Month: November 2016

Jumping for joy about Cubs, Role of the tax increase in Illinois, A Knife in the Dark

Heavenly joy, earthly angst, bloody murder

* Priest homilist yesterday a.m. in Andersonville, in re: “more joy in heaven over one repentent sinner,” etc., likened that joy to the joy manifested by Cub fans jumping up and down outside Wrigley the night before. Which I thought was a nice shot.

* Meanwhile, back in The Village, in the Oct. 18 CLAIM meeting at Julian, Rep. Lilly unhesitatingly recommended higher taxes.

Asked what “tough vote” she might cast to raise needed revenue, she right away said she would vote to “raise taxes,” calling it a “very difficult” vote. She and Sen. Harmon, “did budget revenue rally,” she said, and came up with “good ideas,” all of which “will have impact on some entity in our state.” We’d love to hear those ideas! . . . .

Read the rest here. . . .

Vote for the creep, says James Bowman

Fellow with my name speaks for both of us:

Someone said to me way back in June, after the nominees of the two parties had clinched their respective nominations, “Well, are you voting for the crook or the creep?” I assumed that there was intended in the question an allusion to that memorable election for governor of Louisiana in which the once-indicted but not at that point convicted former Governor Edwin Edwards ran against David Duke and supporters of the former sported bumper stickers reading: “Vote for the crook. It’s important.” At the time of my friend’s question, we didn’t yet know either quite how crooked Hillary Clinton was or quite how creepy Donald Trump was — though there were plenty in both parties who affected to think him as bad as David Duke — but of course one instantly understood which candidate was which.

And I had no doubt as to the only possible answer. I thought then as I do now that the implications for the Republic of electing the crook were much more seriously troubling than those of electing the creep. The corruption of the Department of Justice under President Obama was already evident, as was his own preference for lawless governance by executive order. Who could possibly suppose that the breakdown in the rule of law would be arrested by a President Hillary Clinton? And this was before we knew with as much surety as we do now that she would have to continue and increase the politicization of the Justice Department (not to mention the Supreme Court) if only for her own self-protection?

Nicely said, Mr. Bowman.