The Chicago Cubs began their 100th year of futility…well, futilely. After holding the Milwaukee Brewers scoreless for 8 innings the Cubs brought in new closer and 2003 futility poster boy Kerry Wood. He promptly gave up a Cub-like 3 runs. The Cubs came back in the bottom of the inning with three of their own on a 3 run homer by new right fielder Kosuke Fukudome. The game was tied with nobody out but alas, the forlorn Northsiders couldn’t feed off of the momentum or the excitement of the hometown crowd and instead went down quietly in the remainder of the inning. It was just enough to get me excited because I am stupid and don’t learn from history. I allowed these guys to suck me in like a kid with a crack pipe and $20 in his pocket.

I then was treated to another frequent event, one I have seen so many times. Another Cubs reliever, Bob Howry came in for the top of the 10th to immediately surrender the game winning run. The Cubs went down quietly in the 10th as the top of the order didn’t even come close to threatening. Is there any team in the history of baseball that has more 9th inning comebacks followed by extra inning collapses? Has any franchise equaled they playoff inability to close things out when needing to win only one out of three games to move to the World Series? This is not a curse, it is typical bad baseball from teams who accept this type of performance from themselves and fans who accept it by continuously selling the joint out. I won’t give them my money by buying a ticket until they justify our faith by actually playing smart and winning ballgames but I somehow get hooked into watching them or listening on the radio. It is an addiction worse than most and one that has no 12 step program to help her victims.

Please, someone start a support group. My head hurts and it is only opening day.

Posted by Biloxi in Biloxi Says at 6:31 PM EDT

2 Comments »

Much has been said of Barack Obama’s relationship with his separatist Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Enough that Obama felt it necessary to get Clintonesque in such a manner that he seems to denounce Wright without actually denouncing him. He condemns the repeated words without acknowledging that the author utters them with a conviction and condemnation of the United States of America and her white population that is hard to deny. The words are anti-American, they are separatist, they are intolerant, and they are markedly political in nature.

Our media has a tendency to take snippets out of a speech, essay or statement and soundbite them in a manner that can distort their meaning. Many members of Wright’s (and Obama’s) congregation, the Trinity United Church of Christ as well as Obama apologists in general claim that this is what has happened in regards to the recent stories concerning the colorful Pastor’s controversial sermons.

In this morning’s edition, the Chicago Tribune attempts to address the issue of the “whole sermon” vs. the excerpt.

Rattling off a litany of injustices imposed on minorities throughout the nation’s history, Wright argued that God cannot be expected to bless America as the anthem requests unless it changes for the better. Until that day, he said, God will hold the nation accountable.

The above quotation and Wright’s rhetoric both seem to ignore the undeniable logic that we have changed and injustices have been corrected. This is never going to mean that we live in a society without injustice of any kind. This type of philosophy is intended to keep us apart and assure that racial divisions continue. It ignores America’s numerous contributions as a force for freedom and justice in the world and focuses on perceived imperialistic intercessions or meddling as the cause for The 9/11 attacks and other acts of terror against our country.

The Tribune offers an in depth look at the context surrounding some of the excerpts in question in a column in their online edition and it does little to expell the image that Wright is more of a hindrance to race relations than a help and his philosophy does little to unite America or Christians in general. The full context of many of his sermons still show an undeniable philosophy of separatism and wrongheaded charges of institutional racism. Further, his sermons delve into the political in a manner that goes beyond normal religious boundaries by diving headfirst into the waters of governmental critcism and political advocacy. One could arguably question their tax exempt status considering the manner of presentation and proponency for certain political viewpoints. One questionable point is the article would be the decison to exempt the sermon where Wright blames America for creating the AIDS virus as a means to keep the black community down. Apparently there was no way one could argue against the context of that one but it also shows the bankruptcy of the intellectual underpinnings behind the article. Context is context and Wright’s is inexcusably racist and anti-American in tone.

Obama’s recent speech on race relations addressed the issue by claiming we have to understand the environment and society in which Wright was raised and that works to an extent. We are all victims or beneficiaries of the environments in which we were raised. The problem is that he denies Wright’s (or others) abilities to grow and look beyond the inadequacies and inequities of our youth. The history of America denies that premise repeatedly. Injustices that led to slavery, and the second class status of women were overturned by constitutional amendment. We have moved beyond the Jim Crow era and corrected many injustices. His “God Damn America” sermon seems to address the ability of Government to change but never addresses the real and monumental progress this country has made in that area.

No, no, no, not ‘God Bless America,’ ‘God Damn America.’ That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating its citizens as less than human, God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent.”

In this instance the context does not refute the soundbite, it enhances the separatist message of the Reverend Wright. It clarifies the true meaning of Black Liberation theology and it shows that the Government is damned if they do or don’t in the eyes of many. Enough is never enough, even to those who had no connection to the wrongs of the past or those who cannot seem to move out of that same past and into the present. When people refuse to look beyond the inequities of previous generations and cannot quit blaming others for the inadequacies in their own life it is impossible to move forward. That is the reality of Reverend Wright’s message; remain angry, blame others and refuse to move on. This allows them to keep a large portion of their countrymen in a state of perpetual apology. One that never seems to be accepted, I might add. That is also the reality of Barack Obama’s defense of Wright as a product of his era and environment. It is not his fault and therefore it is acceptable for him to prolong the division by shouting it from the pulpit. I addressed judgment in a previous post and this is another indication of Obama’s lack of good use thereof; if he sat in Trinity for the last 20 years listening to this type of rhetoric then he either believes the message and agrees with it or is too dense to know the difference and in either case it make him unfit to be President of the United States. He claims to be a uniter but clings steadfastly to a Church and Pastor that is anything but. Why is it those who call themselves “progressive” refuse to move forward as the root word would indicate and instead would rather reopen old wounds?

We should never forget the injustices of the past but neither should we keep reliving them. That is Rev. Wright’s fatal flaw and Obama’s association lo these many years shows him to be knee deep in the same philosophy. One cannot offer change without moving beyond yesterday.

Posted by Biloxi in Obamastan, Politics, Religion, Social Issues at 2:09 PM EDT

1 Comment »

The Republic wishes a Blessed Easter to all. May we all strive to be worthy of the sacrifice Christ endured for us.

Posted by Biloxi in Religion at 7:33 AM EDT

No Comments »

The Washington Post has an interesting article concerning ‘the housing crisis” in today’s edition. It is a sad tale that covers all of the factors that led to the sub prime collapse including complicity by a willing client whose desire to own a home overrode all common sense and judgment. In the current political debate, that one very important linchpin is often overlooked. “Evil” lenders and unscrupulous real estate agents cannot ply their trade without the willful pigeon offering themselves up to be taken.

Looking back, Glenda Ortiz can see she did everything wrong when she bought her house in 2005.

Looking in real time she should have been able to see that, why would a Mary Kay makeup salesperson she hardly knows put up half of the down payment? Why would that salesperson’s brother enter into a mortgage for a house with someone he doesn’t know? Why would Glenda Ortiz sign any documents she didn’t understand and couldn’t even read because she doesn’t have a solid grasp of English? Where was the lawyer to review these documents? There is plenty of blame to go around. Deregulation and lax standards were certainly a factor here. Verifiable income and a reasonable down payment should be the cornerstones of any deal. Many in the Government are talking bailout and that should fall under the category of throwing good money after bad. Would any bailout have saved Glenda and allowed her to stay in a home she overpaid for and could not reasonably make the mortgage payments on considering the income she and her husband make combined? Owning a home is certainly a piece of the American dream and a symbol of our freedom but if one buys above asking price and finances 100% of that do they really own the home? As the woman in the story relates, it is all an illusion.

She agreed to a high-interest loan that would cost her more than $3,000 a month, more than 70 percent of the $4,200 that she and her husband brought home monthly.

A responsible lender should never have touched this loan and any real estate agent truly doing their fiduciary duty should have warned the client that she was overpaying for the house and her income was not sufficient to carry the mortgage on that large of a loan. Not mentioned in the article is what her husband was thinking at the time, if he was thinking at all. Doesn’t it sound odd that she was on the deed with another man but her husband wasn’t? Would that seem normal in ANY country? Unfortunately this story is all too common.

Another often ignored point is how the dishonest sharks of the immigrant communities pray on their own. Glenda Ortiz is not an uncommon story in the immigrant community wherein many of their less principled countrymen take advantage of their naivete and lack of grasp of the language and system. Though not unique to immigrants it is easier to take advantage of the less educated who do not have a strong understanding of the language and customs regarding housing transactions.

“It was all a mistake. One hundred percent,” Ortiz said recently in Spanish. “I had such a burning desire to have my own house. I didn’t think about anything else.”

When a client infused with desire over logic intersects with a scoundrel familiar with the holes in the system the outcome is inevitable if not predictable. This does not exclude non-immigrants who willfully take on more than they can handle either. Many did so counting on the ability to refinance and take the equity out of their home in some sort of futile effort to keep their heads above water and their dreams afloat. Eventually they hit the saturation point and the floodwaters of debt wash over them taking their home and credit rating with them. This is exacerbated in the current economic climate because of rising energy and food costs that make it even harder budget.

Blissfully unaware, Ortiz hung filmy white and maroon curtains in her home on East Reed Avenue. She put photographs of her family and the Sacred Heart of Jesus on the living room walls. She paid the mortgage every month, sometimes selling jewelry, forgoing other bills or taking out loans to do so. But she owned a home. She was happy.

A simple budget written down and examined before entering into a mortgage would have told Ortiz and her husband that this was a bad idea. The lender was complicit because $4200 a month is not sufficient to maintain a $3000 mortgage. No amount of creative financing would make this right and no bailout short of paying off a large chunk of her mortgage would have helped Ortiz and those like her. If they used to income of the other person on title to justify the mortgage then it was fraudulent in presentation if not outright illegal.

The one government solution would be regulations concerning income to debt ratios that make sense and reasonable down payment guidelines that prove the buyer’s fitness to pay the mortgage. A mistake would be to over-regulate the industry as government has a tendency to make matters worse. Financial relationships that rely on others than the proposed occupant to secure a mortgage should be scrutinized and the instances where this is allowed can be narrowed, the final solution is open to debate by those far more intelligent on these matters than myself but the events that transpired in this case and others like it defy common sense and can be easily corrected.

Like the stock market in the 90’s, people expected the housing market to grow to the sky. They ignored clear warning signs and even published rates. Adjustable Rate Mortgages are often singled out as a culprit in the current financial morass but if the mortgagee bothered to do the math using the adjustments outlaid in the contract they could have easily foreseen if they could have afforded the mortgage in years 3, 4 or 5 of the ARM. Assuming drastically increased income or wild appreciation is always a bad financial model for mortgage planning. Ridiculous appreciations could never be counted on as sustainable and assuming the ability to refinance to a favorable rate a few years hence is gambling unless one already has the means to do so.

Yes, deregulation and dishonesty had a role in the current housing fueled economic crisis but the overeager buyer willing to take on a mortgage they could not logically handle is a key component so often ignored by our media and politicians as they toss this political football back and forth. What we should actually be preaching is personal responsibility and common sense.

Posted by Biloxi in Economy at 9:45 AM EDT

4 Comments »

Most of my 12 readers know I have been calling Chicago’s DNC mouthpiece of record (the Chicago Sun-Times) The Obama News for some time now. It is reflective of how the paper has acted as a cheerleader for his campaign from the start, assigning him a personal columnist while the Washington political columnist writes about how she wishes she could follow him into the locker room at their swanky city health club. The day after his “A More Perfect Union” speech the Obama mouthpiece used two full pages of their content-lacking publication to print the full text of the speech. If the editors examine their rapidly sinking circulation numbers they may want to look at their decision to forgo news and become a full time Klaxon for the “post-racial” candidate.

There is nothing wrong with a paper being partisan in their editorial content, it has been a standard for decades but the all out hero-worship that merges into the news content as well is a little much. On that note I ran into a great blog from Tom Roeser that satirizes the Sun-Times perfectly in a manner that Saturday Night Live has been able to capture nationally. He addresses the myriad of columnists and editors writing about Barack Obama, leaving little space for actual news.

Oh how I long for the days of real journalism.

Posted by Biloxi in Obamastan at 7:54 AM EDT

No Comments »

The Baseball Players Association wants to examine the reason why Barry Bonds currently has no contract offers.

I don’t know, could it be because he is the most arrogant, ill-tempered, unfriendly player most people have ever seen? Might it have something to do with the fact he is under indictment? Maybe it is the fact he is a known steroid user despite his denials. The picture on the left is from his pre-steroid days. Notice a slight size difference?

Barry Bonds is bad box office, is it illegal to keep a malcontent user of performance enhancing drugs off of your team? Just wondering…

Further evidence that baseball doesn’t need a union as much as common sense.

Posted by Biloxi in Biloxi Says at 4:17 PM EDT

1 Comment »

If Barack Obama wants us to trust his judgment and elect him to become our 44th President we might start with his personal associations. He seems to be constantly disavowing the words and actions of those close (or formerly close) to him these days. Is it fair to hold a candiate accountable for the actions of his associates? My answer would be no, if they are isolated incidents or beliefs that are not related to the postions taken by said candidate or if the grievous postions in question were unknown to the candidate. I do believe candidates are accountable by association when they express a long held support for the associate.

In Obama’s case the first questionable association is his Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I could repeat the transgressions of the openly racist Rev. Wright but since they have been all over the news in recent days let’s suffice it to say that the good Reverend has expressed a decidedly anti-American and racist bent in many of his preachings including commentary that blames the 9/11 attacks on American intervention and claims that the government imported HIV to decimate the black population. He also can be quoted as saying that God should damn America, not bless her. Obama recently condemned the divisive , anti-American statements from his Pastor in an article at the Huffington Post but still remains a member of the Church and does not disavow the Pastor himself. This is convenient politcal-speak but clearly raises some questions. Can Rev. Wright make these statements and claim to be a force for Christian love and healing? This goes a little farther than Jesus throwing the tax collectors out of the temple after all. It condemns an entire governemnt as well as a race. Can Obama still claim Wright as his religious or spiritual advisor while disavowing the man’s true core beliefs? If so how can he actually accept the advice as much will be based on the same core beliefs Obama has disavowed?

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

This leads us to another question; the beginning of the Obama Presidential campaign was somewhere in January or February of 2007 which would have had Senator Obama attending there for 19 years give or take a couple. What are the odds that he never heard a similar themed sermon in all of that time, if not some of the actual racially charged or anti-American ones? It is a fair assumption that everything he ever heard Pastor Wright speak didn’t always amount to sweetness, light and Christian love considering the content that has been widely revealed already? Whether one agrees with Rev. Wright or not this would certainly cast serious doubt on Barack Obama’s claim to be a uniter of people. Had I ever heard a preacher in any church I attended uttering such hateful pronunciations I would walk out and drop my membership in the church forthwith. A 20 year history, a retiring Pastor and the place of my children’s baptism notwithstanding. Separatism is not a good trait for Saint Obama, the uniter of the free world.

His continued association with Wright alone should turn a critical eye towards Obama’s candidacy but his relationship with accused political fixer and fundraiser extraordinaire, Tony Rezko should bring on the rhetorical klieg lights of critical review. Obama’s interview with the Chicago Tribune outlines his version of their relationship and how the gentleman raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him but never asked a single favor. While this may be true it most certainly raises doubt in his judgment.

And so my relationship to him was as somebody who had always been a supporter, who had always been above board, who had always been gracious to me and my family, who had not offered me gifts or inducements that would lead me to be suspicious of him, and who had supported me, even in times where it was not politically easy for him to do.

Nice story but it it continues with Rezko’s “advisory” role on Obama’s home purchase and Rezko’s subsequent purchase of the lot next door at full asking price. If Obama were able to get his home at $300,000 below asking price and Rezko paid full price for the lot next door, wouldn’t it at least raise a flag? If not, wouldn’t it bring Rezko’s supposed expertise into doubt? A good developer should be able to negotiate better than that as there was the same seller for both properties. This is before Rezko paid 5 digits for the fence to separate the properties and Obama purchased an additional 10 foot wide swath. Even if Obama is telling the truth on his relationship with Rezko, his own admission of poor judgment would cast doubt on his ability to properly assess much more grave situations as President.

His last and most important association is that of his wife Michelle. She also attends Trinity Church with her husband and has recently stated that it took her husband’s candidacy for her to be proud of her country “for the first time in her adult life“. Amazing in its revelatory nature. She also liked to float the theories that she thinks Barack is at risk of being killed by white America, way to extend the old olive branch Michelle.

So three of Obama’s closest associations add up to 2 separatists who at the very least seem ashamed of their country, especially in terms of race relations, and one indicted political influence peddler with whom Barack claims to have used poor judgment is his dealings.

It is not fair to hold Obama accountable for the words and actions every kook or peripheral supporter of his candidacy but it is most certainly acceptable to expect him to be held accountable for explaining how he reconciles the decidedly anti-American or criminal views of some of his closest associates (especially his wife) with his claims of wanting to bring the country together. Audacity of hope indeed.

I suspect Obama has been vague all along because he knows his true feelings won’t sell in Peoria. Only time will tell.

Posted by Biloxi in Liberal Illogic, Politics at 3:09 PM EDT

1 Comment »

The blame has been hot and heavy in the Illinois 14th Congressional District, something I pointed out in my previous post. Many Oberweis supporters (though they be too few to win elections) blamed the lack of an endorsement from his primary opponent, Senator Chris Lauzen as the a prime reason. Some went as far as to claim that Lauzen was instructing his followers to vote Democrat, a charge I found hard to believe. Senator Lauzen took a few moments to defend himself on the Tom Roeser show on WLS radio last night and today he offers this comment on the Illinois Review blog.

“I don’t read these blogs often, but I did Saturday night,” Lauzen said. “A charge like that is false, ridiculously false.”

I suggest we take the good Senator at his word and move on. The objective should be to regain that seat in the fall, whether it be with Jim Oberweis or another candidate. If it is Oberweis, I hope he learns the lessons of this campaign and sticks to the issues instead of demonizing the opponent. The Illinois Republican Party needs to heal itself if we can ever hope for an alternative to the political mess we currently find in the state of Illinois.

Posted by Biloxi in Illinois Politics at 5:11 PM EDT

No Comments »

Low turnout and an unlikeable candidate led to the loss of the long held Congressional seat in the Illinois 14th district. Political newcomer Bill Foster beat perennial candidate Jim Oberweis.

Interesting in the conservative postmortem is the lion’s share of the blame is being placed on the shoulders of Oberweis’ primary opponent, State Senator Chris Lauzen. Lauzen was widely attacked in heavy rotation negative campaigning by the Oberweis camp in the primary, yet was expected to swallow it all and make nice with Oberweis. Call me naive, but I believe it would be hard to forgive and forget such tactics. A caller to Tom Roeser’s WLS AM radio show went as far as to claim that the Lauzen camp was instructed to vote Democrat. If true that would be going a bit far but I have not seen any substantiation on this point. Beyond his non-endorsement of Oberweis and his supporters not coming out in force to vote in the special election for the primary winner, Lauzen did not run in yesterday’s election and can hardly be blamed for Oberweis’ loss.

Oberweis spent millions of his own money in his efforts to win the congressional seat he sought, yet used his resources unwisely by running negative ads that only turned the voters off more than his off-putting personality already had. While I do not live in the Illinois 14th I was inundated with these ads nonetheless. Ads that made me want to scream as I listened to their sneering tone and misguided message. He has to give the voters a reason to vote for him and not merely against the opponent. He spent little time outlining his own agenda and instead attempted to demonize Foster as he had Lauzen earlier.

Jim Oberweis is now a four time loser, a rich man who has repeatedly tried to buy himself elected office but his irritating and insulting campaign tactics coupled with his smug and arrogant persona has kept him from winning elections. Did Lauzen prevent him from winning Senatorial primaries in 2002 and 2004 or the 2006 Gubernatorial primary to Judy Baar Topinka? It seems like Oberweis needs to come out every two years for a thumping or he doesn’t feel right. The man is ideologically sound but has far too many negatives to gain elective office. The fault for the loss of the long Republican held Congressional seat lies not with Lauzen but with Oberweis, his campaign advisers and lastly with the former Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert who quit long before his elected term ended. Were he not a sore loser and a quitter he would have remained in the seat he sought and was elected to in 2006. Even though the Republicans lost control of Congress and he lost his speakership it was his duty to finish the term he requested and was elected to fill. The well documented Congressional turnover was in part brought on by Hastert’s ineffectual leadership concerning the page scandal and corruption investigations.

Oberweis now needs to recast his image before the November elections if he hopes to win the Congressional seat for the next term. He should fire his advisers and try to give the voters a reason to vote for him and not against Foster. He lives in a conservative leaning district that can be won if he exercises a little humility and runs on ideas over rhetoric. If he doesn’t change his approach now he is most certainly exhibiting the true definition of insanity by trying the same thing that has failed four times and expecting a different result.

Come November Oberweis and his apologists will no longer be able to blame their ineffectiveness on Lauzen. It is time for the Oberweis camp to stop dragging an honorable man through the mud and look inward.

Posted by Biloxi in Illinois Politics, Politics at 8:24 PM EDT

2 Comments »

Neil Steinberg of the Obama apologist sheet known as the Chicago Sun-Times and I rarely agree but I read his column daily for a couple of reasons. He is a very talented writer and I appreciate dry wit and good sarcasm, an often lost and misunderstood craft these days. The second compelling reason would fall under the know what the other side is saying so you can properly refute them philosophy. It also would help to reinforce one’s own beliefs and ideological underpinnings by making a person examine and articulate the same.

Friday’s Steinberg column was such an instance. In it Steinberg practices typical liberal class envy while demonizing the rich and stereotyping an entire economic class in the process.

“The very rich are different than you and me . . .” F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote.

“Yes . . .” Ernest Hemingway imagined himself replying. “They have more money.”

A good line, and true enough. But is that all? The rich have more money, but they also often have that particular hardness that allowed them to become wealthy in the first place.

The values that working people cling to — family, tradition, community — are just another line item on the ledger to rich folk. Sometimes, those concerns pay; sometimes, they don’t.

Certainly stereotypes don’t come from nowhere but neither are they always rational and never can they be applied in a blanket manner. Neil can’t help but take a shot at the rich (which can also be considered high producers) while he decides what is the right and responsible thing to do with somebody else’s money. I will use a little stereotyping of my own as I say the liberal response is often to tell others what they can and can’t do with their own, legally begotten income.

The particular beef in this column is billionaire and new owner of the Chicago Tribune , Sam Zell’s intention of selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field, home of the Chicago Cubs and also a Tribune property. Where was the hue and cry when the state allowed the sale of the naming rights of the former Comiskey Park by the Chicago White Sox to US Cellular? That was a tradition as well and not to be overlooked, it was a state owned property used by a privately held ball club. In the current case Zell owns the property and as such is entitled to do as he wishes.

As a lifelong Cubs fan I do feel the sense of tradition behind the Wrigley Field name and would feel strange calling it by any other name. As an American I strongly defend the rights of the people to do as they wish with their own property. Were Steinberg to paint any other group of people with such a broad brush the outcry would be severe. Trash the rich and it flies by under the radar. I’m sure the rich can handle it but the hypocrisy is noteworthy in what is otherwise and overwhelmingly politically correct climate these days.

Posted by Biloxi in Liberal Illogic, Social Issues at 12:16 PM EST

No Comments »