Just out of range of Ald. Bernie Stone's stop-sign trigger fingers, there lies a major street that cuts through a residential neighborhood for a mile. Between Crawford/Pulaski Avenue and Skokie Boulevard, there are 13 side streets. Yet between the traffic lights at Crawford/Pulaski and Skokie, there are no stop signs or lights. It's just a pleasant ride in a 35mph zone.
No stop signs? But it's residential! People need to be able to cross the street!
Lyon Park borders Howard Street! We need a stop sign or a traffic light! For the children!
If we don't put in some type of traffic control, why, people will just fly down Howard at 60mph!
In Chicago, all those arguments would ring true, and Howard Street would probably have at least a half-dozen stop signs in that one-mile stretch. The difference is that this part of Howard is in Skokie. Skokie has a few stupid stop signs of its own, including a slew near Church Street protecting a series of walking/bike paths. They make the streets more dangerous because most drivers don't bother stopping for them. But Skokie draws the line somewhere, and it declined to impede traffic on Howard, a major street that correctly should not have stop signs. So between Crawford/Pulaski and Skokie Boulevard, traffic continues to flow, people manage to turn left and cross the street, and everyone is happy. See? It really works.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Stop signs: the debate continues
A couple of friends begged me to go on the stop-sign warpath again. So here we go.
There are a number of members of Young Israel of West Rogers Park who love the new stop sign on Touhy at Washtenaw, right next to the shul. I asked one of them, "J.D.," "What if there were stop signs on Touhy at Campbell, Francisco and Albany?" That would mean Touhy Avenue would have traffic controls--either a stop sign or traffic light--at every intersection from Western to Kedzie, a one-mile stretch:
Campbell: No current stop sign.
Rockwell: traffic light.
Washtenaw: new stop sign (installed at the alderman's direction in November, 2008.)
California: traffic light.
Francisco: residents have begged the alderman for a stop sign here for years. Francisco does not run through here; there is a townhome development entrance on the north side of this intersection. No current stop sign.
Sacramento: traffic light.
Albany: a stop sign was here for about a month, in January, 2008. Bowing to pressure, the alderman ended up removing it either because people were disobeying it, or it was causing accidents. Albany is where eastbound traffic narrows from two lanes to one.
Kedzie: traffic light.
J.D. said he thought stop signs at the three intersections that currently have none would be "overkill," in his words. Well, that's the whole point. Every neighborhood resident has his own "favorite stop sign," whether it exists or not. If it doesn't yet exist, you can be sure there are some busybodies who have plenty of time to start petitions and lobby the alderman to install a stop sign. With the new stop sign at Washtenaw, the residents near Campbell, Francisco and Albany will have fresh ammunition for their arguments for their own stop signs. To you, a new stop sign may be just a few seconds a day. But as I previously mentioned, the cumulative effect of a single stop sign is thousands of dollars in wasted time, fuel, and vehicular wear-and-tear. Furthermore, a new stop sign rarely stands alone. More often than not, nearby intersections suffer the bane of the four-way stop as well.
There are a number of members of Young Israel of West Rogers Park who love the new stop sign on Touhy at Washtenaw, right next to the shul. I asked one of them, "J.D.," "What if there were stop signs on Touhy at Campbell, Francisco and Albany?" That would mean Touhy Avenue would have traffic controls--either a stop sign or traffic light--at every intersection from Western to Kedzie, a one-mile stretch:
Campbell: No current stop sign.
Rockwell: traffic light.
Washtenaw: new stop sign (installed at the alderman's direction in November, 2008.)
California: traffic light.
Francisco: residents have begged the alderman for a stop sign here for years. Francisco does not run through here; there is a townhome development entrance on the north side of this intersection. No current stop sign.
Sacramento: traffic light.
Albany: a stop sign was here for about a month, in January, 2008. Bowing to pressure, the alderman ended up removing it either because people were disobeying it, or it was causing accidents. Albany is where eastbound traffic narrows from two lanes to one.
Kedzie: traffic light.
J.D. said he thought stop signs at the three intersections that currently have none would be "overkill," in his words. Well, that's the whole point. Every neighborhood resident has his own "favorite stop sign," whether it exists or not. If it doesn't yet exist, you can be sure there are some busybodies who have plenty of time to start petitions and lobby the alderman to install a stop sign. With the new stop sign at Washtenaw, the residents near Campbell, Francisco and Albany will have fresh ammunition for their arguments for their own stop signs. To you, a new stop sign may be just a few seconds a day. But as I previously mentioned, the cumulative effect of a single stop sign is thousands of dollars in wasted time, fuel, and vehicular wear-and-tear. Furthermore, a new stop sign rarely stands alone. More often than not, nearby intersections suffer the bane of the four-way stop as well.
Roland Burris on gun control
In any given issue, it's likely that people on both sides of the issue can agree on one principle: we can't stand hypocrites. I support the right of law-abiding citizens to pack heat in their homes and on the street. Roland Burris thinks only cops and Roland Burris should be able to bear arms. To wit, from Eric Zorn's blog post in today's Chicago Tribune:
Burris in 1993 as he organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-In Day:
"The main goal, of course, is to get the guns out of the hands of the citizens."
Burris in 1994, admitting that even though he urged people to turn in guns, he kept his own. He later gave it up. The controversy occurred during his bid for governor, which he lost:
"It's a little, small thing. I just have it here for safety. If I ban them, I'm going to be the first one to burn mine."
* * *
[Me again.] What a disgusting excuse for a politician. The main goal, Burris said, is to get the guns out of the hands of the citizens, except for me, because I have it here for safety. Well, that's the whole point, Mr. Political Creep. We want to pack heat for safety, too. What is the difference between safety for you and safety for me? You're a politician and I'm not, apparently.
I hope no one else saw U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) and Roland Tombstone "I am the junior senator from Illinois" Burris on Face the Nation this morning. Once Burris is seated, we will have two sleazy, pathetic excuses of senators we will spend the next two to six years apologizing for.
Burris in 1993 as he organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-In Day:
"The main goal, of course, is to get the guns out of the hands of the citizens."
Burris in 1994, admitting that even though he urged people to turn in guns, he kept his own. He later gave it up. The controversy occurred during his bid for governor, which he lost:
"It's a little, small thing. I just have it here for safety. If I ban them, I'm going to be the first one to burn mine."
* * *
[Me again.] What a disgusting excuse for a politician. The main goal, Burris said, is to get the guns out of the hands of the citizens, except for me, because I have it here for safety. Well, that's the whole point, Mr. Political Creep. We want to pack heat for safety, too. What is the difference between safety for you and safety for me? You're a politician and I'm not, apparently.
I hope no one else saw U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) and Roland Tombstone "I am the junior senator from Illinois" Burris on Face the Nation this morning. Once Burris is seated, we will have two sleazy, pathetic excuses of senators we will spend the next two to six years apologizing for.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
What does one say to a former Facebook Friend?
This is getting serious. I have been taken off Friends lists by four different people whose first names start with "J." Granted, I didn't know them well, but it's still somewhat disheartening, insulting, and can be the source of hurt feelings. So if I run into one of these "de-Frienders" socially again, what do I say? After all, it is possible I'll see them at a party. We have FOAF's in common (Friends of a Friend). "Hi, 'Joyce' (not her real name), nice to see you again. Oh, yes, we have met before. We were Friends on Facebook once. Then you dropped me like a rotten tomato."
I could say to myself, I hope it's not personal. Of course it's personal. It's Facebook, for heaven's sake. Like getting dumped only not so bad? I wonder if a number of Facebook members did year-end scrubs--looked through their Friends list and said, "I have no idea who this is," or, "I'm not going to see him again," or, "I don't care for this guy at all." Not sure. Any ideas?
I could say to myself, I hope it's not personal. Of course it's personal. It's Facebook, for heaven's sake. Like getting dumped only not so bad? I wonder if a number of Facebook members did year-end scrubs--looked through their Friends list and said, "I have no idea who this is," or, "I'm not going to see him again," or, "I don't care for this guy at all." Not sure. Any ideas?
Frost/Nixon ***½
Frost/Nixon
Universal Studios
Moving Image
Running time: 1:50
I thoroughly enjoyed this film based on the play of the same name, which premiered in London in advance of its Broadway run. Frank Langella totally apes President Nixon. I can't speak for Michael Sheen's David Frost, as I have no idea who David Frost is. I don't remember any of the Nixon Administration, Watergate or its aftermath, so the film was something of a history lesson for me. (I also have not read Nixon's or Kissinger's memoirs. That's several thousand pages I just might not get to.) Frost and Nixon had their own agendas and went head-to-head in their series of interview tapings. If Nixon's San Clemente, Calif. home--the Western White House during his terms in office--was accurately portrayed in the film, it must have been quite a breathtaking abode. The outdoor scenes supposedly set there are quite stunning. Unfortunately, the Nixon Presidential Library and Birthplace is in Yorba Linda, about 44 miles northeast of La Casa Pacifica. I don't know if the former Nixon home is open to the public.
In this article about the president spending time in San Clemente: "wetbacks"? Ouch! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902697-3,00.html
Universal Studios
Moving Image
Running time: 1:50
I thoroughly enjoyed this film based on the play of the same name, which premiered in London in advance of its Broadway run. Frank Langella totally apes President Nixon. I can't speak for Michael Sheen's David Frost, as I have no idea who David Frost is. I don't remember any of the Nixon Administration, Watergate or its aftermath, so the film was something of a history lesson for me. (I also have not read Nixon's or Kissinger's memoirs. That's several thousand pages I just might not get to.) Frost and Nixon had their own agendas and went head-to-head in their series of interview tapings. If Nixon's San Clemente, Calif. home--the Western White House during his terms in office--was accurately portrayed in the film, it must have been quite a breathtaking abode. The outdoor scenes supposedly set there are quite stunning. Unfortunately, the Nixon Presidential Library and Birthplace is in Yorba Linda, about 44 miles northeast of La Casa Pacifica. I don't know if the former Nixon home is open to the public.
In this article about the president spending time in San Clemente: "wetbacks"? Ouch! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902697-3,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
