New Rant: Chicago Alderman Wants to Ban Energy Drinks

It's been a while, but hopefully I'm back (at least for the time being). Hopefully getting back into the swing of writing in general will open up some new creativity channels and lead to some of my other artistic pursuits that... also aren't going so well.

So what better way to get back into my Blogger-posting than with a classic topic:

Chicago Aldermen Trying To Ban More Things

The proposed-ban du jour is Energy Drinks, but only those that are "a canned or bottled beverage which contains an amount of caffeine exceeding or equal to 180 milligrams-per-container and containing Taurine or Guarana."
Read more!

Yelp Extended Review: Heaven On Seven

We headed into Heaven On Seven completely excited over the prospect of their "all-you-can-eat" deal being available every day for lunch and dinner. We sat down at the table, ordered our drinks, and took a look at the menu. We found the AYCE section, but were a little dismayed that it only featured fried chicken, fried catfish, gumbo, jambalaya, and a bunch of sides. Yes, you could have as much as you want, but how much of those items would we want, after browsing the very exciting rest of the menu?

And that's when we saw it: "Jimmy, Feed Me!" - the chef's selection of Seven Heavenly Courses. It's basically paying $35 per person to tell the chef, "My meal is in your hands." For us, it was like being a celebrity judge on Iron Chef or any other Food Network judging show. We didn't know what we'd be getting, but we knew there would be seven rounds to see what our chef would be offering today.

Our server informed us it was pretty much "an appetizer round, then a soup round, then pretty much a bunch of smaller-portion entrees. He also made sure our table had no allergies. And while there are foods that we each dislike (I am not a fan of tomatoes; she dislikes sweet potatoes), we decided to throw caution to the wind. After all, if the CHEF thinks it's delicious, maybe our preconceptions could be wrong.

Read more!

The BBQ Pork Bun Off

Every time I make my way through Chinatown here in Chicago, I try and grab a BBQ pork bun. There are so many places where they can be found at any number of bakeries, both along Chinatown Square and Chinatown on Wentworth. The last few times I've been given a BBQ pork bun by my girlfriend after she's visited, I've instictively asked, "Which bakery did you buy this at?"

Funny thing is, she doesn't always remember. And even when she does, I don't really remember if that place is specifically good or not.

So I've decided to start a comprehensive list and rating system.

And so, let the "BBQ Pork Bun Off" . . . BEGIN!


The rest of this post has been moved to its new official home on the RedEye Royalty page!

Read more!

Aaron Samuels for Alderman (Prologue)

I may have mentioned it before, but ever since 2006, it's been a dream of mine to run for City Council here in Chicago and be an Alderman. It all started on that fateful day when the Chicago City Council unanimously voted to ban the sale of foie gras after they were shown a shock video by PETA and asked to vote on this law.

The aftermath: Chicago was mocked by other cities, the ban was proved to be useless by restauranteurs, and even the Mayor said it was the "silliest law" until it was finally repealed two years later.

I made up my mind. I would run for Alderman just to make sure that SOMEONE on the Chicago City Council would be the voice of reason whenever PETA rolled around. I expanded my idea by wanting to be a city representative who could see both sides on an issue and be able to play Devil's Advocate - as well as to speak up when any alderman is (in my opinion) completely wrong.

This spread out into even more ideas about being a young member of City Council who could spruce up the webpage for our ward and respond to questions using YouTube and maybe do Ward Podcasts.

And then I found out in 2007 that I missed my chance to run. But I vowed that I would do everything in my power to run in 2011 and get my name on that ballot and - who knows - maybe even win a seat on the City Council of Chicago.

Every now and then since that day in 2007, I've tried to find out how the heck one even runs for public office - let alone run for City Council specifically. I've checked message boards, Googled the question, surfed and rummaged through the Chicago City website - and no definite results.

About a month ago, I started e-mailing. I sent e-mails out to any info e-mail address I could come across, asking the same questions, hoping that someone earning a government paycheck could point me in the right direction so that someday I might earn one as well.

Yesterday, I actually got a response.

Hi:

You will need to direct your email/inquiry to the Chicago Board of Elections. You can visit them on the web and obtain pertinent contact information at the url: http://www.chicagoelections.com

Thank you.
Office of the Chicago City Clerk

So I was getting closer. Somehow my searching hadn't pointed me to this site, probably due to the keywords I was using. So I searched and found nothing to answer my question. But there was yet another e-mail address to query, and query I did.

And that same day, I got a response from someone at the Chicago Elections website.

Dear Voter,
Please note that we will be posting information on the 2011 election cycle on at chicagoelections.com under the "for candidates" section in coming weeks. However, the information that we post and the information below is all subject to change with any new legislation in Springfield or rulings in court cases.
----------
Any potential candidate is advised to consult with the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Election Code, the Municipal Code as well as an attorney who is well versed in election law and related case law. This is intended to be general information and not a legal opinion, as the Board cannot provide legal advice to candidates or potential candidates for two reasons: (1) the Board determines the legality of candidates' nominating petitions; and (2) state laws are subject to change. With those caveats, the basic qualifications for appearing on the ballot to run for alderman in the City of Chicago are that the candidate: (1) be an elector (registered voter, 18 years or older and a U.S. citizen) who has resided in the ward for at least one year prior to election; (2) be in compliance with all other restrictions/requirements under Illinois law, which include, but are not limited to: having submitted a petition with sufficient valid signatures of qualified electors from that ward; not having been convicted of a felony; ot having any outstanding fines, penalties or debts to the municipality; and having completed other necessary paperwork, such as the petition, statement of candidacy, ethics filings, etc. For more information, prospective campaigns are strongly advised to review all relevant statutes ( http://www.ilga.gov/ ) and strongly advised to consult with an attorney who is versed in the Election Code.
----------------------
State laws may change between now and the filing, and the numbers of signatures needed will be determined, under current law, based on the results in the 2010 election cycle. With those caveats, we have attached the 2007 Election Calendar, which lists documentation rules that were in effect for that 2007 election -- solely for reference purposes. Please note that the Election Board will be updating its web site to include information on the 2011 Municipal Elections in the months after the Primary Election. We hope this information is helpful and thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.

Communications
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago
69 West Washington Street, Suites 600/800
Chicago, Illinois 60602


So now I have more of an answer and I can begin preparations. The document had a lot of random information, but there are pieces I can ascertain based on what lies within.

For the 2007 Elections:

September 19, 2006: First day to circulate for signature candidate nominating petitions for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman.

December 11, 2006: First day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.

December 18, 2006: Last day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.

December 26, 2006: Last day to file objections to candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman for the February 27, 2007 Municipal General Election. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.

February 7, 2007: Last day for candidates for the office of Alderman to withdraw as a candidate. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.

February 27, 2007: MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer for the City of Chicago and for the office of Alderman in all wards of the City of Chicago. Polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.


So there you have it. Sometime in June of 2010 they will be posting this document regarding the February 2011 elections. I'll be able to officially start my campaign to collect signatures in September, and if I hit the right number by December, I'm in (unless the encumbent goes all lawyer on me and objects to me being on the ballot). If I make it on and it causes me such grief that I want to get the hell out of there, I've got over a month afterwards to figure it out. (Unlikely!) And then in February it all goes down!

So how many signatures do I need?

See "Table A: Minimum Signature Required on Aldermanic Nominating Petitions - City of Chicago"

Basically by ward, they tally up the total votes from the previous municipal election (in this case, 2007) and they take 2% of that number (and round up) and that's the number of signatures I'll need to get.

So if in February 2003, my ward had a total of 12,518 votes placed, in order to get on the ballot for February 2007 I would need (2% of 12,518 = 250.36) signatures from 251 registered voters.

I do believe the numbers for the February 2007 elections show my ward having cast 9,861 votes - ergo I should only need to get 198 petition signatures!


This is it, folks. I'm excited!

More to come as I wait for the process to finally begin - or if I get some cool comments/questions to answer that would warrant more Prologue to the story before my campaign even becomes official.

So ask me some questions! Show me support! Just leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Pre-Election Scams and Shoutouts

Well, tomorrow is the big day when America once again votes for a giant douche or turd sandwich to rule the country (or at least partially-rule it, if that whole checks-and-balances thing still exists). Just like with all elections past, you can rifle through a list of groups/demographics/minorities and for each one, find a litany of propaganda or ads or outright lies meant to rouse them in a direction to vote at the polls or even the direction of whether they vote in the polls.

Take the youth of America - which would be the college-aged youth (the ones who are allowed to vote). You can either scare their vote one way or another with fears of the future with your opponent in charge (youth fear the future the most because they have to suffer through it the longest), or you can work the angle of getting them to vote or to not vote. Youth are hard to scare away from voting itself - because they've never done it before and don't realize how much insanity goes on once they're in the game. They tend to vote Democratic, which is why you'll find both candidates trying to appeal to the youngsters, but usually only the Democrats "____ing the Vote" to encourage these political fledglings to flap their wings rather than stay in the nest and die when winter comes.

The elderly are probably the easiest to scare (but the least afraid of the future since they never know how much of it they'll have to sit through in-between Matlock reruns), other than war-hardened veterans. Hence, they tend to vote Republican, because those are the values they grew up with and the familiar is always preferable to change.

I could go on, but I don't need to. I'll let these stories of assholes affecting voters take care of that for me, as you sit back and read about it all. (Don't worry, there's a reward at the end! Freebies!) Try to realize both that these ploys and scams are horrible things to do to the average voter, but also that the average voter is also dumb enough to sometimes fall for them - so who's really the worse side of the equation?

You Will Be Arrested

Complaints have surfaced in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia where fliers have circulated, warning voters they could be arrested at the polls if they had unpaid parking tickets or if they had criminal convictions.

Ah yes, the old standby to scare people away of "you might be arrested" - which not surprisingly is being pushed towards African-American neighborhoods. I find it funny that what I've heard about in the past of "you'll be arrested if you have outstanding warrants" is now at the level of "unpaid parking tickets". The scary thing is that they're using this brand of lie outside the realm of "black people" and spreading it into the more-culturally-diverse group of "college students", even if they're doing it wrong.

Other reports of intimidation efforts in the hotly contested state of Pennsylvania include leaflets taped to picnic benches at Drexel University, warning students that police would be at the polls on Tuesday to arrest would-be voters with prior criminal offenses.

See, it's one thing to say "you'll get arrested if you show up to vote and have unpaid parking tickets" because the number of people who that could apply to is a large number. But shrinking that number down to the subset of those with a criminal record and young enough to still be in college is kind of a dumb move.

In New Mexico, two Hispanic women filed a lawsuit last week claiming they were harassed by a private investigator working for a Republican lawyer who came to their homes and threatened to call immigration authorities, even though they are U.S. citizens.

"He was questioning her status, saying that he needed to see her papers and documents to show that she was a U.S. citizen and was a legitimate voter," said Guadalupe Bojorquez, speaking on behalf of her mother, Dora Escobedo, a 67-year-old Albuquerque resident who speaks only Spanish. "He totally, totally scared the heck out of her."

Now we move on to the Hispanic population and the fears of being deported. Frankly, the one has so little to do with the other! Illegal immigrants do in fact have a history of using fraud or just plain lying in order to be able to register to vote or participate in elections - but I'm not sure if the number is so huge that it's worth alienating the demographic just to prevent extra votes for their demographic in the form of illegal immigrant voters. Of course, the ones who'd have a problem with illegal immigrants voting would be the Republicans (who suck LESS in the battle over illegal immigration) and since Hispanics tend to vote Democratic anyway, maybe they should keep on alienatin'!

Feel free to insert a quip of mine regarding the fact that the woman plans on voting but speaks only Spanish.

My Opponent Is Pure Evil

So if you can't scare the voters into thinking they could be arrested, there are worse fates that could arise given how you vote and which grotesque destroyer of all things good and holy you let slither its way into the Oval Office on Election Day. Sure, the word of the year is "terrorism" when it comes to your opponent being a hateful pile of malevolence. It's impossible to forget which candidate's middle name is "Hussein" - although judging by an incredibly-annoying Facebook application, it seems to be a common one (or that all Facebook Democrats want to convert to Islam and terrorism). It's hard to ignore the words "domestic terrorist" regarding a man who may or may not be a friend of one candidate and worked for a certain organization that may or may not have been supported by a candidate.

But why stop there? There were once far worse things than terrorists...

In Pennsylvania, e-mails appeared linking Democrat Barack Obama to the Holocaust. "Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, Nov. 4," said the electronic message, paid for by an entity calling itself the Republican Federal Committee. "Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake."

In his Jewish neighborhood, Stalberg said, fliers were recently left claiming Obama was more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel, and showed a photograph of him speaking in Germany.

I'm really not sure how one can make the leap from Barack Obama to Holocaust, especially since I haven't seen this e-mail. Let me check my mudslinging records. Well, aside from the fact that he DID speak in Germany . . . Barack Obama has been called a Socialist many times, and "Nazi" did stand for the "National Socialist Party", so I guess it's not too far of a jump from that to the murder of millions of Jews... Though I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure the McCain-Palin team has proved to me that Obama lacks the EXECUTIVE experiences necessary to really pull off a Final Solution. But does saying Obama would fail to even be a Hitler put him in a good light or bad light? I mean, Hitler did manage to rule a country, even if he did drive it into the ground and make it a laughingstock. I forget the point.

Scheduling Conflict

Hey, sorry voters, but it turns out there's just too many of you who want to vote, so there's no need to show up all on one day - we'll spread this voting thing out so come back tomorrow to cast your vote! Sounds stupid? Well someone tried it anyway...

Over the weekend in Virginia, bogus fliers with an authentic-looking commonwealth seal said fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections — one on Tuesday for Republicans and another on Wednesday for Democrats.

They're actually hunting down the people responsible for this one and I think they'll be prosecuting. It is illegal to intentionally mislead voters about where an election is being held or when voting polls are open. So far these were just little attack ads or misleading voters about the SITUATION where the election will be held - not about the location itself or hours of voting. This one steps it up to a scary degree - scary because (of course) some people were BELIEVING IT. And Virginia isn't the only place where the misleading has reached illegal proportions...

In Nevada, for example, Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone.

The issue is that nobody really does anything about it, because it's mostly done during the 11th hour and there's just such a history of it.

This has gotten a bit long, so I'll head out and prepare myself for both the process of voting tomorrow and the process of getting assaulted all day by other voters who want to know who I voted for. And then the insanity of getting the hell out of downtown tomorrow evening before everything goes to hell with the Obama Party being held here in Chicago.

Don't forget to go out and vote tomorrow. Unless you're voting for the other guy. Then you should probably stay home.

Freebies!

Here are a list of places giving away freebies to people who vote tomorrow:

Starbucks: free tall coffee

Krispy Kreme: free donut

Ben & Jerry's: free small ice cream

More to come as I hunt them down! Read more!

Illegal Texting in Illinois?

For those of you who keep your thumbs to your "crackberries" while walking around the city of Chicago, Illinois lawmakers may be preparing to slap you on the wrist with a misdemeanor and $25 fine, if their new law gets passed. That's right, texting and walking will possibly be considered illegal.

Illinois state officials, including Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, have spoken out in support of a new bill that would ban using a wireless device while crossing streets.

Now before you flip out, this about this law need to be explained.



When I initially read the article, I had the same ranting flip-out session about "how dare they try and ban WALKING and TEXTING at the same time" and so forth. To tell the truth, I was all ready to type a huge tirade about how Illinois needs to let Darwin take the reigns for a while and get rid of those humans who haven't evolved to the point of either being able to text message and perform the simple act of walking at the same time - or being able to recognize that they aren't capable of this maneuver and deciding to not attempt it. We'll get back to the whole "passive eugenics" notion later.

For now, we all need to take a step back and analyze the TRUE LANGUAGE of this stupid bill before we can all agree it's stupid and should never become law.

Since the article's author has decided to shirk any journalistic responsibilities, I will say that the language does not say that "Illinois residents would get slapped with a misdemeanor and a $25 fine if caught using a cell phone or other wireless device while traversing streets".

Here's the ACTUAL bill, in its entirety:

HB4520 LRB095 16261 LCT 42281 b

1 AN ACT concerning transportation.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by adding
5 Section 11-1011.5 as follows:

6 (625 ILCS 5/11-1011.5 new)
7 Sec. 11-1011.5. Pedestrian use of wireless telephone.
8 (a) A pedestrian shall not use a wireless telephone while
9 crossing a roadway.
10 (b) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a
11 device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic
12 communications without a wire connecting the device to the
13 telephone network.
14 (c) A violation of this Section is a petty offense for
15 which a fine not to exceed $25 may be imposed.

Now what this DOES mean is that THIS language can allow for a couple of scary things. For example, they could ticket you not only for texting while crossing the street, but for BEING ON YOUR PHONE while crossing the street. I'm also pretty sure that this language could actually entitle the police to issue you a ticket for listening to an MP3 on your iPhone while crossing the street, since you would be considered to be "using a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network while crossing a roadway".

I'm sure they WOULDN'T, but the fact that they COULD is unsettling enough, isn't it? And wouldn't this open the door for ANY device that requires minute focus to be banned from use while crossing the street? And when will they decide that just as much harm can befall you from lack of attention while walking on the sidewalk as can befall you while crossing the street?

Frankly, Illinois (Chicago specifically) is becoming the new Nanny State and keeps attempting to trade our LIBERTIES away in order to protect us from ourselves. There was an actual study done to look at how the 35 most-populous cities in the United States balance individual freedom with government paternalism - Chicago came in DEAD LAST. "And it wasn't even close," says the author.

"We ranked the cities on how much freedom they afford their residents to indulge in alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, gambling and food. And, for good measure, we also looked at the cities' gun laws, use of traffic and surveillance cameras, and tossed in an "other" category to catch weird laws such as New York's ban on unlicensed dancing, or Chicago's tax on bottled water.

Chicago reigns supreme when it comes to treating its citizens like children (Las Vegas topped our rankings as America's freest city). Chicagoans pay the second-highest cigarette tax in the country, and the sixth-highest tax on alcohol. Chicago has more traffic-light cameras than any city in America (despite studies questioning their effectiveness), restricts cell phone use while driving, and it's quickly moving toward a creepy public surveillance system similar to London's.

Chicago isn't alone, of course. Many of America's big cities are moving toward a suffocating sort of paternalism. Chicago is just the worst."

America needs to wake up and stop coddling our citizens and let them make their own mistakes. There's a difference between putting up a new stop sign because of lethal traffic accidents and stopping pedestrians from using their legally-owned devices while crossing from one side of the street to the other. I don't care that officials will undoubtedly say "well it's the law and we're going to enforce it, but we're not going to be patrolling specifically for this" - the same way they shrug off all of Chicago's moronic laws that shouldn't exist. When the foie gras ban was in effect, they told us similar things - that they wouldn't be hunting for it but would respond to tattle-tales complaining about it happening in restaurants.

We need to put a stop to pointless laws the protect us from ourselves and focus a bit more on laws that protect us from OTHER PEOPLE.

We shouldn't be ticketed for driving without a seatbelt, or riding a bicycle/motorcycle without a helmet. We definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing something potentially distracting while doing something that requires an iota of focus. It makes no sense that we could get a ticket and a fine for using the hands-free function of a cellphone while walking a street, but not for doing the same thing while barbecuing or changing a tire or doing our taxes. All three of those things could destroy you if you screw up slightly by losing focus - but it's OUR CHOICE. We have the right to potentially screw up our own lives. We just don't have the right to potentially screw up the lives of others. I have no arguments about arresting for drunken driving. I have a few qualms about ticketing for cellphone-using while driving. I have more qualms about arresting for public drunkenness.

All in all, it's a matter of who has the potential to be hurt the most and who's most likely to get hurt, and if it's the person DOING the action, then it shouldn't be illegal.

People should be learning to keep their wits about them and making the right decisions on their own. Meanwhile, we as a society should start praying that our feeble human brains can start evolving at least a FRACTION as fast as our technology is evolving. It's the gap in-between that keeps causing these problems, which in turn keep causing these horrible attempts at solutions.

Do you agree? Are you in favor of taking away people's rights to risk getting hit by cars? Do you agree that we're losing too many of our rights? Shouldn't the stupid be allowed to die off in hilarious ways and make room for the smart? Leave a comment!

Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!



Read more!

Butts and the Homeless

Apparently today's RedEye decided to spend an entire page of print regarding the problem of too many cigarette butts littering the beaches and streets of Chicago. Because with gas prices and a war and failing public transportation - it's the perfect time to rub more salt into the wounds of smokers who have been chastized out of every building and shunned a distance of 15 feet from building entrances.

They apparently followed around some environmental organization member and watched her pick up cigarette butts on the North Avenue Beach and she collected "137 butts in a few minutes."

The city is now going to start issuing $500 fines this summer to "anyone caught puffing or tossing a cigarette scrap within 15 feet of a beach."

So on one page, there's an article about this woman picking up butts and complaining about smokers - next to that is a blurb about how deadly and toxic and non-biodegradable the components of cigarette filters are - and under it all is a statistic-laden indictment of how few butts make it to trash cans and how dirty the city really is. There's also the burning question calling for feedback:

"Are cigarette butts blighting the beach, or should non-smokers lighten up?"

Well, here's my reply I plan on sending:

If the city drives all the smokers from indoors (where there are lots of garbage cans) to the outdoors (where garbage cans are scarce), the inevitable fact is that the outdoors becomes littered with cigarette butts. Smokers may be to blame for their garbage, but more to blame are the people who drove them away from the bounty of indoor trash bins.

As for the solution, local businesses should be able to enroll in a city program where they can issue plastic bags to the homeless and pay them $5 for collecting a full bag with cigarette butts. The homeless do honest work and get paid (rather than harrassing passers-by for money), the city gets cleaner and maybe the businesses get some reward for participating in the program. Win-win-win.

--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport

Do you think it's a crazy idea? I know, it's different from my usual method of dealing with the homeless (read: ignoring them), but anything that gets them off my case can't be a bad thing.

Update: They sent back an e-mail saying:

Thanks again Aaron.

Best,
RedEye staff

Which I think is their way of saying "we appreciate the response, but we won't be printing it." Oh well, at least that's what I have a blog for! Read more!

Printed in the RedEye Again!

Chicagoans - pick up a copy of the RedEye today (May 29th) if you're interested in seeing my name printed in the paper. I usually try and let you all know when I get printed by posting here when I SEND the letters to the editor, but this time was a little different.

To be honest, it was more of a personal response and I decided I wouldn't post here until they actually printed it.

I submitted the letter on Thursday, May 15th upon reading the article about people in relationships parting ways and "wanting to stay friends". They replied later that day with:

Thanks for writing Aaron. Will publish your letter in Friday's RedEye

Friday, nothing. Saturday, nothing. This continues for a while. On Monday, May 26th, they replied again with:

Thanks for writing Aaron,
We'd like to publish your letter in RedEye. Please email back to confirm that the following info is correct. Thanks

Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport

I replied that it was correct. Nothing on Tuesday, Wednesday, and finally today - they printed it. Obviously not in its entirety, so I'm going to do my usual. Italics is what they didn't print, and boldface is what they did print.


One of my ex-girlfriends and I did not actually end things with those five little words of "I want to stay friends," but circumstances led to that happening anyway. After we did what we were supposed to do and broke up, moved on, and ceased communication - she wound up dating one of my friends and the two have been in a relationship for a while now. This led to a bit of awkwardness at parties when we were both invited by mutual friends, especially when those friends changed their tune from a post-breakup "we've got your back" to "you have to accept this and get along," which is what we did. I wouldn't say we're friends now, but we've agreed to be amicable acquaintances.

Of course, my other ex-girlfriend and I did end things with those five little words - and after several years without communication (I guess we weren't THAT good of friends), we found each other again after a random series of events and we've been together again for five months. She's actually moving in with me this weekend, and I couldn't be happier.

--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!

Chicago vs. PETA: Chicago Wins!

Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:

PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
PART 7: Chicago vs. PETA: Offenders on the Offense!

And join us in the eighth and hopefully final installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect. In part eight, the ban has finally been repealed!

With Mayor Richard Daley running the vote, the Chicago City Council repealed its controversial ban on foie gras today, May 14th, 2008.

It's been a grueling two years that Chicago has been a laughingstock for enacting the "silliest law" (according to Mayor Daley) that banned the sale of foie gras here in Chicago. The council used a parliamentary procedure to call to vote a repeal of the ban.

Alderman Joe Moore was strongly against the vote, having sponsored the ban in the first place. The call to vote was started by Alderman Thomas Tunney, who actually owns a restaurant.

The vote was a clear 37-6 in favor of repealing the ban, more than enough to officially make it so.

(The official article from the Chicago Tribune who was on the scene of today's City Council meeting)

Hopefully this is the last of the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate.


Read more!

Another Arellano??

I picked up the paper today with all the hopes of "I hope there's something in here I can rant about today" - and I was not at all disappointed. (I mean with finding something to rant about - the news itself is very disappointing.) Right there on the front page were the words "Church harbors another illegal immigrant", and I hurried to Page 8 to find out what the hell is going on in my city.

It turns out that the SAME CHURCH that sheltered Elvira Arellano for that horrible year plans to allow ANOTHER illegal immigrant to seek shelter there instead of turning herself over to the authorities like she is supposed to do today.

This new illegal immigrant criminal was arrested in 2006 as a result of a nationwide raid of the IFCO Systems pallet company, which resulted in 26 illegal immigrant workers being arrested. Flor Crisostomo is supposed to be surrendering to the federal immigration authorities today. After retreating to the Adalberto United Methodist Church in Humboldt Park where her FRIEND Elvira Arellano hid from the feds for a year, she is supposed to be "announcing" her decision today of whether she plans to turn herself in or the more likely option of thumbing her nose at the law like she did when she illegally entered the country from Oaxaca in 2001 and staying in the church and claiming sanctuary.

My biggest issue with all this nonsense, aside from the fact that the church does NOT provide sanctuary for criminals and it's about damned time the feds proved it by storming in and arresting her criminal ass, is that it's evoking the stupidest debates as a result. A criminal illegally enters the U.S., gets caught and arrested, refuses to accept the punishment, and all people are talking about is federal immigration reform??? What's even worse is the slew of comments being written down that are completely ass-backwards!

"It is very difficult to make this decision. Whatever it is, it will be worthwhile. ... It's not just to benefit me, it's to benefit the community," Crisostomo said in an interview inside the church.

No, you lawbreaking bitch, this IS about benefitting yourself and NOT AT ALL about benefitting the community. If allowing criminals to hang around your neighborhood actually benefitted communities, then property values in some southside neighborhoods would have skyrocketed past all of the upscale northside neighborhoods a long time ago. What WOULD benefit the community would be you giving yourself up to the federal agents and making an announcement to all of your illegal brethren to follow suit and say "let's all go back to Mexico." THAT would make property values rise and lower the crime rates significantly.

"I am taking a stand of civil disobedience ... I believe with all my heart that the United States and Mexico must end the system of undocumented labor," said Flor Crisostomo.

You know what, Flor? I completely agree. We must end the system of undocumented labor. By sending all the undocumented workers back to Mexico!! For the love of all things good and right in the world, you can't tell me that entering the U.S. illegally and getting work with a fake I.D. and sending money to your three kids and mother back in Mexico is a system we should be applauding or trying to help in any way! American workers are supposed to have that money and that job and help the U.S. economy and the rest of the legal citizens of this country. Some states and cities ARE trying to end the undocumented worker situation - by holding businesses more responsible in their hiring practices with the threat of losing their license if they hire an illegal immigrant.

Maybe one day, to add insult to injury, our federal agents will calculate how much money the United States have lost as a result of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico, just so we can sue Mexico for damages. Maybe if they got their own shit together, people wouldn't be fleeing to steal jobs from Americans across the border. Maybe if they beefed up their OWN security at the border, less people would make it through and be stuck to help Mexico's failing economy for a change!

In the meantime, Flor Crisostomo should be reunited with her family, thanks to a deportation bus ride back to her hometown at the hands of federal agents. And Gail Montenegro, spokeswoman for the ICE here in Chicago? I know that you said "ICE officers are sworn to enforce the nation's immigration laws and will do so at appropriate times and places," but I just have to say:

The proper time is ALWAYS. The proper place is WHEREVER THESE CRIMINALS ARE HIDING.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.

(The online version of the article)


Read more!

Christmas on the CTA

I saw this, and had to share. I know, it's wrong of me to post hilarious things that I didn't write (and have no idea who the original author is) - but if you live in Chicago, you'll hopefully crack up as much as I did and forgive me. I've seen it on this awesome blog and originally on a post in this LJ community post.

And if you're not living in Chicago, maybe it'll give you some insight into our horrible world, full of Doomsdays (and apparently a supposed walkout on Monday that will leave the city crippled with no CTA, RTA or PACE).


'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there

But St. Nick himself, plump and brimming with joy
Hit a snag on his last stop: Chicago, Illinois

For Rudolph the reindeer, whose nose led the way
Suddenly fell ill and could not guide the sleigh

Santa said “Well, just one option remains
I'll finish my route using CTA trains”

He gathered the reindeer and sack full of toys
To give to Chicagoland good girls and boys

And though well-equipped, CTA card in hand
He'd soon find their trip wouldn't go quite as planned

The train that they rode went from four tracks to one
And wouldn't move fast 'til construction was done

Right then, Santa's joy changed to derision
Saying “It'll take 3 damn hours to reach Clark and Division”

“We normally fly through the air with such speed
But this subway, it moves like a turtle on weed”

The seats were all dirty and beyond repairs
The reindeer stood in urine, which for once wasn't theirs

And Sally's new doll, it would just have to wait
Her Brown Line stop's closed until 2008!

Yes…Santa, he trudged and he slogged and he groaned
It seemed that his Doomsday would not be postponed

But he made a vow on that cold Christmas night
“I must do my job, and do the job right!”

He rode on that Red Line, and then on the Blue
Plus the 36 bus and the Clark 22

He rode on the Orange Line, rode on the Green
From O'Hare to East Side and all homes between

And despite the delays at a few of those places
He did all he could to put smiles on kids' faces

And when he was done, he sighed with relief
Though the trip had been rough, it was worth all the grief

He delivered those presents, he was true to his word
He looked at his watch…..it was January 3rd.

They all flew back home once Rudolph felt better
Mrs. Claus fetched his hubby hot tea and a sweater

Then St. Nick sat down in his favorite chair
And thought all about the entire affair

He hoped that the CTA would succeed
In getting their present: the funds that they need

And I heard him exclaim, as exclaiming's his habit
“Merry Christmas to All! Next time, f**k it, I'll cab it!!!!” Read more!

CTA - Chicago Transit by Aaron?

I was in a particularly chatty mood last night while on my way home. Perhaps it was the thrill of being anywhere other than work. Yes, that's probably it. Anyway, I got off the train to transfer to my bus route home (#44) and only saw a bus at the #8 loading station. A few seconds went by, and I noticed the lights on the bus there flashing "Wallace/Racine", which is what a #44 bus would say. So just as I peek my head out to see if this is truly a #44, it pulls out. Of course.

And yes, it was a #44 bus. Which meant waiting for the next one with the five other people who just got fooled the same way. We all started chatting about how annoying it is when the bus gets ready to leave, pulls into the different area to pick someone else up, and fools everyone else who wants to rush and get on before it leaves but can't find it because it's in the wrong spot.

Another one pulled up about two minutes later, and of course then sat there at the station for ten minutes or so. Luckily, an odd train of thought entered my head when I was talking to one of my regular Bus Ladies (I don't know their names, they're just ladies who often ride the same buses as me) and said, "Well, either way, I'm sure going to miss it come January."

You see, due to idiocy at practically every level of government going up from the city level that's supposed to fund it's damned public transportation, in January we have yet another huge Doomsday planned. They'll be cutting service for over sixty different bus lines. Our #44 is slated for death. And that's when the idea struck me:

How profitable would it be to buy an old CTA bus and run it along one of the deceased routes?

I haven't had time to sit down and do any math yet, so figures will all be estimated and probably way off. But the office is quiet, I'm not yet on the clock, and I'm interested in figuring this out.

Let's say that a reasonable estimated figure to purchase an old bus is $25,000. I'm guessing that new ones are upwards of $70,000 - but these are old, probably outdated models that clunk and have over 150,000 miles or so on them. And yes, I'd pick one that at least runs.

So I pick one of the routes that got shut down and was populated enough to guarantee at least 3/4 capacity at all times (especially with all the people waiting since I run maybe once an hour or so with one damned bus all by myself for the entire route). I can only charge cash, since CTA cards would do me no good, but I'd keep things at the $2/ride mark - even if Doomsday would increase cash fares to like $3. The discount is because it would encourage riders and apologize for not being able to give transfers to the real CTA.

So let's say the average bus can hold, also on average, 40 people (when not crammed in like sardines).

So waiting at the start point, I get between 50-75% capacity before pulling out. That's about 25 people, which is $50. Let's also give a lowball estimate of how many stops are on the route - I'll go with about 40, since I'd pick a small route to start - and assume that a minimum of 2 people on average get on at each stop. I'm guessing most stops would be much more than 2, but with empty stops in-between let's go with 2 for now as an average. That's $4 per stop, which is $80 for the route by the end. Everyone's cleared out, raise back to 50-75% again, and repeat.

To go through all 40 stops would be about 35 minutes, plus another 10 minutes to wait and fill up before the reverse side. Altogether each run in one direction nets $130 for 45 minutes, or about $175/hr. Run the bus for an 8-hour day and that's $1,400 a day. I don't know how much gasoline would cost for a bus, but with a higher quality of gas or the larger tank capacity, let's assume it's about $200/day. That's still $1,200 profit every day.

At $1,200 profit a day, it would take 3 weeks to have made back the seed money.

Give it another 3 weeks and that's enough profit to purchase a second bus and hire another driver, which would probably result in only 2 weeks combined (considering a salary is now being paid) to make the profits to purchase another bus. And so on.

In theory, with estimated and probably-wrong numbers, I'm turning a profit in less than a month just by purchasing an old bus and doing what the CTA is supposed to do - transport the citizens of Chicago with authority.

Go ahead and tell me which of my numbers are wrong - it won't make much difference to me. The whole thing is just a mildly-irrational idea anyway.

After all, it's not like I know how to drive - let alone drive a bus. I just thought that the point needed to be made.



Read more!

Letter to RedEye: Double Dose!

It's been a while since I wrote anything to the RedEye, and longer still since they've published anything I've sent. So this morning, after a large bit of network trouble here at the office, I managed to shoot them a double-dose of ranting. The first letter is in response to an article about the Boomerang Generation being the new wave - students returning home from college to mooch off their parents.

Boomerang Generation: New Ways to Fail

The whole notion of the Boomerang Generation is just another brick in the wall of coddling children separating them from the real world to which they should be properly contributing. I read in a study that humans are the most immature animals on the planet - in the sense that it takes our young nineteen years on average until they are able to contribute enough back to the society that has been supporting it through childhood. Think about that for a second - on average, it takes our children nineteen years until they can give back more to society than they are taking and become full-fledged adults.

And now we're letting them stay sheltered even more? Where is the outcry of older generations to put these whippersnappers in their place with stories of how far they'd advanced "by your age" and been married with a job and supporting two kids of their own and whatnot? "Five miles uphill both ways in the snow" and so forth! I'm all for the notion of letting children be children, but at some point, you have to cut the umbilical cord - and keep it cut. Maybe this isn't about children being a boomerang generation, but about parents not coping with their Empty Nest Syndrome.

My parents had the right idea, strangely enough. Two days after I moved to college, before I'd even finished unpacking my things, my parents threw out my bed back home. The message was clear: "The cord is cut. You're in the real world now." I love them for doing that, because I have my own place, my own job, my own bills and maybe someday my own family as well.

Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport

This second letter is in response to their article about how people really can't trust the CTA, who just got bailed out yet again, meaning no Doomsday Plan needs to be enacted until . . . oh, a few more weeks. And the Doomsday Scare will resume anew. So here's my response, which I've been thinking about for WEEKS.

Lack of Trust for the CTA

My problem with the CTA isn't about the constant whining for more financial support and then further whining upon receiving "not enough" financial support. My problem is about the lack of follow-through. Here's a random analogy that may or may not shed light on my concerns:

A pie shop sells apple pies. But they realize their apple stock is running low and they won't be getting any deliveries in for a while. Frantically, they start discussing pears. They invest money on methods to quickly obtain pears, debate over the price difference, research recipes for pear pies, perform taste tests and do market research to see if people can handle pear pies, advertising new pear pies due to lack of apples, and after an entire month of this nonsense - a truckload of apples comes in and apple piemaking resumes and nobody does anything about pears until a few weeks later when the apples are running low again.

I'd just like to know how much money went into purchasing ad space to warn people about the Doomsday plan, how much went into planning the Doomsday plan out in the first place, how much was spent on wages for people handing out fliers about Doomsday or putting up notices in stations and on buses instead of their regular jobs and how much was spent on all of the pamphlets and fliers and signs themselves. The worst part is that even though they got their money, that means all of the money spent warning about Doomsday was a waste because the plan was never used and the money just creates a further drain that speeds up the next Doomsday when it all repeats.

At some point, you just have to DEMAND that they have a little follow-through, so maybe they can finally fix the problem and stop wasting all this extra money in the meantime. I hate the thought of paying extra money, but I hate the thought of WASTING money a whole lot more.

Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport

Actually, I just got an e-mail back from Kyla at Going Public in response to my CTA letter!

Hi Aaron:
Good points, and spoken like someone with a true business mind. Good analogy. I will try and get this into reader letters, but we may have to trim a bit for space. Thanks so much, and have a great rest of the week!

Best,
Kyra

So it's not only shocking to get a reply TEN MINUTES after I sent these off, but such a positive one at that! I was flabbergasted to read "Good analogy." Seriously. I chuckled at the notion that I have a true business mind. Strange how everyone mistakes "common sense" for a "good business mind".

Well, if they print anything, I'll let you know (and make it bold here)! Read more!

ParkMagic or ParkNonsense?

There are 33,000 parking meters on the streets in the city of Chicago. I remember a simpler time, when you pulled up to a meter, whucked in a few quarters to throw time on the clock as needed, and went about your business. You didn't want to come back rushing to feed the meter, so you erred on the side of caution and maybe put in a little extra to make sure you have the time. You finish your business, come back to your car, and while for a second you lament the cents wasted with 12 minutes left on the meter, you consider those pennies better than the amount of a parking ticket, and consider it a charitable gift to whomever pulls their car in during the next 12 minutes.

If you think this "simpler time" is present day, you're sorely mistaken. Welcome to the ParkMagic era.

ParkMagic is an Ireland-based company with a U.S. site in Michigan. Basically the program entails a beeper-looking device that you buy and initially load with $15 or more. As you pull up to a parking meter, you then call this number, punch in your beeper information and the zone of your meter (yes, there are ZONES now, more on that in a minute), and it downloads to your beeper with a countdown instead of the meter. Now, instead of running to the meter to feed it more, you dash to your cellphone to call back up and dial in more money. Supposedly in the future, if this becomes mainstream, you'll be able to receive e-mails of traffic and availability as well as RECEIVE calls from your meter when it's close to expiring.

Some people may see this as a vast improvement, mostly because they don't need quarters anymore. I see it as nothing but a nuisance and digital nonsense.

For starters, the ZONES. I already am loathed at the idea that the city can just decree that just for arriving in the city and wanting to do business and stimulate the economy, you must pay for the privilege of leaving your car. We really are just a few steps away from tolls just to enter the precious city space. Sorry, city, but you're just slabs of pavement and asphalt and hobo urine - so GET OVER YOURSELF and just let me park the damned car. There used to be a STANDARD rate of coinage in a meter in relation to time allowed to park there. Now there are ZONES, from 1 to 6, which dictate how much time a quarter (oh, I'm sorry - 25 electronic cents) will get you. Zone 1 allows five whole minutes, Zone 2 is ten, Zone 3 is fifteen, Zone 4 is twenty, Zone 5 is thirty and Zone 6 allows for an hour.

If technology of today is any indicator, parking at a Zone 1 meter will mean that within 60 seconds, you'll need to be dialing in the number again to go through the menus and wait time due to call volume in order to ensure that your next 5-minute payment goes through before your meter runs out.

Of course, I'm sure that you can pay for more than 5 minutes at a time, but my point stands. Ten seconds to whuck in change, versus four minutes of phone menus to hope that everything works right and your beeper registers your payment.

Here's where a big truckload of nonsense comes into play: everyone is treating this like the city of Chicago is LOSING money somehow on these meters and that the new system will fix everything.

First off, the city starts LOSING money because now a share of the parking meter revenue gets split with ParkMagic. Doesn't anyone know business anymore? The more people you bring in on a deal, the more partners you have to share the profits with. Try watching ONE heist film and then tell me it's a smart idea to bring in some new jackass who wants a cut of the money. He'll probably shoot you and take YOUR cut, too. *shakes fist at ParkMagic* I'm not falling for that one again!!!

Secondly, too much emphasis is being put on cents and minutes and LIES. Take this quote from the ParkMagic CEO: "People pay for one hour. If they come back in an hour and fifteen minutes and get a ticket, they feel bad about it. If they don't get a ticket, the city has just lost 25 percent of an hour [worth of revenue]." Okay, assuming that you're willing to nitpick over the fact that the city loses that fifteen minutes in revenue (eight cents), that needs to be compared to the FREE money that the city gets from overpaying at a meter and leaving before time expires. You can't simply argue that it doesn't count, because someone else will pull into that spot and NOT pay money because time's still on the meter; we're using the same logic of "if that thing happens in this way" like the failure to issue a ticket, and the city hasn't even LOST money because the meter is fed and that's money for the city no matter whose car is parked there.

It's also a foolish idea to base this on the failure to issue tickets, which we ALL know is NOT the case. Even at a rate of two tickets per hour, I have a feeling that this revenue for the city not only pays for the meter agent's wages for the hour, but also counteracts all of those missed-eight-cents meters. I'm also pretty sure that more than two tickets are written per hour by each agent.

Thirdly, doesn't this go against everything that our politicians have been talking about? I may not have the best memory in the world, but wasn't it not too long ago that my favorite nemesis alderman was trying to ban radar detectors because they could be used to warn drivers of speed cameras? Didn't that alderman admit, point blank, that all of those tickets weren't just something that brought in revenue for the city - they were downright PART OF THE BUDGET?

So how is it that the aldermen are fine with this ParkMagic program? They lose money from the meters because the new partner gets a cut, and they're admittedly welcoming in a system that would potentially reduce the number of meter-related parking tickets by a drastic amount. Something just really doesn't seem right here. I mean, it seems completely right if you're a driver in the city of Chicago - which is what's baffling me. Maybe I'm just not used to programs potentially helping actual citizens (I mean, until the lack of ticket money creates a deficit that needs to be made up for by inevitably creating higher taxes).

I can't shake the feeling that this will bite us all in the ass.

Of course, I could be wrong. I don't even drive or own a car...

(The article about ParkMagic)







Read more!

Deadly Marathon: Who's to Blame?

I am not a marathon runner. That is one of the biggest reasons you did not see me in the Chicago Marathon - or anywhere near it, for that matter. Another reason would be that it was 88 degrees outside. Call me a product of bad parenting if you will, but my policy is that if it's hot and icky outside - I stay inside where it's cool and refuse to "go out and play." I'm sure that there are even more reasons why I didn't attend the marathon (as a participant or supporter), but those main two seem like explanation enough.

Not surprisingly, I was safer in my air-conditioned room than those who were out in the heat - especially if they were also running in a marathon. 315 of the runners required an ambulance to be removed from the course. Five of them wound up in the hospital as of Sunday night. One runner died. While the death is tragic (unless you were his enemy, which I am not, but I guess that if you were you wouldn't think of it as "tragic"), there's apparently going to be an autopsy to figure out if the death was a result of the heat, or a heart problem, or a gunshot wound to the abdomen. Since the news has not reported anything about a gunshot wound, I feel it's safe to eliminate that third possibility. Still, you never know.

So who is to blame? Anytime a tragic death - or a mass-emergency with over three hundred needing medical care or hospitalization - occurs, fingers have to start pointing. It's our nature. So where are the index fingers collectively drawing our attention?

Several are pointing at the City of Chicago. It's pretty easy, since the word "Chicago" is on all of the memorabilia you could find at the Chicago Marathon. Runners and spectators are blaming Chicago for not providing enough water or enough water stations for the runners. They say that on such a hot day, drinks stations should have been set up at every single mile on the 26.2-mile course, rather than the 15 stations set up every mile or two. The runners were vocal about claims that all of the water stations "were out or really low" on water and Gatorade.

Chicago points its finger right back, particularly at the jackasses who were in the marathon. Shawn Platt, a senior vice president of sponsor LaSalle Bank, said that each of the stations had been outfitted with over 50,000 servings of water and over 35,000 servings of Gatorade. "We checked with all the aid stations, and the amount of water was adequate. We had thousands of thousands of gallons of water," said Platt. The problem, he claimed, was partially about distribution - the bottlenecking at the dispensation tables caused delays and distress, while at the same time he pointed the finger at runners making up for the delay by taking cups two or three at a time, faster than volunteers could fill the cups to replace them.

Several marathon participants and even more spectators decided to point their fingers at the race officials, saying that the weather was too inclimate for marathoning and should have been cancelled at the outright. Also, after failing to cancel it before it started, they point their fingers even harder and say that it should have been cancelled earlier - before all of the people started collapsing and requiring ambulances and the opening of fire hydrants.

So of course, several more marathon participants are pointing their fingers at the race officials, saying that the marathon should NOT have been cancelled because they didn't get to finish and the whole thing kind of becomes a moot point, I suppose. Honestly, I don't think anyone was really stopping them from continuing to run, but people left the watering stations and I guess when the race is cancelled, police escorts and barricades function less and bus routes possibly were routed back to their original statuses.

So now that we've taken a look around the room and watched all the fingers pointed at one another, I think it's time to spin the camera my way and see where my digit's directing:

My finger's pointed straight at you - the runners.

For those runners complaining that it was Chicago's fault for the man who died while running - you can suck an egg. The autopsy showed that it wasn't the heat at all, but rather a heart-valve condition known as mitral valve prolapse. It's common, and usually harmless, but it was the cause of his death.

This goes way beyond the runners who are pointing fingers at others, because every runner not pointing a finger at themselves is just in denial. You do NOT participate in a marathon without practice and training. And if my calculations are correct, it's been pretty damned hot for the last three or four months at LEAST. Are you ALL seriously telling me that you trained for this marathon in the heat, having to provide your OWN water, but when it's time for the big day, you can blame your shortcomings on OTHERS?

Again, I'm no runner. But I'm full of enough common sense to know that any activity you participate in at this high level, you already KNOW the dangers and risks and you take PRECAUTIONS accordingly. You don't play in the NFL and then throw a hissy fit when your arm gets fractured from a powerful tackle. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

But it doesn't stop there - I'm especially pointing my finger at the JACKASS runners. When all of the water station attendants were being questioned in the huge water-shortage inquisition, you know what almost all of them had to say? "We had the water. We were trying to get the water out. But runners were taking more than one cup at a time, injuring each other to scramble for cups faster than we could put them out, and then were WASTING the water by dumping it on themselves instead of DRINKING it." Drinking water is for drinking - mist systems and sponges that were set up were supposed to be for that kind of stuff.

If I were one of the people in charge of this marathon, here's what my response would have been:

I'd mail each and every one of the 40,000 runners a package. Inside the package would be a big bottle of Ice Mountain and a photo of me displaying my middle finger. The photo's caption: "Thanks for participating in the Chicago Marathon. Here's your fucking water."

(The runner who died)
(Someone else who fucking GETS IT!) Read more!

Letter to RedEye: CTA Suggestions

Recently, the RedEye's Going Public column opened the floor to hear suggestions for the CTA so they could improve service and reliability and all the other things we want the CTA to provide because it doesn't.

I came up with a few ideas. Here's my letter. We'll see if any of it gets printed, since I didn't see that they did today.

Since the RedEye is calling for suggestions for the CTA, I can't resist drafting my own list of suggestions:

1) Bus tires.

I don't know what is wrong with the tires on every single bus I get on, but there seems to be a near-constant, squealing, screeching noise coming from the wheel areas. It almost sounds as if some of the wheels on my bus aren't going 'round and 'round - but are literally being dragged along the ground all the time. If this is the case, I'm sure it's affecting the gas mileage of the bus, and fixing this problem would lead to better gas efficiency, better speed and handling, and IT WOULD STOP THE SQUEALING NOISE!

2) "Approximately one minute."

I'm getting a little sick of the "Attention customers: an ___BOUND train, ___ the Loop, will be arriving in approximately one minute" messages. Okay, some stations just have an "arriving shortly" message, but the whole system is a moot point. By the time these messages are playing and being displayed, the train is IN SIGHT. I like the suggestion I read about replacing it with just a sign that flashes with the direction of the train (inbound/outbound) that would do the same thing, quicker and easier, but I'm taking it one step forward. If we have some ridiculous trigger or sensor that alerts the sign to scroll some text and play that dumb message, why can't we move it back farther, maybe to the previous station, and have a countdown of the minutes we'll be waiting for the next train? This would alleviate rubberneckers who lean INTO THE TRACK AREA to fight over catching the first glimpse of an incoming train - which always happens BEFORE any message plays. Just give us a countdown so people can just relax and wait, rather than endanger themselves because we never have a clue when a train is REALLY coming in this whole system until we actually SEE it.

3) Leaks and puddles.

Dear CTA: You know where the roof is leaking. You know it's causing puddles. Spend $5 and get a freaking TARP for the leak to divert the puddle AWAY from customers. The end.

4) Bus-bunching research.

Here's how you can PROBABLY solve the entire bus-bunching phenomenon for about $100 per bus route (though we all know I'm talking about the #8 Halsted, because if THAT could be fixed, anything could be fixed four times as easily). Buy twenty one-day passes. Give them to twenty college students who have nothing better to do than spend a day fixing the CTA. Tell their professors to give them extra credit if they're civil engineers or something. Have them board the bus route at one end, one per bus, so you've now got twenty researchers on twenty buses in a row, all with a watch, notepad and pen. Have them record the time as they get to each stop, and take notes on anything significant that's delaying the bus, whether it's unruly passengers, traffic accidents, or the bus is just going REALLY SLOWLY. When they get to the end of the route, have them get off and board going the opposite way, and repeat. In one day, you'll have enough data to plot the movement of the buses, make all kinds of graphs and charts, and I'm sure you'll have a thousand times more information about the bus-bunching phenomenon than you ever did before. All for a lousy $100. You're welcome!

5) Enforcing the rules.

At every level, from the CTA to the federal government, it winds up with the fact that we have too many laws and not enough enforcement. I read the entire debate over whether or not there are CTA rules about strollers on buses and trains, but where's the debate over actual-factual rules that simply aren't being enforced? We all love to argue over the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of the buses and trains, but when was the last time you saw anyone being fined or punished for eating/drinking on the CTA? The signs and loudspeakers make it clear that there IS a rule, but nobody enforces it. And the soliciting! My goodness, it's like I can't take one ride on a train without being harassed for change, asked to buy something that was probably stolen, or hit up for money by children and their fundraisers. No soliciting means NO SOLICITING! One of these days, I'm going to snap - grab the solicitor by the scruff of the neck, threaten to drag them off the train and to the nearest police officer or security person, and fine them to the full extent of the law. That is, of course, unless they pay me some hush money. The irony alone of hitting up solicitors for money as a threat is delicious enough to make it worth trying at least once.

6) More buses, more trains.

As long as they're all borderline-functional, why not drag out the rest of the monstrocities hiding in storage or CTA garages? If what they've got on display now is the cream of the crop, how far down could their B-team of vehicles really be? Get more trains and buses out there, especially during rush hour, and this will alleviate a huge portion of the crammed-full trains and all of the problems it brings to commuters. It does no good being in a seat if three stops later, every pathway is stuffed to capacity with people blocking any chance of exit, and you're literally SHOVING people out of the way because they don't understand that this is your stop and they CAN step out of the train momentarily to clear a path and then GET BACK ON! Between 4:45pm and 5:45pm, there should be a non-stop flow of trains rotating around the Loop. Believe me, even if the duration between trains were the two minutes for it to pull out, have the other line's train pull in and pull out, then have the next train pull in - by the time they left the Loop, they would be 3/4 full. And 3/4 full allows for room to wiggle your way out of the train with few problems, unlike sardine-stuffed trains.

These are just a sampling of the numerous suggestions one could make on improving the CTA. Feel free to print any/all of them - the faster they can reach Ron Huberman, the better!

Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport

Like I said, I submitted this yesterday, and nothing in today's paper. Maybe tomorrow. We'll have to wait and see, but I thought I'd at least throw it out there for you readers, just in case.




Read more!

Children's Museum and Racism?

That's what Mayor Daley keeps implying (no, wait, he's blatantly shouting it) - that opposition to moving the Children's Museum from its current smaller location at Navy Pier to a larger space in Grant Park constitutes as racism. That opposing the placement of a new and expanded Children's Museum in Grant Park automatically means that you fear a horde of minority children and poor people cluttering up the rich white folks' neighborhood.

Well, Daley - such is not the case, and it makes YOU the racist. Or at least a sellout.

The real brainchild behind this is Jean Pritzker, the billionaire president of the board of the Children's Museum. What it all assuredly comes down to is that the expanded museum allows for more customers coming in at $8 a head, and the location allows for lots of public-transportation-fed customers as well as ample parking for those who are more likely to waste $8 a person to enter a Children's Museum.

You all know that I'm a capitalist and a realist (which I think equates to a cynic), but I'm definitely siding with Alderman Reilly on this one, because my sense of tradition and opposition to hypocrisy outweigh the acceptance of another rich person just wanting to get richer. The main argument being made on his side of the campaign to keep the museum out is certainly NOT one of racism - it's legal precedence. Grant Park has had a 171-year history of being legally protected from these kinds of construction projects. That protection was made in 1836, and has been reaffirmed four times by the Illinois Supreme Court: that Grant Park be formally protected as "Public Ground -- A Common to Remain Forever Open, Clear and Free of any Buildings, or other Obstruction Whatever."

It's as simple as that. End of argument. Case closed. No museum, kthxbye.

Daley, do you think that this museum, funded and led by your billionaire friend, is the best opportunity that Grant Park has seen? There have been dozens of projects proposed for that parcel of land - and all of them have been turned down. If they hadn't been turned down, there would be no Grant Park left other than the name itself, and that doesn't sound like a place that is "forever open, clear and free of any buildings" at all - does it?

Reilly isn't alone in this fight, either. Some aldermen are joining the cause because Reilly is right about the legal precedence, and generous enough to offer suggestions of other places WITHOUT the legal protection that Grant Park has where the new museum could be built. Some are joining purely because Daley is throwing his weight around and vetoing the decision. This ruffles the feathers of some of the other City Council members, since city projects in THEIR wards have almost always been at THEIR discretion (though it's usually an emphatic "yes") and having that decision power vetoed by the Mayor is causing a disturbance among the aldermen. Some are probably just joining in anger of Daley throwing around his racism accusations when there obviously is none.

Here's a sample of what Daley has been saying:

"You mean you don't want children from the city in Grant Park? Why? Are they black? Are they white? Are they Hispanic? Are they poor? You don't want children? We have children in Grant Park all the time. This is a park for the entire city. What do you mean no one wants children down there? Why not? Wouldn't you want children down there?"

If I may, now that most of the factual information has been presented, I'd like to address the mayor's questions in my usual rant-like and mildly-offensive manner:

Leave the race out of it, Daley, and maybe you'll learn something. No, we don't all want children around. In fact, I'd probably be voting to keep kid-friendly buildings out of my neighborhood. Why? Because they're (in general) whiny, obnoxious brats who cause disturbances in peaceful places - never completely satisfied and always ready to verbalize that at any given point in time, appropriate or not. "Are they poor?" Of course they're poor, they're children! They don't have money to contribute to society! In fact, humans are the species with the WORST duration of time between birth and being able to contribute back to the community. It takes us, on average, nineteen years. If a lion cub took nineteen years to make satisfactory contributions back to the pack, it would surely have been eaten in the process. Children may be our future, but they certainly don't make it seem like it'll be a bright future. And they are certainly NOT our greatest resource. Our greatest resource is probably money. Not children.

And before you get all "my child is the bestest ever and the cutest too" on me, I'm sure it is. To YOU. If Heaven is in the eyes of your children, then I can say without a doubt that Hell is in the eyes of OTHER people's children. They're not all smart, they're not all cute, and they're definitely not all "precious" - all reasons why I wouldn't want an influx of them in my neighborhood, Daley!

So let's keep the Children's Museum where it is - over at Navy Pier with the other kid-friendly attractions, so I know exactly where to avoid running into your children. I'm sure you'd agree it's for the best, parents.

(Article saying it's racism)
(Article saying it's not racism)
(Someone who seems to really get the idea)







Read more!

Chicago Traffic: 2nd-Worst in the Nation

I am not a driver.

I just had to get that out of the way, so you know that the rest of this post is going to be only pure facts from the article I read, or pure opinion that should be taken with a grain of salt. Last time I was behind the wheel of a car was 2001, and that was just getting some practice hours in before thinking about going for my driver's license, which I obviously never bothered to get. Of course, that's because I moved here to Chicago, under the impression that I would never need a car here - thanks to the public transportation system.

In retrospect, maybe it wasn't all that horrible of a decision. For all the guff my friends give me about not owning a car or being able to drive, and how crappy the CTA runs here in the city - I can at least rub their noses back in the fact that in comparison, I think the vehicular congestion and waste of resources is a much crappier system to be a part of. Plus, I moved here to Chicago from the city of Los Angeles - so I technically upgraded. While Chicago is #2 or #3 worst in a lot of these categories of horrible driving conditions, at least L.A. stays put at #1, though not by a huge margin.

According to the study results that were done on traffic conditions and congestion and delays and whatnot - every year, the average Chicago motorist loses 46 hours of time stuck in traffic during peak hours. Back in 1995, they only lost 33 hours per year, so you can see that the incline keeps going. Every year, more than an entire average WORKWEEK is lost just because of peak-hour traffic, per driver. The amount of fuel that adds up to, per driver, is 32 gallons. The total cost is $906, just due to traffic alone. When you account for the fact that there are millions of drivers out there, it's a total of over 203 million hours lost and costs over $4 billion annually.

The 203 million hours lost puts Chicago smack dab in 3rd place, with New York losing 384 million hours a year and Los Angeles taking the cake with 491 million hours lost. But the real shame brought to Chicago is that it is #2 in the category of Time Indexes. A Time Index is how to calculate how much time you should prepare in advance to make a trip due to delays. Chicago has a Time Index of 1.47, which means that for every 20-minute drive you take, it's going to really take 29.4 minutes. Only Los Angeles has a higher Time Index, and it's only higher by .03 - meaning it'll take a full 30 minutes for that 20-minute trip in the City of Angels.

Of course, I don't put much stock in the Time Index system, after taking a look at it. I mean, it's a great idea in theory, but it's that base-time calculation that befuddles me. Were these trips timed at 20 minutes based simply on drives taken during non-peak hours? Is that 9pm? Midnight? 3am on a Sunday? There's no way to get a "lab test" or any real scientific control done on a commute, so it's very difficult to predict what your base time for any drive would be, meaning that any calculation using a Time Index is going to be rather fruitless.

Here's something that I thought interesting: judging by the numbers, the study shows that the city of Chicago has over 4.4 million drivers on the road. That's the number they used to multiply the 46 hours and $906 lost annually per driver to get those astronomical numbers for the city itself. So what about the third number that they calculated? If every driver is wasting 32 gallons of gasoline per year, then that means that every year over 142 million gallons of gas are being wasted.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill only lost about 11 million gallons of crude oil. Every year, Chicago is wasting more gasoline than almost 13 Exxon Valdez spills.

And people still give me grief about taking city transportation? I'd rather deal with "slow zones" than this mess. Losing $906 a year, on top of whatever it costs to run and maintain a car and keep it filled with gas, let alone parking in the city? No thanks. $906 could buy more than twelve 30-day CTA passes, so I could pay for a year's worth of transportation with the EXTRA WASTED money that a Chicago driver loses in that year.

Every now and then, with all of the muck and mire that the CTA gets dragged through, there are still things that make me appreciate it just enough to keep following and using it. Aside from the colorful cast of characters you meet on buses and trains, there are a few nice things about using public transportation - even if it means relying on the frequently-unreliable. And there's the financial benefit. Something tells me that buses aren't going to fare anywhere near cars when you consider the traffic and time-loss implications (they're in the same traffic, plus making stops along the way) - but the trains make up for it all, even when you take into consideration all of the "slow zones" that commuters seem bogged down with.

Maybe it really is faster than driving. It's certainly cheaper, for now. But then again, I guess you get what you pay for.

(A version of the article printed in the RedEye)
(A pretty graph of some of these numbers)







Read more!