According to reports, a trendy Chicago suburb voted "the sexiest suburb in America" may be on the verge of banishing from its venues of commerce those not conforming to arbitrarily contrived body aesthetics. Lane Bryant, a retailer known for marketing clothing to full-sized women, has been denied the opportunity to open a store in a development called "The Village Of Oak Park".
Before the hypercapitalists decide to slit my throat as they are wont to do whenever anyone dares to question a decision made by big business, it must be noted that the decision to deny Lane Bryant the retail space was not made by a private sector firm or entrepreneur but rather by the committee managing the village, an entity quasigovernmental in nature.
The bureaucratic mouthpiece for the community association told the press that, "Lane Bryant is not the kind or quality of shop that is desire for development," and, "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands ||
09/01/2006 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If obesity is not a 'choice' then it is an affliction. If you play the victimhood game then it's not their fault. Therefore it appears someone is in direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Sic a dog on a dog. Lawyers at 50 meters in the court of first filing.
#8
I live in Oak Park. That's my village. It's one of the bluest suburbs in a very blue state.
This entire article is crap.
Lane Bryant and other retailers aren't being denied entry into the village because of some 'discrimination' against plump people (if it were true, I would have been evicted). The problem is much more basic: a village board thinks that it has the 'right' to decide what sort of retailing experiences we should have.
Background: 30 years ago we had a thriving small downtown, though people at the time said was better 30 years before that (and no doubt people then thought it was better long before that). We had some major retailers pull out and the downtown went into the semi-dumpster. So they mall'd it to eliminate cars. Then they de-mall'd it to bring cars back. Then they built parking. Then they moved the parking. The village next door put in an upscale strip mall across the street. So we did the same (didn't realize we needed all those cell phone stores). The village has been buying out old buildings, abandoned lots, etc., and trying to repackage them. One such lot was turned into the building in question. I've walked past it, it's pretty nice.
Now they're trying to get chic big-box stores without the big-box problems. Lane Bryant doesn't fit. They'd love a Nordstrom's, a Needless Markup Neiman Marcus, etc. They'd love chic stores but the chic stores won't come -- there's a reason why they go to the big malls (e.g., Oakbrook). And they're afraid that if they go 'down-market' now that the chic stores won't ever come.
It's isn't fat people. It's just that Lane Bryant is down-market.
They're not bigots. They're just snobs. What a relief!
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/01/2006 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Just what I needed. One more reason not to go to Flatland.
#10
Thanks for the info Steve. It does eeem a bit of a stretch to go from snob to fatty hater. But don't you think that influences their thinking at least a little?
#13
I didn't realize Lane Bryant was "downmarket"...have you seen their prices? They are equivalent to Nordstrom, Field's, and Carson Pirie Scott -- since when does the fact that so-called, big name-small initialed designers like DK and CK don't make "fat" clothes, and therefore can't be found in this particular store make Lane Bryant "downmarket"?
It's this whole "covenented community" ideal that the entire world of suburbia is moving toward, in order to "protect their families" (from....? diversity? the real world? *gasp* above ground swimming pools???) that is to the detriment of the actual spirit of community in the first place. Stop telling me where to shop; how high I can build my fence; and what color flowers I can plant... but I angrily digress...
#14
""Lane Bryant is not the kind or quality of shop that is desire for development," and, "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market.""
Con scholars: equal protection argument?
Posted by: Mark E. ||
09/01/2006 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#15
"We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market."
#16
I didn't realize Lane Bryant was "downmarket"...have you seen their prices?
Maybe they mean, "They sell clothes designed for small, cutesy teenagers to large women and the result is an aesthetic nightmare." That's why I don't shop there anymore. They hardly have anything simple and dignified, it's all Britneyfied. (And the simple, dignified stuff they have is in hideous colors. So there.)
Now they're trying to get chic big-box stores without the big-box problems. Lane Bryant doesn't fit. They'd love a Nordstrom's, a Needless Markup Neiman Marcus, etc. They'd love chic stores but the chic stores won't come -- there's a reason why they go to the big malls (e.g., Oakbrook). And they're afraid that if they go 'down-market' now that the chic stores won't ever come.
It's isn't fat people. It's just that Lane Bryant is down-market.
They're not bigots. They're just snobs. What a relief!
I think I'll open a nakid wimmins store, Big-medium and/or little boxes.
Posted by: Piggy Human ||
09/01/2006 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
We want a more broad based retailer
Doesn't Lane-Bryant sell to women who are "broad based"? [ducks]
#23
--For example, in Hyattsville, Maryland, subsidized housing is being set aside for so-called "struggling-artists" even though hardly anyone else either can afford the dilapidated housing ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 with tax bills over $3000 a year--
After more than a decade of losing elections to Democrats, after three straight presidential losses to Franklin D. Roosevelt -- the man conservative Republicans loved to hate -- the scent of victory was at last in the air for the GOP.
But there was a problem, and a big one at that. The previous December 7th America had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. The attack was a disaster, killing 2,471 military and civilians and destroying a considerable portion of the U.S. Navy. For the second time in just over twenty years the country was now at war. Not only were we fighting the Japanese but the Germans and the Italians too.
In the partisan camps of the Republican Party there was considerable feeling that the fault for this lay personally with FDR. Some were convinced he either knew the attack was coming and let it happen to plunge the country into the war, or that he should have known and was simply incompetent. The man, they believed, was neither very bright nor very honest. Battlefields were now erupting in strange countries literally all over the world -- in Europe, Africa, Asia. So in circumstances like this, how does a political opposition approach the upcoming election?
Savage FDR? Run on a campaign of "Roosevelt lied and people died"? Should they go out and tell the American people just how dangerously incompetent the man was, that the best thing to do was make peace with Hitler and Japan's Hirohito, then elect Republicans who would simply force FDR to bring home the boys and let the rest of the world cope with chaos? After all, a few years earlier FDR himself had turned back an ocean liner filled with 937 Jews escaping the looming Holocaust. The idea of not making Hitler, Hirohito or Mussolini any angrier than they were was certainly one approach.
The Republicans did none of the above. Instead, with the President on the political ropes at last, with a burgeoning team of attractive GOP candidates all over the country they did something else.
They rallied to FDR.
"House Republicans State War Support" blared the New York Times as the election campaign heated up on September 23, 1942. Campaigning vociferously against FDR's domestic policies, the congressional Republicans issued what the Times described as a ten-point "Loyalty Declaration." What did the GOP tell the nation? That they would give the President so many of them detested "loyal, wholehearted and patriotic support in the war." They would be as one with FDR in opposing "any attempts to negotiate peace or the consideration of any peace terms until our arms have won such a decisive victory that we, together with our Allies, are able to dictate the peace terms."
Period.
There was no mention of an "exit strategy." Good thing too. One White House political ally, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (the CIO -- half the precursor to today's AFL-CIO), coached by FDR's team, passed a resolution as the campaign opened on September 1st calling on Americans to support FDR's policy "as the country prepares itself for the final gigantic drive that will carry our Armies to Berlin in 1942." As if! Allied troops didn't make it to Berlin until 1945, a full three years later. As for FDR's "exit strategy"? The U.S. is still there right now -- sixty-one years since war's end.
House Republicans weren't the only Republicans supporting FDR in 1942. Republican candidates were adamant in falling in behind the man they practically lusted to defeat.
In New York, gubernatorial candidate Thomas E. Dewey campaigned at the Cortland County Fair in rural upstate by praising the sons and daughters of farmers for working hard to produce food supplies for the war effort. He contrasted the 4-H club with the "One H, All for Hitler or All for Hirohito" club. In Connecticut the playwright and congressional candidate Clare Boothe Luce pledged herself to "total victory," saying that the fight ahead would mean "a hard war." She did not hesitate to be graphic. The horrors that were to come would include "men maiming, mutilating and burning each other and blasting each other into eternity, with women and babes buried under bombed homes, with whole peoples starving and with American seamen going down in torpedoed ships and American fliers crashing to death in flames." Running for Governor of Connecticut Raymond Baldwin stated flatly that "[t]he President of the United States is our Commander in Chief. Because we are Americans before we are Republicans, we will back him in the conduct of the war. His success is our success and we want him to succeed." At the Republican National Committee, Chairman Joseph Martin pledged "100 percent support of the war effort." And on it went with campaigning Republicans across the country.
Was there criticism of FDR on the war? Of course. Luce accused him of fighting a "soft" war and demanded a harder response to the Nazis and Japanese. Martin's deputy said the President had bungled the war effort, should be stronger in its prosecution, and that the entire purpose of an opposition party was to keep an eye on the party in power. There were demands for having a "unified command" of the military (a call that would result after the war in the creation of the modern Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
Democrats responded by accusing various Republican congressional incumbents of isolationism, of having cut-and-run from world affairs in the 1930s when something could have been done to defeat Hitler and stop the Japanese. Senator Joseph Guffey, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, asked all Senate candidates to concentrate on the war, saying that, in the words of the Times, "creation of dissensions and disunity would only play into the hands of Hitler." Guffey added: "Winning the war is our uppermost issue."
As America readies for the traditional Labor Day kickoff of this year's election campaign, a look back tells us the world has certainly changed in 2006. In 1942, Republicans and Democrats both understood the dangers the country and the world faced.
What happened in 1942?
The Republicans won the election, gaining 44 new House seats and 10 in the Senate, not quite a majority, but erasing FDR's control. Dewey won in New York and was instantly bannered as a presidential sure thing. GOP gubernatorial candidates won across the country.
What was FDR's reaction? The news account of his post-election press conference reported FDR "laughs." Why? Said the headline: "Assumes New Congress is for Winning, So Why Should Poll Make Any Difference?"
And the Nazis and the Japanese? The so-called Axis Powers? What was their response? The New York Times editorial page trumpeted "an admission from Berlin that it would be 'harboring an illusion' to expect the Republican victory to bring any change whatever in the policy of the United States." Focusing on the silence of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, the paper concluded: "His silence is proof of the fact that we have made the unity of our purpose apparent to our enemies."
Yes, we certainly are-- a long way down. And I fear that not too long from now, a couple million of us are likely to pay a horrible, fiery price for the disunity the Democratic Party has cynically contrived in a bid for cheap political gain.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/01/2006 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Democrats are just too childish to be near leavors of power. And they LIE.
#4
"Democrats are just too childish to be near leavors of power. And they LIE."
Yep. Lying is SOP for them. I believe they lie with the same rationale that the terrorists and Islamic radicals use:
We're right.
We know we're right and those who oppose us are wrong.
Because we're right, we can do anything, say anything, etc. to further the implementation and acceptance of our cause.
It may be immoral to act in such a way, in and of itself, but not when we can use it to defeat the opposition.
#7
IIRC, Tom Dewey learned of some of the Allied codebreaking efforts during the 1944 campaign, and agreed not to make it public becvause he put the success of American arms ahead of his own personal political gain.
It's called Patriotism, Ned.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/01/2006 23:04 Comments ||
Top||
Superb article and check the link for Cox and Forkum's grim cover cartoon they drew for it - Mike
by Robert Tracinski
I have noticed a recent trend in war commentary, starting a few weeks after the beginning of the current conflict in Lebanon. The trend began with a series of analogies between recent events and the events of the 1930s, leading up to World War II.
In the August 2 Washington Times, for example, Kenneth Timmerman referred to the Lebanon War as "Islamofascism's 1936." Just as the Spanish Civil War that began in that year was a preview of World War IIthe 1937 bombing of Guernica was Hermann Goering's test of the ability of aerial bombing to destroy citiesso Timmerman argues that the Lebanon War is a preview of a larger conflict: "Iran is testing the international community's response, as it prepares for a future war." (TIA Daily readers may remember that Jack Wakeland made a similar point in the July 19 edition of TIA Daily.)
For others on the pro-war right, the preferred analogy is 1938, the year in which Western appeasement of Hitler emboldened him to further attacks. That year's Munich Agreementthe "diplomatic solution" to a German-fomented crisis in Czechoslovakia, abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for promises that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain claimed would guarantee "peace for our time." On August 7, the headline of a Washington Times editorial asked: is the Bush administration's proposed diplomatic solution for Lebanon an attempt to secure "Peace in Our Time?"
#3
I believe this is correct. It has been Bush's weak point. It's very important to connect with the American public. They need to be kept current and well informed of issues as large as real war. FDR was the master at this. Bush needs to make weekly policy announcements, gradually leading to the conditions for an all out attack on Iran and other trouble spots. Americans don't like surprises, yet they fail their civic duty to remained informed. Bush is not only commander in chief, decider in chief, he's communicator in chief. He needs to get with it. If he can't do it, let Cheney roll. Cheney's very good at framing isuues, he just frightens half the public like Barry Goldwater did, because he lays it on straight without any gilding. This always causes violent regurgitation in the liberal ranks.
It is, indeed, "five minutes to midnight"not just for Israel, but for the West. The time is very short now before we will have to confront Iran. The only question is how long we let events spin out of our control, and how badly we let the enemy hit us before we begin fighting back.
We can't avoid this war, because Iran won't let us avoid it.
Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad regards the free nations of the world as fading "sunset" powers, too morally weak to resist his legions of Muslim fanatics. And when we hesitate to kill Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, when we pressure Israel to rein in its attacks on Hezbollah, when we pander to the anti-Jewish bigotry of the "Muslim street"we reinforce his impression of our weakness.
Today's leaders and commentators have less excuse. The "horror" they are afraid of repeating is the insurgency we're fighting in Iraqa war whose cost in lives, dollars, and resolve is among the smallest America has ever had to pay. And it takes no great feat of imagination to project how much more horrible the coming conflict will be if we wait on events long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear technology. Among the horrific consequences is the specter of a new Holocaust, courtesy of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
#5
A blogger on FREEREPUBLIC.com opined that in a few years, the Left(s) will lead an insurrection in America to forcibly but PC/PDeniably impose Socialism and OWG, and later the West - Still gotta wonder how compatible Secular Socialist OWG is gonna be against God/Faith-based Socialist OWG aka Global Caliphate/Islamist State.
"We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.''
-- Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader, Aug. 27
So much for the "strategic and historic victory'' Nasrallah had claimed less than two weeks earlier. What real victor declares that, had he known, he would not have started the war that ended in triumph?
Nasrallah's admission, vastly underplayed in the West, makes clear what the Lebanese already knew. Hezbollah may have won the propaganda war, but on the ground it lost. Badly.
True, under the inept and indecisive leadership of Ehud Olmert, Israel did miss the opportunity to militarily destroy Hezbollah and make it a non-factor in Israel's security, Lebanon's politics and Iran's foreign policy. Nonetheless, Hezbollah was seriously hurt. It lost hundreds of its best fighters. A deeply entrenched infrastructure on Israel's border is in ruins. The great hero has had to go so deep into hiding that Nasrallah has been called "the underground mullah.''
Most importantly, Hezbollah's political gains within Lebanon during the war have proved illusory. As the dust settles, the Lebanese are furious at Hezbollah for provoking a war that brought them nothing but devastation -- and then crowing about victory amid the ruins.
The Western press was once again taken in by the mystique of the "Arab street.'' The mob came out to cheer Hezbollah for raining rockets on Israel -- surprise! -- and the Arab governments that had initially criticized Hezbollah went conveniently silent. Now that the mob has gone home, Hezbollah is under renewed attack -- in newspapers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt, as well as by many Lebanese, including influential Shiite academics and clan leaders. The Arabs know where their interests lie. And they do not lie with a Shiite militia that fights for Iran.
Even before the devastation, Hezbollah in the last election garnered only about 20 percent of vote, hardly a mandate. Hezbollah has guns, however, and that is the source of its power. But now even that is threatened. Hence Nasrallah's admission. He knows that Lebanon, however weak its army, has a deep desire to disarm him and that the arrival of Europeans in force, however weak their mandate, will make impossible the rebuilding of the vast Maginot Line he spent six years constructing.
Which is why the expected Round Two will, in fact, not happen. Hezbollah is in no position, either militarily or politically, for another round. Nasrallah's admission that the war was a mistake is an implicit pledge not to repeat it, lest he be completely finished as a Lebanese political figure.
The Lebanese know that Israel bombed easy-to-repair airport runways when it could have destroyed the new airport terminal and set Lebanon back 10 years. The Lebanese know that Israel attacked the Hezbollah TV towers when it could have pulverized Beirut's power grid, a billion-dollar reconstruction. The Lebanese know that next time Israel's leadership will hardly be as hesitant and restrained. Hezbollah dares not risk that next time.
Even more important is the shift once again in the internal Lebanese balance of power. With Nasrallah weakened, the other major factions are closing in around him. Even his major Christian ally, Michel Aoun, has called for Hezbollah's disarmament. The March 14 democratic movement has regained the upper hand and, with outside help, could marginalize Hezbollah.
In a country this weak, outsiders can be decisive. A strong European presence in the south, serious U.S. training and equipment for the Lebanese army, and relentless pressure at the U.N. can tip the balance. We should be especially aggressive at the U.N. in pursuing the investigation of Syria for the Rafiq Hariri murder and in implementing resolutions mandating the disarmament of Hezbollah.
It was just a year and a half ago that the democrats of the March 14 movement expelled Syria from Lebanon and rose to power, marking the apogee of the American democratization project in the region. Nasrallah's temporary rise during the just-finished war marked that project's nadir. Nasrallah's crowing added to the general despair in Washington about a rising "Shiite crescent'' stretching from Tehran to Beirut.
In fact, Hezbollah was seriously set back, as was Iran. In the Middle East, however, promising moments pass quickly. This one needs to be seized. We must pretend that Security Council Resolution 1701 was meant to be implemented, and exert unrelieved pressure on behalf of those Lebanese -- a large majority -- who want to do the implementing.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
According to reports, a trendy Chicago suburb voted "the sexiest suburb in America" may be on the verge of banishing from its venues of commerce those not conforming to arbitrarily contrived body aesthetics. Lane Bryant, a retailer known for marketing clothing to full-sized women, has been denied the opportunity to open a store in a development called "The Village Of Oak Park".
