Chuck Norris approves Era laundry commercial for mass consumption, roundhouse kicks Tide in the face.

I'm posting this from my phone. And I'm mobile friendly. Enjoy readers!

Bill Clinton v. Danny Davis Round 1

Former President Bill Clinton has a trip planned for Chicago in 2011. Clinton is supposedly coming to campaign for former chief of staff and mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel.

OK, tangent for a second. Rahm's surname is Emanuel. Stay with me because I just put two and two together and need to get this off my chest. We can't elect him. It would be a religious vote to vote for Emanuel. For those of you who are a little slow, Emmanuel is what they called Jesus. Who does Rahm think he is? The second coming? If he does, then is he now the anti-christ. Maybe we should vote for him to piss off the bible banging religious nuts. Nevermind this entire rant in light of this new evidence. Tangent over. 

Mayoral candidate Danny Davis to Clinton, "Butt out." He has threatened the former President that his relationship with the African Americans would be strained if he were to publicly support Emanuel. 

Ding, ding. It's Apollo (Clinton) v. Rocky (Davis) of the Chicago mayoral scene. So grab your popcorn and order the pay-per-view to watch these two go at it. For those of you keeping track, Apollo beat Rocky the first time. So there's not going to be a real surprise ending.

Davis currently has the African American vote in his pocket with the most support at 21 percent, as reported by the Chicago Tribune earlier today. Emanuel was at a close second with 19 percent. No wonder he wants Clinton out of here. With Clinton's support Emanuel could easily surpass Davis' meager lead. 

Davis told Clinton to take his time and go to Arkansas. He just got out of Arkansas almost two decades ago. Why in the hell would anyone want to go back? Note: I've never been to the state, but I have no desire to go there. So I don't care how nice you think it is. I could tell you Illinois is nice, but I live here so I'm partial. So are you. So don't start. 

Honestly, I don't know what Davis is really afraid of. He's behind in the polls anyway. I don't mean a little behind. He's over 30 percent behind Emanuel. It's not like he's going to gain that ground if Clinton stays away anyway. 

So Davis, quit your squawking. Clinton is probably going to campaign for Emanuel anyway. He's an ex-President. He can do what he wants. It's not going to harm your campaign in anyway because your campaign seems like it can't even get off the ground. 

Round 1: Clinton 0. Davis -1 for being whiney. Clinton wins by default.    

Vick: Future Dog Owner?

That has to be the most ridiculous statement made in the last few news cycles.

For those of you who have lived in a cave within the last four years, I'm speaking of Michael Vick, quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles and convicted dog fighter and ring operative (not to be confused with a villain on NBC's Chuck). Or would it be ring operator? Either way, it's a bad thing for those of you who don't already know.

Of course it won't come true until 2012 when he's released from supervision, but should that even be allowed?

How about this instead: He starts with a beta fish. For those of you who don't know beta fish are fighting fish. They are very territorial and will beat the living hell out of any fish that gets in their space. Let's see if Vick can resist the urge to place other fish in the tank. Then we'll move him up to opossums, another mean and ready to fight animal. Then onto roosters, cock fighting is another illegal sport, and maybe, just maybe, assuming he can resist the urge to fight the rooster, dogs after that. But stuffed dogs. Not real ones.

That's like letting a convicted pedophile adopt a kid. What sense does that really make?

Don't get me wrong. Vicks skills on the field are unquestionable. Yes, he can throw a football, run like a cheetah and avoid tackles. I hear he also has a good eye for recruiting based on his highly illegal recreational activities. But that being said, he should not be allowed to own a dog. No matter how good he is at picking them.

Yes, everybody deserves a second chance to contribute positively to society after being imprisoned. I won't argue with that. But just like we won't let sex offenders live within a certain radius of children, schools or the seminary---and if we do, then we shouldn't because look at the priests we've arrested in recent years over children being molested---we also shouldn't let Vick live within a certain radius of animal shelters, dog tracks or petting zoos. I know dogs don't live in petting zoos, but better to be safe than sorry.

But people can change can't they? The short answer: No, they generally cannot. Sure, he'll be fun-loving and playful with the dog at first. But what if it doesn't perform well at the Westminster Dog Show (because you know with his money he'll buy something pure bred)? He'll see how it performs in the ring, then put it to death if it loses. Odds are it'll be a scrappy little dog like a Jack Russell Terrier---just to prove a point that you can fight with any dog. Yappier than hell, but a lot of bark and little bite. Little imaginary dog never stood a chance.

You'd also think this would have caused a bigger uproar, like my Jack Russell comment probably will. Animal lovers everywhere should have been screaming at televisions, fainting or both. They should have had activists on the air out the yin yang, but alas, the news was buried. Much like many of Vicks former...well you get the idea. No sense beating a dead...yep, I was going there.

You know how I heard about it? It was at the very end of a story on CNN. The story was about President Obama talking to an Eagles big wig about Vick and how he deserved a second chance, etc. The last line stated Vick "expressed desire to own [a dog]." The last damn line! You think they'd lead with that. That's big bad news. It would have huffed and puffed and blew the news day down. Maybe it was in earlier news cylces and I missed it. Maybe they buried it. Maybe I ignored it because it was only on celebrity gossip. Or maybe, just maybe, no one is finally caring about celebrity gossip. But we all know the latter isn't true or Perez Hilton would be out of a job.

I don't think they gave this enough news coverage. It should be a hot button issue for animal rights activists. If you can't be near a child after being convicted of molesting them, then you shouldn't be anywhere near a dog after being convicted of abusing them.

For those of you who are appalled that abuse and molestation are being compared, let's look at one simple fact: Molestation is abuse. Abuse is abuse is abuse. No matter what for it's in, it should be taken seriously. That is why Vick should never be allowed to own a dog.

Just like the old expression says: You can take the man out of dog fighting, but you can't take the dog fighting out of the man.

Merry Christmas Assange

What does the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, get for Christmas? A jail sentence.

OK, it's not really a sentence yet. It's more like being in a waiting room---with bars. But thanks to his sorted history, not his Web site, he's spending quality time with hardened criminals. Maybe if he's lucky he'll get a homemade shiv for Christmas too. 

People are complaining because he's in jail, but think about it. Not just a fleeting thought, but a good long bathroom time thought. Would you want a suspected rapist on the streets of say Chicago or New York? Probably not. 

Sure, he's a viewed as a hero for those of us who are journalists. He's redefining openness in government and has been hailed by Time magazine to have been the best thing to happen to journalism since the Freedom of Information Act. I'm paraphrasing of course, but he was. It says on his Web site. And you can believe everything that's posted on the internet with a "Wiki" title in the address bar.  

That's who I want representing my profession in a public spotlight. A suspected rapist. Take notes Mr. Bill O'Reily. Harassing is for beginners. Hey, NBC 5 Chicago, it makes the Amy Jacobson scandal seem a little ridiculous now doesn't it. All she was doing was wearing a bikini and making a bad lifestyle choice by visiting a man who's wife was missing. Was she trying to seduce him? Maybe, but she never was suspected of raping him. Not that she was a good role model either with poor ethical choices, but at least they weren't criminal charges.

On Dec. 14 Assange was granted bail. On Dec. 14 he was denied bail pending an appeal by the Swedes. Should he be in jail? Well yea, for his charges. That not withstanding and provided he's found not guilty should he be in jail for his Web site? I don't think so. It keeps government honest knowing he and other journalists are still out there. 

Now of course espionage and other factors are still in the equation, but they'll never stick really. It's like the American government is getting worse at hiding things. And with all the practice they've had over the years, you'd think they'd be better at it. 

Sorry Assange, but you don't really deserve to be out of jail yet. What you're doing is a step forward for journalism, but three steps backwards for human nature. 

Obama bends over, America has to take it

People are upset because President Barack Obama decided to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent and are blaming the Republicans.

While it is a Republican deal, it's the Democrats who are still the majority voting to keep these tax breaks for the rich. If they don't want it done, they still don't have to do it. It's not like their jobs are on the line anymore. But it's a compromise that needed to be made in order for those people without jobs to still receive benefits.

Are the Democrats happy about it? No, of course not. To say they are upset would be a major understatement. Why would they be happy about it though? The leader of their party rolled over and allowed something like this to happen. Will they vote for it, probably. But don't expect any of them to send Christmas cards to President Obama.

My point is the majority of congressional Democrats are lame ducks anyway. Why fight for something else when you don't have a job to come back to after the holidays. It's like working at a factory. If tomorrow you were told that you were being replaced by a machine at the beginning of the year, would you work as hard to make sure you kept your job? Probably not because you're going to lose it anyway. That's going to be the Democrat's logic behind allowing this and voting for it. They have nothing to fear anymore and just need to get something done that's worthwhile. Now, I'm not saying the tax break is worthwhile. I'm saying the extension of benefits is.

And furthermore Obama knows he's probably not going to get re-elected if elections were held tomorrow, especially with the turn of events in November. He's trying to make the Right happy so he can get more votes in the general election in 2012, which probably won't happen. He's just fighting an uphill battle at this point and beating his head against a brick wall. There's no way out for him now and he needs to realize that there will probably be no second term. He needs to get back on his agenda instead of catering to the Right because if he doesn't there's no way a Democrat will get within 10 feet of him in 2012. If he's not going to stand on the principles he ran on in the first place, why would anyone stand by him?

Also, Obama isn't solely to blame here, just like George W. Bush isn't solely to blame for the mess we're in, but I'll get to that later. We have to realize that politics is a series of compromises, and while we don't like it, we have to accept the fact that things are done for our own good. That's why we elected these officials in the first place. That's also why the founding fathers decided to have elected officials because the general population isn't well-informed enough to make these tough decisions. That's not an insult. It's just historic fact. So if you don't like what they're doing, then get out and vote.

What I'm ultimately saying is Obama is fighting a losing battle right now and has to do certain things to make people happy. Whether we like it or not, it's for the greater good. He inherited this office with a mess to clean-up and can't really stick to what he set out to do. I'm not saying it's anyones fault we're in this mess because I can't really pinpoint if it was Bill Clinton who put us there or Bush. Either are probable candidates because Clinton withdrew funding from the military that Bush had to put back in, but if we didn't go to one war that wasn't really necessary we wouldn't have spent as much and the deficit wouldn't be sky high. Also, the economy in the tank can't be blamed on any one president. Anyone with a degree in economics can tell you that. But we're in a mess regardless of who's to blame and what actually happened. But a good president leads us as we falter. He's sitting at his desk asking himself "What the hell do I do now?" But when you have a timid party behind you it's hard to actually get anything done. His first 100 days were pretty much wasted when he got into office. He passed a couple of bailouts, which did save businesses whether we liked it or not, but ultimately he didn't get a fair chance to lead at first. Not that he's really leading now.

He is also going back on some of his campaign promises (i.e. the tax breaks), which is fine because it's actually producing something useful. But overall I'd give his presidency so far a C+ and that's only because he did get healthcare reform passed, which has been a difficult task for other presidents. It's not perfect mind you, but it's a start. He also pulled troops out of Iraq, which was definitely necessary.

Obama is a better president than Bush for sure, but that's not saying much. It's like saying Gerald Ford was better than Richard Nixon. That doesn't necessarily make him a top president, but it's better than what we had. So, in essence, we've stepped sideways and are dodging bullets more than we did up and avoided the gun all together.

Disclaimer: Some of this blog was taken from comments I made on Facebook regarding the tax break vote.

Wal-Mart coming to Chicago Lakeview neighborhood

The floodgates have been opened and now Lakeview East might be getting a Wal-Mart store.

For the longest time Chicago was like New York and didn't allow Wal-Mart within their city limits. But with the food deserts in Chicago's poorer neighborhoods, it was time to let one in, which is now becoming a snowball effect. Better yet, a dangerous avalanche. 

Now citizens of Lakeview East are trying to stop it. There's even a Facebook group dedicated to blocking the Wal-Mart, which I'm a member of and they'll probably boot me after reading this. Why am I a member though? Because on principle I don't like Wal-Mart. I think they treat their  employees poorly and they tend to run other stores out of business.  I'd hate to see Threadless or The Alley leave this neighborhood because they can't compete with Wal-Mart. They're also anti-gay from what I understand reading through the posts on the page. Moving them into a primarily gay neighborhood doesn't make a lot of sense.

But that being said and after thinking about it, could it be a good thing for Lakeview East residents? The answer is: Maybe, but don't hold your breath. 

We already have a Best Buy, Borders, Jewel, Starbucks and multiple Walgreens. Let's face it, most of the mom and pop shops are gone when it comes to retail and grocery. It gives the people of Lakeview East another place to shop and maybe buy groceries, which depends on which Wal-Mart goes in. It actually supports the idea of capitalism and forces other stores to be competitive with their prices. I personally don't like the idea of having only Jewel, Aldi and Treasure Island to shop at. It's not the optimal situation, but we can't just say no to one company and let other large chains stay in. I worry about used stores like Reckless Records and Hollywood Mirror going out of business though. That's a concern most people should have. Because why buy it used when you can just as easily buy it new at about the same price.  

It will also bring in jobs. Granted, as I stated before, Wal-Mart as a corporation doesn't treat their employees with the respect they deserve. That not withstanding, it will create jobs in a time when jobs are desperately needed. We have to get the economy back on track somehow and if inviting a large corporation in with the means to hire dozens of employees then so be it, I guess. 

Let's face it, we're a nation of franchises. I've named about a half a dozen franchises also in Lakeview East. I'm not thrilled about having a Wal-Mart in my neighborhood either, but we have to look at the benefits it could have, albeit very iffy benefits at best. Yes, it's a bully corporation for other stores and the employees, but you don't have to shop there. 

If you don't like it, don't give them your business. Shop local, if you can find local shops to still patronize.