The [Thursday] Papers
"After weeks of disagreement, the city of Chicago and anti-war demonstrators settled Wednesday on an alternate route for a protest march on the first day of the NATO summit in May," the Tribune reports.
"The agreed-upon route calls for the march to begin at 2 p.m. at the Petrillo Music Shell along Columbus Drive in Grant Park. It will proceed west along Jackson Boulevard to State Street, then south to Harrison Street, back east to Michigan Avenue and then south again. At Cermak Road, the march will turn east again to Indiana Avenue, and then turn south another block to McCormick Place."
That route is likely to be truncated, however, once the Secret Service establishes its security perimeter. Protesters may challenge that perimeter in federal court, but Rahm Emanuel succeeded on his end by moving the start of the march from here to here.
"What makes this decision even more jarring is that it comes only days after the conservative bloc of the court made it clear how unpalatable it finds the personal mandate to buy health insurance, the linchpin of President Barack Obama's health care plan. So, for those of you keeping score at home, a majority of justices view a strip-search for something as trivial as failing to use a turn signal as perfectly acceptable, but requiring a citizen to buy health care is an unwarranted intrusion on personal liberty.
Besides the folly of comparing police procedure with interstate commerce, Trees forgets to mention - or is more likely unaware of - the fact that the conservative faction of the court was on Obama's side in the strip search case.
As Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon, "[T]his is yet another case, in a long line, where the Obama administration was able to have its preferred policies judicially endorsed by getting right-wing judges to embrace them."
That's why it's so disheartening to read passages from Trees' piece like this:
"Today's justices seem as out of touch with day-to-day life as any court in recent memory. The decision to allow strip-searches strikes me as perhaps the largest judicial assault on human dignity since Buck v. Bell justified eugenics or since Plessy v. Ferguson gave us 'separate but equal.' Of course, these justices have spent the bulk of their lives in the rarefied and decorous world of the federal court system. I am confident that if any of the five justices who voted in favor of the recent decision had actually been subjected to a strip-search at some point in his life, he would have voted differently."
Perhaps. But if Trees wasn't so out of touch with day-to-day reality, he'd spit an equal share of his vitriol at the president who sided with those five justices.
"'Being president is not analogous to being CEO,' Daley told me in an interview. 'That's a fallacy that some people like to continue.'"
That's not what Obama's chief economic advisers thought when flabbergasted by their boss's lack of management acumen, as reported by Ron Suskind in Confidence Men.
"Especially with an independent-minded Congress, the CEO resume 'just has no relevance whatsoever to the modern presidency and the way the government has been structured by the different branches over the last 40, 50 years.'"
Not sure if we know that; how many CEO presidents have we really had? Besides that, it's not so much being a CEO as having experience managing large, unwieldy organizations.
Instead of challenging Daley, though, Sweet assures readers of just how right he is:
"No matter what a presidential - or for that matter a congressional - candidate promises in a campaign, the reality is governing is not a solo act. The White House, Congress and Supreme Court are co-equals - and not business partners at Bain."
Nor colleagues in the Illinois Senate.
"On Monday, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rejected a plan for so-called political event contracts, wary that mixing politics and trading would create a dangerous cocktail. The agency ruled, in part, that such trading amounts to gambling - and that it could unduly influence election results."
And just who wanted to do such a thing? A Chicago firm, naturally.
The [North American Derivatives Exchange], also known as Nadex, planned to offer futures contracts that would allow firms to wager on Congressional races as well as the presidential battle. The product was expected to draw interest from retail traders, exchanges and potentially banks. With a modest minimum buy-in of $100, and a maximum payout of $250,000, the exchange said it was appealing more to mom-and-pop investors than Wall Street titans . . .
"The exchange, which currently is a marketplace for derivative contracts tied to commodities and stock market indexes, wanted to offer five basic contracts. One contract would have allowed traders to wager that President Obama will win another four years in the White House. Others were tied to whether the Democrats or Republicans would control the Senate or House."
Chicago & The Iliad
Teaching At The Oasis
Your Guide To Illinois Fracking
The Beachwood's inimitable coverage:
* Tool Time: Chicago Cubs Musical Bottle Opener.
* Time Capsule: Opening Day. TV promos through the years.
* Opening Day With The Ricketts Family! Counting your money.
The Beachwood Tip Line: Pitch niche.
Posted on April 5, 2012
© 2006 - 2017, The Beachwood Media Company