Is Illinois losing people?

That's what the Illinois Policy Institute says in a piece titled, "Illinois had record mass exodus in 2014" (my emphasis):

Illinois logged a record exodus in 2014, sustaining a net loss of 95,000 people to other states, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

95,000 people? That sounds like a lot! Why, it would be like losing the equivalent of the whole city of Waukegan. Boom! Gone. Out the door!

Illinois’ net loss of 95,000 residents is so large that it defies belief, and speaks to the fact that Illinois has the worst job-creation rate in the Midwest in 2014, with food-stamp enrollment also hitting new record highs. Although Illinois has been a net loser of residents as far back as such data are recorded, never has the state lost so many people in one year.

Wow! Hang on a sec; I have to do a little math here. Let me take out my calculator and divide 95,000 by  12,880,580. Let's see: .0073754. Wait a minute; is that less than one percent? Is .007 a . . . rounding error? If so, couldn't the exact opposite happen just as easily? And, more important, would it even matter?

Hmmm. Where do you suppose all those people went?

...states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, Colorado and the Carolinas happily herded more of the nation’s talent pool across their borders.

Low cost states with nice weather? Gee, who would go there? Retirees? (My sister and her husband, faithful Fox "News" watchers, are always talking about moving to low-tax Indiana. They recently bought a new house in Naperville; I guess they like it here.)

The stunning data underscore an important point as power shifts to Governor-elect Bruce Rauner: Illinois cannot raise taxes on a population that is shrinking due to massive numbers of people leaving.* We know the number one reason Illinoisans leave is for better job and business opportunities, according to Gallup.

* You mean that rounding error?

I saw Gov. Rauner on TV the other day talking about how everyone is going to have to sacrifice in order to right the ship here in Illinois. He then went on to list those who will actually be doing the sacrificing -- it's mostly the poor and middle class. (Hint: when politicians talk about "sacrifice," it's usually someone else who will be doing the sacrificing. And, as in this case, mostly the supporters of Rauner's opponent. Funny how that works, isn't it?)

So who is this Illinois Policy Institute, anyway? According to Progress Illinois:

But the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and ProgressNow's new study, which includes a local report for Illinois, maintains that SPN and its affiliates in every state are big pushers of public policy backed by the pro-corporate American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and other right-wing funders, including organizations with ties to the billionaire Koch brothers.

Now that's a surprise.

Rod McKuen, poet, lyricist...

... and songwriter, died at age 81.

If you weren't around in the 1960s, it would be hard to describe the ubiquitous, gravelly-voiced, low-black Converse All Star-wearing beatnik. But, in today's parlance, McKuen was a bit of "a thing" back then.

Now that the economy...

...is recovering, many Republicans have turned to criticizing President Obama over foreign policy. (Except when they are suddenly -- and comically -- talking about income inequality. What do they propose to do about it, cut taxes on the rich?)

So the world we are told -- particularly Ukraine and the Middle East -- is in turmoil! And whose fault is it? (Hint, hint: the black guy in the White House.)

But set aside Ukraine for a minute. (Ask yourself, would you be willing to see your son die there? I didn't think so.)

Let's focus on the Middle East instead. It's a complicated place, to say the least. And it's unstable (and always will be). But, to the United States, our interests can be boiled down to two essential things: Israel's security and the price of oil. The rest of it is just a sideshow.

Do we like this guy? Or that guy? Who cares? What does it mean for the security of Israel and/or the free flow of oil to the West? That's all that really matters. Those two objectives are what we've been trying to balance since the end of World War II. Everything we've done in the region has ultimately been in support of those two goals.

Now, as I said, it's complicated, but what if there was one objective measurement of stability in the region? Wouldn't that be convenient? While it's hard to quantify Israel's security (although they're still there, right?), the price of oil is obvious to anyone who drives a car. And, in case you're one of the few who take public transportation or actually walk on two legs, the price of gasoline at the pump has plummeted in the last six months or so. Why? A lot of reasons. Will it stay down? Probably not. But for now, the most objective measurement of stability in the Middle East is telling us we're not doing so badly over there after all.

P. S. By the way, how do you think three of our biggest adversaries in the world -- Russia, ISIS and Iran -- feel about cheap oil?

I'll be in Bronzeville...

...tonight for another classic Catholic League matchup (this time South Division): St. Rita at Hales Franciscan.

The Mustangs (15-2, 7-0 conference), are ranked No. 2 in the Sun-Times and MaxPreps and No. 3 in the Tribune. Ray Manzarek's alma mater is led by Kentucky-bound Charles Matthews, whom Michael O'Brien of the Times is touting for Player of the Year.

As best as I can tell, St. Rita beat Curie, Simeon, Homewood-Flossmoor, Rockford Auburn, Kenwood, De La Salle, Indianapolis Arsenal Technical (IN) and Chaminade (MO). That's an impressive list! That last team, the Red Devils, is ranked No. 2 in the state of Missouri by MaxPreps. The Mustangs also split with St. Joseph and lost to Christ the King (NY), which is ranked No. 5 in the state of New York by MaxPreps.

Hales (17-2, 6-1), meanwhile, is ranked No. 4 in the Times, No. 6 in the Trib and No. 11 in MaxPreps. The Spartans beat Hillcrest, Thornwood, Fenwick, Marquette (MI), Bolingbrook, Rich South and De La Salle, while losing to St. Joseph by four points and St. Francis Borgia (MO) by only a point.

The big question -- besides where in Hyde Park will I have dinner before the game -- is can Hales knock off mighty St. Rita at home?

P. S. I'll be live-tweeting the contest @BoringOldWhtGuy. See you there!

Can you imagine...

...having to introduce yourself as Jerry Sandusky?

And the Tom Toles...

...cartoon of the day.

Karl Rove is always...

...a great window into the collective mind of the Republican establishment. I don't think anything he says or writes is off the cuff or by accident; rather it's all very purposeful.

With that in mind, it's interesting to see who Rove favors, doesn't favor and who he thinks Republicans shouldn't even be talking about for the 2016 nomination. Rove's piece in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, "What to Watch in the GOP Jockeying for 2016," makes for good tea-leaf reading.

First are the candidates Rove would like to see run and get early support: Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Dr. Ben Carson. Why those six? My guess is that the first four would be acceptable to Rove as the eventual GOP standard-bearer. Huckabee, meanwhile, would be the requisite evangelical Christian candidate who runs out of money soon after Iowa, and Carson would be the token nut job (there's always one; remember Michele Bachmann?) who would ultimately flame out without taking anyone (or the party) down with him.

In Rove's next category are Sarah Palin, Rand Paul and Chris Christie. We already know how Rove feels about Palin: I once heard a political analyst on TV say he "despises" her. So what does that mean for Paul and Christie? Well, Paul's problems are obvious: the establishment sees him as too much of a wild card. They hated his father and fear that his son could somehow win the nomination and pull a Barry Goldwater (taking down other Republican candidates for the House and Senate with him). As for Christie, well, Rove must know something about him that we don't. I read that Romney's vice presidential vetting team reported back to their boss something to the effect, "Don't touch him; he's got too much baggage." So, for whatever reason, the New Jersey governor is also unacceptable to Rove.

The third category is the group Republicans shouldn't even consider: Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal. The first two are obvious Bush family rivals from Texas. Santorum could be someone Rove likes personally but just doesn't take seriously as a candidate. And Jindal may be like Christie: someone whose qualifications/electability are lacking and we should just take Rove's word for it.