Voter suppression is real. It's happening right now in Illinois. Don't let it happen to you.

Attack ads are attempts to suppress votes.

At least the Darren Bailey Dinosaurs are amusing. And, certainly, if Darren Bailey were running for Illinois Chief Paleontologist, Gov. Pritzker might have a point.

But Bailey is not running for Illinois Chief Paleontologist. And, fortunately, neither is Gov. Pritzker. Because his dinosaur joke is scientifically illiterate. As Capitol Fax reported over the summer, the Darren Bailey Dinosaurs were, um, created to highlight an allegation that "the school Darren Bailey founded uses a curriculum that teaches children that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time." But, har, har, the old encylopedias in our basements all say that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, well more than 60 million years before the evolution of the earliest known proto-human. What a dope that Bailey is!

Very droll. Very funny. And, according to the current scientific consensus, completely wrong.

Science actually teaches that dinosaurs and humans have indeed 'walked the earth at the same time.' That's because dinosaurs are in your backyard right now. They're called birds.

As Wikipedia explains, "The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic era." This 2021 article on BirdLife International says bluntly, "There’s no longer really any doubt that birds are a type of dinosaur. These days, the debate is about details." Scientific American reported on its website in 2015 that, "Modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors."

Actually, a lot of scientists now think that tyrannosaurs had feathers... those Darren Bailey dinosaurs are underdressed.

Honestly, if you stop to analyze the commercial, you might conclude that the Illinois gubernatorial race is akin to the Amish and the Flat-Earthers vying for control of NASA.

But, of course, you're not meant to analyze. You're not meant to even think. You're just meant to absorb the underlying message: Bailey is a wing-nut.

Now, Pritzker supporters don't need this message. The commercial is not aimed at them. It is aimed at the undecided, or at traditional Democrats who are wavering on account of their party's leftward lunge. It is aimed at the people who read CWBChicago and who have begun to wonder about the efficacy of the SAFE-T Act. It is aimed at the voters who note that, despite the Governor's boasts of improved financial stability, including 12 consecutive credit-rating upgrades, Illinois still has America's lowest state credit rating. It is aimed at the voters who are alarmed by high gasoline prices... and who notice that, despite the increase in prices across the border as well, gas is still 40 cents cheaper a gallon in Indiana. It is aimed at people who noticed all the businesses in their neighborhood that didn't come back from Covid, or that their neighbors are moving out of state, or that their schools are turning out illiterates, despite all the tax money poured in. The Darren Bailey Dinosaurs will not make these folks support Pritzker... but they just might embarrass them into sitting this election out, because they don't want to vote for the wing-nut either.

And then their votes would be effectively suppressed.

If you are one of these potentially suppressed persons, please take note: It is not my place to tell you who you should support. But I will tell you that you should vote for someone, even if you consider the choice as between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. Or the Amish and the Flat-Earthers. Because it is your civic duty to make that choice. It's not your fault personally that the political parties put up the candidates they do -- it's not your fault, that is, unless you're one of those people who refuses to vote in the primaries, but only votes in November. Then it ispartially your fault. Make a note now for 2028.

I will suggest to you, however, that when you vote, when you make the choice you consider the most unpalatable, whether that is in the gubernatorial race, or in a congressional or legislative race, to vote with your eyes.

I don't mean you shouldn't try and educate yourself on the issues. But keep in mind, the media doesn't always get it right. Back in the days when newspapers were the primary medium for the transmission of news, it was said that newspapers were the first rough draft of history.

And what did you English teachers tell you about the quality of first rough drafts?

These 1946 articles all deal with the death of my grandfather, a Chicago firefighter. A sad but simple story, right? Just get the names and ages right... but look closely: In reporting my grandfather's death, my grandfather's brother is named Daniel Lyons; in another, Daniel Leyhane; in the third, Daniel is given no last name at all. Actually, Daniel's surname was Lyons and my grandfather was really named Leyhane -- and, no, they weren't half-siblings; the family name was changed by my grandfather's parents at some point. My grandfather's age varies from story to story. His age is given variously as 42, 48 or 51. My father's age is mentioned only in one story. There, his age is given as 18; actually, he was then 20.

Many lawyers will have stories about cases in which they were involved, which came to the attention of the media, and which the press got largely or completely wrong. I have a few myself.

You don't have to "hate the media" to notice this; you don't even have to ascribe any evil motive to the reporter who garbled the facts. The reporter had the story for maybe a day, or maybe only a few hours; you lived with the story for weeks, months, or even years. How could the reporter know the story as well as you? Why would it be a surprise that the reporter got some or all of the story wrong?

And yet, so many of us, people who actually know how prone the media is at covering things about which we know, assume that the media has somehow got it absolutely right when covering a national or international story on a topic that we don't know ourselves.

This phenomenon has a name: the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. Author Michael Chrichton named and described the phenomenon in a 2002 speech:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward -- reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story -- and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

In a country as big as ours, one can't possibly know everything that's going on everywhere. You will be as ignorant of the true state of affairs in Cairo, Illinois as you are of affairs in Cairo, Egypt. But you can see what goes on around you. You know the condition of the roads on which you drive. You know how much your taxes are. You know which stores are open and which are closed. You know whether crime is up or down in your area. You will know if your schools are turning out patriotic Americans or semi-literate socialists. You know if services are getting better or worse.

The beauty of our system is that our vote in local races really counts more than it does in state or national races: Yours is one vote among thousands in local races, but only one among perhaps millions in broader contests. And that's as it should be, inasmuch as you have much greater expertise in local matters. Thus, vote with your eyes: If you think things are swell where you live, vote for all the incumbents. If you think things are bad or getting worse, vote for the challengers. Even if some of them really might be wing-nuts. Because, if you think things are going sour, things can't get better if you keep voting for the people who helped make it that way.

But, either way, don't sit this dance out. Don't let the vote suppresors win. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, the American people get the government they deserve -- and they're going to get it good and hard. And, if you're going to get it anyway, you should at least be able to say that you did your best to prevent it. Or, if such is your view, to hasten the day.