@Randem

So I’m walking back from Home Depot — it’s maybe 10 blocks through the city for me — and as I cross Broadway a man comes from behind me and says “you should find an ash tray, or quit smoking, or something, you loser.”

Well geez, that was pretty hostile. Naturally, I fired back, “hey, go preach to someone who gives a shit, asshole.”

His response? “Hey, screw you, ya loser. Why don’t ya think about that, huh? Think about why I said that to you, ya loser.”

And my silver-tongued response, naturally, was to make all the curious onlookers laugh: “I already know why you said it. Your father was an alcoholic and your mom didn’t hug you enough, and you’re filled with the rage of 45 years of virginity, so the only thing that makes you feel better is calling people names as you pass them on the street. Who’s the loser?”

And yes. People did laugh.

But I did think about it. I did, as he said, think about why he might say that to me. Who knows? Maybe some of my cigarette ashes flew into his eye — that would be unpleasant. Or maybe I didn’t put out my butt all the way and he burned his big, gross, sausage toes on it as he walked by in his stupid looking man-sandals. Who knows? Whatever the case, it was more than coincidence, because he was upset.

What stands out most, however, is that this 40-year-old virgin thought the way to make himself understood was to cuss people out. It’s kinda silly when you think about it, because if he had said, “hey, man, your cigarette ash burned me… you might want to be more careful,” I would have felt sorry and immediately taken the opportunity to apologize and we could have had a semi-pleasant interaction. And moreover, I would have been more careful about whatever it was from that point on, because I’d be concerned for the people around me.

But instead, he never told me what his problem was. All he did was call names and make a fool of himself. And now, every time I’m near that street corner, I’ll be looking for him so I can flick a cigarette butt at him. Mission accomplished, eh douchebag?

So my point is this… anger really doesn’t solve anything. Nevermind the fact that people have more respect for a man who is in control of his emotions… but how about the thought that being calm about expressing his problem might have actually gotten him a better result? I, for one, learned from this experience that it’s important to express myself in a positive, friendly manner the next time I’m inconvenienced by a stranger.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun ownership today in the matter of District of Columbia v. Dick Heller, saying “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

This has Chicago politicians all in a huff, because this will inevitably spawn challenges against a similar handgun ban that has been in place here for the past 26 years. Well I say “quit your fucking whining.”

As the old saying goes, if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. It’s hard to argue with that. Making it illegal to own a gun only means that people who follow the law will stop owning guns. But for those who regularly scoff the law, a ban means nothing.

The Chicago Tribune quotes a related legal brief:

“Chicago, like other big cities, has a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms,” the brief states. ” Chicago Police Department statistics show that from 2004 to November 2007 there were 43,685 firearms-related violent crimes in the city.”

So by the city’s own police statistics admit that over an (admittedly ambiguous) period of approximately 3-4 years, there were 43,685 gun-related crimes committed in a city where gun ownership has been illegal for a two-and-one-half decades! We’re talking about somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 per year!

This quotation mentions nothing of whether or not the victims in these crimes also owned firearms, but I’m willing to assert that they probably did not. Why? Because it’s usually the law-abiding citizen who is a victim, while it is criminals (by definition) who commit crimes.

Isn’t it easy to think that these criminals might have an inflated sense of bravado, knowing how strongly the odds suggest that whomever they point a gun at will probably be unarmed? And isn’t it also easy to imagine that they might think twice if they knew there was a good chance of their intended victim being armed and capable of defending him- or herself?

The way to reduce crime is not to ban guns, it’s to encourage them. Admittedly, this may initially result in some fatal escalations. But when the gang-bangers and the burglars realize that they don’t just have to be faster than the cops (they have to be faster than a speeding bullet!), they might reconsider their activities.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

I was just playing with this neat little data-mapping tool that displays housing costs and transportation costs mapped across regions. When looking at the Chicago area, I made a few interesting observations.

My first observation was, of course, the one they’re trying to get you to make: when you factor in transportation costs, living in the city is more affordable than living in the suburbs. I don’t doubt this to be the case, considering the astronomical cost of owning a vehicle, insuring the vehicle, and fueling the vehicle, in comparison to the very affordable cost of public transportation in a city like Chicago. Getting rid of my car has worked out to be one of my best financial decisions.

On a strictly monetary scale, living within the city of Chicago and using only public transportation appears to be the most affordable choice. It would be naive to accept that data alone, however, since other considerations will apply, for instance, if you have children. I’m sure we all have our theories about schools, parks, and crime in cities vs. suburbs, but all I’m going to say about that is that those data are quite absent from the mapping tool.

My next observation, however, was that the map colors didn’t invert as I expected them to when I switched to only mapping housing cost without transportation. In other words, based on their data, housing costs are higher in the suburbs regardless of transportation costs. (Granted, the data is mapped as a percentage of median income, rather than by dollar amount, but it seems that median income should be a reasonable number to use, since it factors out the extremely high and extremely low numbers on either side.)

I was rather surprised to see that. I’ve always been under the impression that the suburban home was less expensive than the urban home. That may still be true by the square foot of living space, but it’s not true on overall cost of ownership — with or without the cost of transportation.

And the final observation I made was that suburban life appears far less sustainable, financially speaking. The graph separates areas into two groups: those where housing costs 0-30% of median income, and those where housing costs more than 30% of income.

The rule of thumb, for what seems like forever, has been that your mortgage payment should cost no more than 25% of your income. Before the sub-prime mess started, that was the rule banks used to decide whether or not to approve a loan.

So even if we round that number off to 30%, we’re still looking at a scary proposition: most of those families in the suburbs are in over their heads just on housing cost. Then, if you factor in transportation costs (which the map allows for up to 48% combined) and the rising cost of gasoline, it’s hard to imagine how suburban families make ends meet each month.

Depending on how this whole sub-prime mess turns out, this could easily foretell the coming of lots of suburban slums, even while the inner city (long considered a euphemism for a slum) becomes the high-end place to live. What I’m really curious about now is what roles crime and education will play in all of this.

After riding the back of Thomas Jones all the way to the Super Bowl, the Bears repayed him by letting him go, putting all their eggs in the basket of top draft pick Cedric Benson.

This is a classic case of holding on to a bad investment, no different than the phenomenon seen every day in the stock market, where investors watch a stock plummet and, rather than dumping it to minimize losses, they hold on to it as if it owed them something.

Benson did was all bad investments do - he continued to disappoint. He’s been the league’s worst rusher, with a dismal 3.4 yards-per-carry average. Meanwhile, Thomas Jones is on pace for a 1000-yard season in spite of his new role on the anemic New York Jets offense.

Poetic justice came Sunday. The Bears offense struggled all day, with only the heroic efforts of Devin Hester keeping them in the game at all. In the second half, the Broncos took a commanding 14-point lead. But then Benson went down with a season-ending injury.

Amazingly,  as soon as Benson was out of the game, a Bears offense that had only made two first-downs in three quarters, suddenly marched down the field and scored a triumphant touchdown. Then, on their next possession, they did it again, tying the game and going on to win in overtime.

When you take off the bad wheel, the bus starts rolling again.  Adrian Peterson (unlike his namesake in Minnesota) is no stud, and I’ll bet the Bears wish they’d kept Thomas Jones. But perhaps now that Benson is off the field they might start winning again. Hopefully it’s not already too late for their season.

I had the pleasure of working with a very pleasant first-time model this weekend, and made some nice photos in the process.

Rumor has it that the White Sox are considering trading third-baseman Joe Crede to the Yankees for outfielder Johnny Damon. The Chicagoist seems to think it’s not only likely, but a good idea:

This trade seems to make a lot of sense for both teams. While Crede hit 30 home runs for the Sox in 2006, he missed most of ‘07, so Josh Fields filled in and proved he’s too good to keep down in the minors any longer. That make Crede expendable. And the Yankees need a third baseman now that Alex Rodriguez has opted out of his contract.

Meanwhile, the Sox are desperate for both a center fielder and a leadoff hitter — both rolls that Damon can fill. The Yankees have Melkey Carbrera waiting in the wings.

I proudly wore my Cubs jersey in public today. And I accessorized it will a lovely brown bag.

Some people will blame Piniella for pulling Zambrano too early in game 1, but I think that’s misplaced. The reason they’re saying that is because Marmol gift wrapped two runs, and if Zambrano hadn’t been pulled, Marmol wouldn’t have been in there. But let’s be realistic - Marmol had an unreal ERA for most of the year, and he decided to fall apart at the end.

But the real choke happened in game two. After Lilly’s meltdown on the mound, the message was sent. The team deflated right on the spot. It was reminiscent of the deflation they dealt themselves after the Bartman incident, only this time there was no fan to be a, ahem, scapegoat. They can only blame themselves.

Still, there’s reason to have heart. Lou Piniella came to Chicago and took a team that finished the previous season in last place to the playoffs. Another year or two with him at the helm should be long enough for the team to build that bond that carries a team to a championship.

So repeat after me, Chicago. “Oh well. Maybe next year.”

The Lovable Losers have been doing a lot of winning this year, and Cubs fans have been hearing “Go, Cubs, Go” to their hearts’ content. There is a little bit of history behind the song that I find interesting.

“Go, Cubs, Go” was written by Chicago folk legend Steve Goodman — two-time Grammy winner, and perhaps most well-known for his song “City of New Orleans”.

Goodman was a die-hard Cubs fan. Literally. He was born after the Curse of the Billy Goat, and died of leukemia at the age of 36. The Cubs never played a single playoff game in his entire lifetime.

But in 1984, they were playoff-bound, and Goodman was asked to sing the national anthem for their first post-season game. He never got to see it. Goodman died eleven days earlier, and Jimmy Buffett filled in, dedicating the song to Goodman.

Now, I will always think of Goodman when I hear his song sung after a Cubs victory. He was a real die-hard fan. And some of his ashes were scattered at Wrigley Field.

Baseball season’s underway
Well you better get ready for a brand new day
Hey, Chicago, what do you say
The Cubs are gonna win today.
They’re singing …
Go, Cubs, go
Go, Cubs, go
Hey, Chicago, what do you say
The Cubs are gonna win today
Go, Cubs, go
Go, Cubs, go
Hey, Chicago, what do you say
The Cubs are gonna win today.
They got the power, they got the speed
To be the best in the National League
Well this is the year and the Cubs are real
So come on down to Wrigley Field.
We’re singing now …
Go, Cubs, go
Go, Cubs, go
Hey, Chicago, what do you say
The Cubs are gonna win today
Go, Cubs, go
Go, Cubs, go
Hey, Chicago, what do you say
The Cubs are gonna win today.
Baseball time is here again
You can catch it all on WGN
So stamp your feet and clap your hands
Chicago Cubs got the greatest fans.
You’re singing now …
Go, Cubs, go
Go, Cubs, go
Hey, Chicago, what do you say
The Cubs are gonna win today
Go, Cubs, go
Go, Cubs, go
Hey, Chicago, what do you say
The Cubs are gonna win today.

With a 3.5 game lead and only 6 games left to play, the Chicago Cubs would have to have a meltdown of chaotic proportions to lose their division. Not that it isn’t possible…

Popular opinion among Cubs fans — myself included — is that they’re always great, or at least close to it, so it might come as a surprise (it did to me) that this will be only the fourth time that the Cubs finish in first place since the Billy Goat curse in 1945.

From 1876-1945, the Cubs were one of the dominant franchises in baseball. During that period of 69 years they posted an incredible 51 winning seasons, finishing in first place 16 times, appearing in 10 World Series and winning two of them.

That was before October 6, 1945. Game four of the World Series against the Tigers, and the Cubs led the series 2-1. “Billy Goat” Sianis bought two tickets to the game, one for him and one for his pet goat, Murphy. Wrigley denied the goat entrance and Sianis cursed the team.

In the 61 years since the Curse of the Billy Goat, they have had only 15 winning seasons, and finished in first place only 3 times. They have neither won nor even appeared in the World Series. They haven’t even won a Pennant.

This year, they’re staring at first place. The bullpen is looking good and the big bats have finally woken up. And with Lou Piniella at the helm, the team occasionally even looks like they know what they’re doing.

Over the years, the Sianis family has claimed the curse lifted. Will this be their year?