After months of politicking in Chicago’s City Council (Da Mare decided to let the plebes decide for a change), Wal-Mart finally got a zoning allowance to build a store on the city’s West Side. Its bid for a store on the South Side was rejected by the Windy City’s feudal lords.

Earlier this month, Wal-Mart seemed to back off the South Side project entirely, thanks to renewed efforts in the City Council to make the store pay a $10 minimum wage and provide health benefits — legal requirements no other grocery store must meet. The rules are meant to protect the local union shop grocery stores’ negotiating position and, purportedly, the workers who lucky enough to be hired by Wal-Mart.

The only problem is that Wal-Mart — for some absurd, obviously capitalist piggish and evil reason — doesn’t like to do business in places where it has to abide by a special set of rules that don’t apply to its competitors. With the ordinances looming, Wal-Mart may even beg off the West Side project.

So much for the hundreds of jobs the stores would bring to these less developed parts of the city. So much for the cheap, convenient shopping that would be available to area residents. Don’t worry, though. The project in the South Suburbs is still a go, according to the Northwest Times of Indiana. South and West siders will just have to keep driving out to the suburbs and pay extra for record-high gas prices. Who cares about them? They’re just consumers, after all.

But of course no one on the South Side would even dream of working at a Wal-Mart without City Council-approved “living wages.” Perhaps Shawala Turner would.

In a Tribune story on the people who would be affected by proposed cuts in night-owl el service, John Bebow tells her story:

It’s close to 4 a.m. now, and showing up is Shawala Turner’s only concern. The 28-year-old rises at 1:45, gets ready for work, and catches a bus to the 63rd Street station. The Red Line takes her to Washington Street, where she transfers to the Blue Line for the long ride out to O’Hare. She’s due there at 4:30. In eight hours, she’ll make about $56, before taxes, for pouring coffee at Starbucks.

“I don’t like coffee,” she says. “I really don’t.”

The proposed Wal-Mart store whose zoning variance was not approved by the noble protectionists in City Council would have been at 83rd Street and Stewart Avenue — three el stops away from Shawala on the red line.

I guess not!

Tim Lee says the Democratic convention was a giant smoke-blowing exercise to cover up that Kerry has no coherent message:

Here’s my theory. Kerry seems to have taken the advice of a New Republic article a few weeks ago to run to the right of Bush on national security, the way Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon in 1960. By turning the tables and accusing Bush of failing to fight the War on Terrorism adequately, the theory goes, Kerry can neutralize his party’s traditional disadvantage on the issue and simultaneously put the administration on the defensive.

But the problem is that Kerry appears not to have a clear message. Kennedy, for example, went on endlessly about the “missile gap” and the inadequacy of American military preparation vis a vis the Russians. Reagan and Clinton had similarly clear and compelling critiques of their respective incumbent opponents, and drew clear contrasts between themselves and the other guy.

Kerry’s message, in contrast, is that Bush lied (sort of, although he doesn’t want to be too explicit about it because that would be “negative”). And that Bush is incompetent (well, maybe, although Kerry doesn’t seem to be too clear on what he’d do differently). And… um… that the world is more complicated than those conservatives say it is. Oh, and that he fought in Vietnam and Bush didn’t! And he got three purple hearts!

Gene Healy writes that Kerry isn’t quite the flip-flopper Dubya & Co. say. Rather, he has consistently favored letting someone else take the heat:

Kerry hasn’t changed his position on Iraq. In October 2002, when the congressional vote was held, Kerry, like most members of Congress, was in favor of punting the question of war or peace to the president and avoiding accountability for the decision. And Kerry remains firmly in favor of avoiding accountability for Iraq today. That tells us something about John Kerry as a candidate. More importantly, it tells us a lot about the health of Congress as a political institution, and about the erosion of Congress’ power to declare war.

And Steve Chapman concludes that after all the bluster, Kerry has been as squarely behind the Iraq debacle as Dubya:

It has been said by many critics that President Bush, after bungling his job in the Iraq war, has stubbornly refused to admit he was wrong. The same goes for John Kerry.

If John Kerry manages to be a slight improvement over Dubya as president, it will be a happy accident.

Millennium Park, Chicago’s new downtown monstrosity — dubbed by Millennium Park by some wags because its $270 million cost to taxpayers is 80 percent more than originally estimated and is three years late — may wind up making a lasting positive mark.

This Trib story highlights folks’ effusive reactions to “Cloud Gate,” a giant shiny metallic structure most have taken to calling the bean for its resemblance to the magical fruit. I hope to take a trip down to the Loop soon and really take a look around at the new digs. But I think the quotes that end Jon Yates’ story very well illustrate the mixed reaction:

Not everybody is a fan, though. Juan Figueroa, 48, sees “Cloud Gate” every day as a security guard for a building across the street on South Michigan Avenue. He said he tries to avoid looking at the structure — and Millennium Park as a whole — because he thinks the cost was too high. …

“I’m totally negative,” he said. “I think they spent way too much money on it, money that could be spent on the homeless and to help people find jobs. … I don’t even look over there. I’m disgusted with all the money they spent on it.”

Others, however, could hardly take their eyes off it Wednesday.

As she ate her lunch under a tree near the sculpture, Kathy Monahan of Oak Park seemed transfixed by it.

“I’ve been trying to think of how to describe it,” Monahan, 57, said as she watched from behind the fence. “It’s better than a mirror because it’s convex. It shows Chicago. It shows the world what the city is.”

This was supposed to be Da Mare’s lasting legacy. In some ways it is. It illustrates the city’s high ambitions and, how corruption and simple incompetence often get in the way. A perfect mirror, indeed.

Much of the libertarian support for John Kerry (whatever little of it there is) is premised on the “block the box” theory that divided government is less harmful overall to liberty. While much that Kery proposes is just warmed-over awfulness, the Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman points out the presumptive Democratic nominee’s support for an initiative that might help reduce porkbarrel spending.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has come up with a way to stop the mutual back-scratching and promote the greater good. He wants to create an independent commission that would examine all the corporate handouts in the federal budget and make a list of those that should be scrapped. But instead of letting Congress and the president pick and choose from the list, they would have to accept or reject them all.

Members would still have to sacrifice items prized by a few constituents, but they’d be able to achieve big budgetary savings in exchange. Although it’s easy to vote to preserve a single item for the folks back home, voting to keep a long list of expensive business goodies is harder. The commission approach was first used for the painful obligation of closing unneeded military bases, and it was a huge success.

Unfortunately, few members of McCain’s party are on board. Steve Moore, who heads the anti-tax Club for Growth, which provides support for conservative Republican candidates, faults congressional Republicans for their selective frugality. “It makes them look like complete hypocrites,” he complains. “They want to get single mothers off welfare but not Archer Daniels Midland,” referring to the politically connected agribusiness giant.

This year, however, at least one prominent Democratic senator is taking a different approach–a guy named John Kerry. As part of his plan to reduce the deficit, he has said, he would “implement the McCain-Kerry Commission on corporate welfare to cut special tax loopholes and pork barrel spending projects.”

This stands in stark contrast to a president who has not vetoed a single spending bill. Not one.

Iraqi “cleric” and gangster Moqtada Sadr announced he’s leaving behind his past as a leader of violent mobs for an even better racket: political office!

Perhaps Iraq really is ready for sovereignty … And with tongue firmly in cheek, here’s the appropriate Dylan lyric to go along with this news:

Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king
There’s only one step down from here, baby
It’s called the land of permanent bliss
What’s a sweetheart like you
Doin’ in a dump like this?

Yep.

Well, duh!

After I finished working Friday, I had occasion to watch a repeat of the Reagan funeral on PBS, immediately followed by live coverage of the interment in Simi Valley, Calif. It was truly absorbing TV, absolutely fitting for a president and first lady who made their names in Hollywood and brought an unparalleled sense of the camera to the White House.

From beginning to end, every moment was calculated to provoke a gut reaction from the American people and to honor as much as possible the Reagan legacy. I must admit: It worked for me.

I, like most libertarians, have mixed feelings about Reagan. His leadership helped precipitate the end of the Cold War — and in dubbing the Soviet Union and evil empire he had the guts to call a spade a spade — but it’s likely that the aging machinery of that communist state and its Eastern bloc were due to crumble soon anyhow.

And the cost of his strategy of unprecedented military buildup to push the Soviets to the negotiating table is still with us in the form of a much larger national debt, which will take generations to pay off. Was it worth it? Did it work? The jury, I think, is still out on that.

On the matters close libertarian hearts — lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government — Reagan had a decidedly mixed record. Yes, he pushed through the biggest tax cut in history, but then he pushed through the biggest tax increase in history, along with two other tax hikes.

In the areas of deregulation and government spending, he didn’t do much at all. He folded quickly on Social Security reform and he never proposed a balanced budget to Congress. And as the Cato Institute’s David Boaz points out, after promising to get rid of two cabinet departments, he actually added two. And of course the Iran-Contra scandal will always be a mark on his presidency.

Still, this cursory examination of Reagan’s actual record skirts the importance of his rhetoric, coming at a time when so many seemed to question the existence of the notion of the American dream. He at least really believed and articulated from the depths of his soul a uniquely American conception of freedom. Tim Lee points to Reagan’s farewell address from the Oval Office as a prime example of this soaring and righteous rhetoric.

In this sense, the Reagan funeral was a magnificent encapsulation of his legacy. It hit all right buttons for me. The amazing scene of 4,000 of the most influential, powerful people in the world gathered in that magnificent cathedral to pay tribute to his life, accented by moving renditions of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “Amazing Grace” was really awe-inspiring.

In spite of myself, I did tear up a couple of times. And then there was the interment ceremony in California, with that wonderful backdrop of the sun sinking behind the hills. The touching personal eulogies of Reagan’s children shed light on the life of an intensely private man. All through this, the camera was an all-seeing witness of the importance of Reagan to all of these people, and to the world. That is how it was intended, and that is how it was effected. It was a process fit for a king, and I half expected Ron Reagan to be coronated when it was all over.

The ultimate moment, however, came when the flag had draped Reagan’s casket was presented to Nancy. She slowly walked to the casket and laid her cheek upon it as she had done several times during the week. But then, knowing this was her last moment with her beloved Ronnie — for better or worse, the country’s last moment with their beloved president — she hesitated. She teared up and didn’t want to let go — nobody did. That’s when I lost it completely, and started blubbering like a baby. I wonder how many others did.

It took the coaxing of her entire family to get her to step away. And yet the country, and certainly the alleged Reagan heir Dubya — deserted Reagan’s legacy if not his casket long ago. Reagan may never have proposed a balanced budget, but Dubya’s never even vetoed a single bill. I guess every dollar Congress has appropriated in the last three years was perfectly justified.

From foreign policy to trade to civil liberties to just plain decency and honesty, Dubya’s no heir to Reagan’s memory, he’s a traitor to the man’s legacy. But he’s worse, because in mid-treacherous stride, he has the gall to pretend that he has inherited the Reagan mantle.

Reagan said his greatest accomplishment was that he made Americans believe in themselves again. At the ineffable, intangible level at which we live our public life that may have been true, as grandiose a claim it is for a politician to make. Dubya didn’t fumble the ball after 9/11, but what has he done since then? A long chain of abuses culminating in Abu Ghraib have shattered the country’s sense of faith (however misguided it was to begin with) in his leadership.

Where Reagan appealed to Americans’ sense of optimism and love of liberty, Dubya’s appealed to their fears. At least Reagan’s heart was in the right place, and at least he tried. At least he tried.

Of last night’s speech by Dubya, Andrew Sullivan writes:

I also liked the way the president unapologetically linked what we are doing in Iraq with the broader war on terror. Critics like to believe that Saddam was somehow utterly unconnected to broader terror, had no potential to enable it, and was too secular to cooperate with al Qaeda. They’re wrong on all counts. In the wake of 9/11, a Saddam-Zarqawi alliance would have been a terrible threat.

Notice the misdirection play, there? Of course a Saddam-Zarqawi alliance would have been a terrible threat, but the key phrase there is “would have been.” There was no such alliance, and on that the war critics are absolutely right to say Hussein was “utterly unconnected to broader terror.” Sullivan’s essentially saying: if the facts were different, the critics would be wrong. But the facts are what they are, and he and his ilk are the ones in error.

Instead of a hypothetical threat, now we have a real disaster.

(Also posted to Stand Down).

Steve Chapman writes:

Lots of presidents have had musical talents. Harry Truman and Richard Nixon played the piano in the White House. Bill Clinton played the saxophone on TV. George W. Bush whistles past the graveyard.

Ouch.