons have no NCAA tournament wins in the past decade.
Even when the Bulls and Blackhawks were awful, which was for most of the past decade, Chicago sports fans barely gave our college basketball teams a second look. They deserve better. And as fans, so do we.
Chicago has four schools with Division I men's basketball teams. Why are they all so bad?
The Big East Conference has 16 member schools. Nine of these schools are in major cities, and another two are in New Jersey, less than 30 miles from midtown Manhattan. Nearly all of them are competitive in basketball. How does Chicago have four basketball teams that are consistently mediocre or terrible? Forget a college football playoff, President Obama. This is the issue you should investigate!
The Big East's urban schools are: U of Cincinnati, DePaul U., Georgetown U., U of Louisville, Marquette U., U of Pittsburgh, St. John's U., U of South Florida, and Villanova U. I didn't count Providence College or Syracuse University because those are smaller cities. Rutgers U. and Seton Hall U. are in New Jersey.
New York has St. John's, Manhattan and Hofstra. Philadelphia has Villanova, Temple and Penn. Boston has Boston College and Harvard. Washington has Georgetown, George Washington U. and George Mason U. Los Angeles has UCLA. (USC is terrible.) San Francisco has Stanford and Cal. It's just a shame, I think, that for such a great sports town, the men's college basketball programs receive scant media attention and end up with very poor recruiting classes. The schools' athletic programs can't or won't commit the resources to compete with their conference rivals. Loyola's and UIC's Horizon League rivals are mostly small urban schools like themselves. How hard could it be to beat these mid-major or non-major squads? To Northwestern's credit, the Wildcats seem to be on the road to improvement. Still mediocre this year, but they did sweep Michigan and split with Illinois.
When was the last time any of these four went to the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament? Famously, Northwestern has never been invited. DePaul, Loyola, UIC and Northwestern are barely noticeable in the winter, competing with the Bears (even long after their season is over), the Bulls, Blackhawks, and Cubs and White Sox (before their seasons begin) for media and fan attention in the big city.
Northwestern will sell out its 8117-seat Welsh-Ryan Arena if it is playing a Big Ten opponent with many alumni in the area. Other than those dates, the turnout is disappointing for its games and downright embarrassing for the other three teams. DePaul's fall from grace is particularly disappointing. The Rosemont Horizon (now Allstate Arena) was built for DePaul men's basketball in 1980 and 1981, after the Blue Demons had outgrown their aging on-campus dump, Alumni Hall. (Alumni Hall no longer stands.) Now DePaul may have a few thousand fans rattling around a stadium that seats nearly 20,000. It is the third tenant after the Chicago Wolves (minor-league hockey) and Chicago Sky (women's hoops). Students can take a free bus from the Lincoln Park campus. Unfortunately parking and tickets are awfully pricey for average fans. DePaul's tickets run $20-$100 for most games. Northwestern sells all individual Big Ten tickets for $20. Loyola and UIC charge less--about $12-$15. I'm not going to look up DePaul's records, but I suspect the Blue Demons have no NCAA tournament wins in the past decade.
Even when the Bulls and Blackhawks were awful, which was for most of the past decade, Chicago sports fans barely gave our college basketball teams a second look. They deserve better. And as fans, so do we.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
