The gloves pictured here were in Lincoln's pockets on the night he was assassinated. During his presidency, Lincoln often rode around Washington on horseback; in the summer months, he would essentially commute between a cottage on the grounds of the Soldiers' Home and the White House. He was shot at once while making this trip. I imagine gloves of this sort came in handy when handling the reins of a horse.
But politicians in Lincoln's day often wore gloves like this whether they were riding horses or not; they were expected to shake hands with everyone, and wearing gloves helped to protect their hands as they did so. The day that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he'd hosted a New Year's reception in the White House, greeting a throng of people who wanted shake his hand and extend a holiday greeting. His hands were raw, swollen, and red following all this flesh-pressing and, when the Emancipation Proclamation was subsequently presented for his signature, he told the cabinet members present that he was worried that his signature might appear weak or wobbly, causing people to think he had been afraid to take this momentous step.
Anyway, Lincoln typically carried gloves of the sort pictured here.
I saw these gloves when they were displayed at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum in 2009. I wrote about the experience in this 2025 Page One post. You can't really tell from this picture, but one of the gloves is more badly stained than the other: Lincoln had one glove in each pocket when he was shot, and, from the more extensive stain on one of the gloves, it was obvious which way he slumped over after receiving the fatal wound.
Last year, when I wrote about the gloves, it was because they were about to be auctioned off. Who knew where they might wind up?
Well, now we know. Sort of. The gloves were purchased for $1.5 million by an anonymous buyer, but that buyer has now allowed the gloves to be featured in a semiquincentennial exhibit at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Liabrary. I heard about the exhibit early this morning on WBBM Radio, but here is a link to yesterday's Sun-Times Instagram post about the California exhibit. No, I don't know whether the gloves will still be displayed in California after the exhibit closes next week.
Because I run a political site, I get emails from all points on the political spectrum. I got this one a few days back. It promotes an upcoming "webinar cohosted by the Party for Socialism and Liberation." Yes, that's a link to the party website in the preceding sentence (motto: "For the planet to live, capitalism must end"). OK, don't believe the actual website -- you're a 'normie' like me, and you don't want to believe that there are communists out there trying to turn disagreements over policies into revolution. ("See?" you might say, "It says socialism in the name, not communism. You know, like Sweden?")
That's fine. Check out instead the Wikipedia entry for the Party for Socialism and Liberation: "The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a communist political party in the United States. PSL formed in 2004, when its members split from the Workers World Party." Thus, these really are actual communists, or at least communist cosplayers. So much for truth in labeling.
Here, in case you can't read the image clearly, are the first two paragraphs of the text:
We’ve reached 400,000 Americans ready for a General Strike, with 7 million taking to the streets during the No Kings rallies and the Chicago Mayor even calling for one — the idea is starting to break through. This is our ultimate weapon, and we can make it a reality.
On Saturday, November 22nd at 12pm PST / 3pm EST we’re gathering online to test our preparedness for a General Strike. Join this crucial webinar cohosted by the Party for Socialism and Liberation to learn from labor leaders about how general strikes have happened historically and how we can apply these lessons now.
Maybe you were one of those "seven millions" who joined a No Kings rally (that particular number is at the very tip top of the estimates of the turnout, by the way, though it is one that even some supposedly reputable outlets reported). But does your participation mean you are ready to join the revolutionary struggle to destroy capitalism? (That would be one way to reduce your property taxes -- abolish private property! But, then, where would you live?) Are these the folks you want setting the opposition agenda? What "labor leaders" are supporting this craziness? Who is paying for this? Cui bono?
I took an oath 45 years ago, when I became an attorney, to "support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois," and I'm not going back on it now. I hope and pray I am still in the majority on this.
When I post an article to FWIW, I generally put up a linking post on X (which you may still think of as Twitter). That's normal self-promotion, and not necessarily unhealthy.
The unhealthy part comes when I start browsing... and re-Tweeting... and liking... and bookmarking... and going into and through a myriad of rabbit holes, some of them apparently sane and informative, others obviously anything but. The really crazy ones are sometimes the most entertaining... and addicting.
Way back in 1993 Peter Steiner came up with an iconic cartoon for The New Yorker (at left) that suggested (and not for the last time) that not every Internet "expert" was what they seemed to be. And now there's 'Legal Twitter.' I don't mean to suggest that any particular account is flea-bitten... but one can sometimes get suspicious.
Lately about a gazillion Tweets have been posted about the September 26 oral arguments in the case of People of the State of NY v. Trump, No. 2023-04925. That's a link to the video of the oral argument in the preceding sentence; the YouTube video of the argument is at the end of this post.
A great many of the posts on X about the argument, many of them with clips from the argument, suggested that the New York Attorney General was 'destroyed' (or similar terms) in the argument... some suggesting that, by the end, the State was begging not to have sanctions imposed.
Um.
Actually, part of the argument concerned an appeal from sanctions against Trump's lawyers.
I know this because I watched the argument today.
I watched it because I wanted to see for myself how well or badly Trump fared in the argument.
I don't claim to be an expert on 'Legal Twitter.'
I don't have a license to practice in New York. I've never practiced in New York. I have argued a fair number of appeals, however, though only in Illinois.
And, in the course of arguing cases before an appellate bench, I developed a sense of whether I was likely to prevail... or not. (It's one of the reasons I always... well, almost always... wanted oral argument on an appeal: When I filed my last brief, whether appellee's brief, or appellant's reply, I was always convinced I had crafted a winning argument. A decision issued without argument sometimes brought with it a cruel letdown.)
I'm not saying I could always walk out of a courtroom knowing I had won or lost... well, there was one time....
*** Shimmer *** Shimmer *** Shimmer ***
How's that for special effects?
I represented the family of an immigrant from the former Yugoslavia. He came to this country in August 1998, after the repeal of the Illinois Structural Work Act. He was dead 90 days later.
He was doing rough carpentry work on a new home in Hinsdale. They were just starting to put frame of the home up on the day of my client's fatal accident; there were no internal walls yet constructed. The subfloor was in place, but no basement stairs had been installed. Instead, two large pieces of plywood covered the opening.
The plywood was nailed in place; otherwise it would have opened into the basement like a trap door. The general contractor was going to handle the installation of the basement stairs himself. He removed all the nails which had protected the opening, but hadn't moved the plywood off the opening when he was interrupted by a page. The contractor also owned a tavern in Cicero... and some men wanted to see him about the video poker machines that he had installed there. The contractor immediately dropped everything and took off. It would not do to keep those good fellows waiting in Cicero... if you know what I mean.
Concerning the condition of the jobsite that he left behind, the contractor's deposition testimony was, essentially, (1) I removed all the nails, but didn't move the plywood so that the opening could be seen; (2) I knew I'd created a dangerous situation, but I had to leave; and (3) I'm sorry I created a dangerous situation.
It was lunchtime. My man started to walk through the house to join the other workers for lunch.
He never made it. He dropped through the plywood trap door that was created by the contractor's removal of the nails, tumbling over as he fell, hitting his head on the basement floor. He never regained consciousness.
I was brought in for the appeal from the summary judgment awarded to the defendants.
That result may seem absurd the way I've laid out the facts... I hope it does... but my guy was not available to explain what happened and, in the vernacular, nobody saw nothing. Even if they did have a clear line of sight. And they did. However, nearly everyone on the job also hailed from the former Yugoslavia... there was a language barrier... and a pronounced reluctance, quite common among immigrants from former Communist countries, to talk to the police. And appellate counsel can only work with the record made in the trial court.
Still... I thought I had a case... a good case.
I don't know why the man's family came to oral argument. His widow, a couple of grown sons, some other relations... they all crowded around me after the argument was concluded, telling me what a great job I'd done.
It tore my guts out.
They did not understand how badly the argument went. The panel was not hostile or rude or anything... but, when I got up for rebuttal, the justice presiding closed his folder and pushed his chair back. He was done. And so was I.
I remember trying to break the news to the family, trying to find a way to tamp down their enthusiasm. I also remember that the decision came down in nine days.
Nine days.
*** Shimmer *** Shimmer *** Shimmer ***
Anyway, while the outcome was never as certain as it was in that case, I would typically leave oral argument with a pretty fair sense of whether I had a shot... or whether I'd been shot down. I wasn't always right, but I was usually right.
I watched the Trump appeal video to see if I could develop a sense about where the panel was going. No, I hadn't read the briefs. No, I hadn't particularly followed the trial. I certainly had not studied the record.
But, if the argument had gone the way that so many were claiming on X, I was pretty sure I'd be able to tell.
And I could not tell.
It's never a good sign when you catch your first question just as you finish identifying yourself. That happened to the New York AG here. And there's clearly some judicial discomfort about the scope of the statute in question and the amount of the damages awarded. But both sides faced pointed questions....
I guess we'll have to let the court speak for itself. When it decides to speak.
But don't take my word for it.
At this point, in this climate, I pretty much don't believe anything about anybody unless I see it for myself. See for yourself, if you have 50 minutes, and see what you think.
The printed circuitry on the faces of Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed is reproduced on all the promotional materials for the Chicago Bar Association's 100th Annual Bar Show, "It's AI Wonderful Life." It's the cover story on this month's issue of the CBA Record, for example.
This year's production will be staged January 12 and 13 at the Studebaker Theater in the Fine Arts Building, 410 S. Michigan Ave. Tickets are available at this link.
The Bar Show, formerly known as "Christmas Spirits," has always taken aim at the highlights (or lowlights) of the news of the year -- but, this year, with their cybernetic Jimmy Stewart, they appear to have actually predicted the news.
Or haven't you heard?
Although Jimmy Stewart died a quarter of a century ago, in 1997, he is being resurrected, sort of, by the sleep and meditation app Calm. According to CNN, Calm has employed "Generative AI" to imitate Stewart's distinctive drawl reading a new story, "It's a Wonderful Sleep Story." It's all being done with the consent and permission of Stewart's heirs.
Both CNN and USA Today quote Stewart's daughter, Kelly Stewart Harcourt: "It's amazing what technology can do and wonderful to see Dad’s legacy live on this holiday season in new ways, like helping people find restful sleep and sweet dreams."
Here, of course, where the surviving family is on board, this innovation seems reasonable... if maybe a little creepy. But... what if there is no surviving family? What if there is no estate managing the 'talent's' afterlife affairs? Does a voice ever slip into the public domain? This seems like an appropriate use for Jimmy Stewart's voice... again, the family thinks so... but could the voice of a dead actor... or politician... or religious leader... or tyrant... be employed for less innocent, even evil, purposes?
Technology is amoral. And not at all concerned about it, either.
Just because we can do something... like find new ways to exploit the images and voices of dead celebrities... does that mean we should?
I suspect lawyers and lawmakers will be grappling with these issues long after "It's AI Wonderful Life" is forgotten entirely. But (doing my best Jimmy Stewart imitation now), doggone it, the CBA got there first. Isn't that amazing?
1. I, the undersigned, recognize and understand that both the inherent and explicitly stated purposes of the Cook County Democratic Party (“Party”) include the following:
(a) That it attracts, endorses, and supports qualified Democratic candidates for election to public office; develops positions on issues of public importance; advances the ideals and principles of the Democratic Party; and seeks to improve the lives of the people of Cook County through effective, efficient, and fair government;
(b) That it welcomes persons who volunteer, contribute to, support, advance the interests of, or participate in, the activities of the Party;
(c) That the collective interest of the Party is best achieved by the coordinated and unified effort by Party members in all 80 wards and townships standing together in support of all those persons ultimately endorsed by the Party who form a cohesive slate of candidates reflecting the rich diversity within Cook County regarding race, color creed, national origin, gender, geography, physical ability and sexual orientation; and
(d) That the Party has the right to organize under rules and procedures of its own choosing; to exercise discretion in conducting its affairs, and selecting and disciplining its leaders, members, and nominees; and to enforce its own By-Laws.
(e) Further, the right of the Party to make nominations and endorsements is a political privilege which is exercised in accordance with the will of the Party, as expressed through its By-Laws, customs, conventions, caucuses, policies, procedures, and rules;
(f) The Party, through the Cook County Democratic Central Committee has the right to make endorsements for public office and to withdraw endorsements previously made; and
(g) The Officers of the Executive Committee of the Party, as well as the 80 Cook County Ward and Township committeepersons, serve the Party as managers of the political campaign and they are charged with the responsibility of advancing, organizing, and supporting efforts to secure the election of the Party’s endorsed and nominated candidates.
2. I acknowledge that Party endorsement is not a right but sought at my request. If earned, it is a political privilege. By freely and voluntarily seeking Party endorsement for nomination for a Cook County political or judicial office appearing on the ballot at the June 28, 2022 Primary Election, I understand that I am obligated to, and hereby agree, promise, and pledge to:
(a) abide by the Party processes and procedures for seeking such endorsement;
(b) produce such biographical, professional, and other materials, and supporting credentials documentation, evaluations, and recommendations as may be requested;
(c) accurately and honestly respond to any questions or inquiries made of me;
(d) if endorsed, timely provide my allocated proportionate share of financial contribution necessary to support and underpin the Party’s efforts on behalf of my candidacy and that of the entire endorsed slate of candidates.
3. In addition, should I be endorsed for a Cook County office by the Party for the June 28, 2022 Primary Election, I further agree, promise, and pledge as follows:
(a) I will not personally (or through my campaign committee or operatives within my control) engage in any activity “actively opposing” any other person who has been endorsed by the Party for nomination and election to a Cook County office. The term “actively opposing” shall mean to aid and/or assist a non-endorsed candidate with direct or indirect financial contributions, political workers and volunteers, political paraphernalia or advertising, and/or media, consulting, technical, polling, direct mail, social media or telephone-banking or similar support. Such adverse efforts serve to advance the interests of a non-endorsed candidate and simultaneously oppose the interests of an endorsed candidate.
(b) I will not personally (or through my campaign committee and operatives within my control “endorse” or “support” any other person who is running against anyone endorsed by the Party for nomination and election to a Cook County office. Consequently, I will not permit the use of my name, campaign advertising (including billboards, handbills, mailings, political paraphernalia, print, radio, signage, telephone-banking or robotic calls, television), campaign letterhead or literature, personal likeness/photograph, public statements, posts or communication on social media (including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and the like, or email and text-messaging), and personal or campaign website to be used to aid, assist, advance, or promote a non-endorsed candidate.
(c) Specifically, if seeking endorsement for judicial office, and I am not endorsed but I am designated as an “alternate”, I will not run against any person who has been endorsed by the Party for any Cook County judicial office. My failure to abide by this provision shall result in forfeiture of my “alternate” status and withdrawal of any anticipated Party support.
4. I, the undersigned potential candidate, hereby voluntarily accept, endorse, subscribe to, and solemnly agree, promise, and pledge myself (and my campaign or operatives within my control) to act in accordance with the above principles. I understand failure to do so shall result in withdrawal of any endorsement which I may have received from the Party and exclusion from any of its activities or efforts which would have otherwise been undertaken on behalf of my candidacy.
The warnings are everywhere, even in this morning's edition of Curtis, by Ray Billingsley: Supply chain disruptions are threatining the giddy consumer excesses of the forthcoming Christmas holiday.
Untold numbers of ugly Christmas sweaters, plastic geegaws for the kiddies, and coffee mugs with pithy slogans that would make great stocking stuffers or office grab bag gifts -- all these and so much more are marooned off our Pacific coast, trapped in wallowing container ships, escalating our holiday anxieties. And it may not just be the stranded ships. Thanks to COVID-19 realignments, there aren't as many truckers or warehouse workers or order takers or anyone else willing to get what you want to get for Christmas to a store (or front porch) near you. Apparently you are best advised to grab whatever you can get right now, paying full price if necessary, because, this year, unless you get what we got now, there won't be anything to get when you'd otherwise be ready to get it.
So "they" say.
But we need not wade into the thorny dispute over whether immediate Christmas shopping, even before the neighborhood squirrels have finished gnawing all the Halloween pumpkins, is really and truly necessary. Time will tell whether supply chain hysteria was or was not warranted.
One thing we know for sure: There is and can be no supply chain disruption involving Christmas music. Christmas music will be readily available when Advent starts, at the end of this month. Mariah Carey, Elmo and Patsy, and Dominick the Christmas Donkey can wait in the wings a while longer yet; we will certainly be able to find them when the time comes.
This morning's suborbital Blue Origin flight, carrying 90-year old William Shatner, a/k/a James Tiberius Kirk, to the edge of space was a success (linking to CNN coverage), and all hands have returned to terra firma whole and intact.
Accordingly, now I can enjoy (and share) this picture:
For one of my favorite comic strips, Tim Rickard's Brewster Rockit: Space Guy!, pretty much every week is Space Week. But this week Mr. Rickard is recycling a plot first served up in Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe and melding it with the sneering news coverage of billionaires venturing into space:
You may not immediately recall what happened to Ship B of the Golgafrincham Ark Fleet and its millions of telephone sanitizers, hairdressers, "tired TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public relations executives, [and] management consultants" -- fully a third of the planet's population -- traveling in suspended animation. (They crash-landed on Earth two million years in the past, leaving the indigenous, evolving hominind population terminally depressed and bound for extinction.)
You likewise may not recall the sad fate of Golgafrincham. (Having conned all the useless members of their society off the planet with wildly varying stories about the planet being doomed -- my favorite was that an enormous mutant star goat was going to eat the planet -- the "other two-thirds stayed firmly at home and lived full, rich and happy lives until they were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.")
But even without catching the literary reference, most readers will probably smirk right along with the idea that billionaires should be banned from space or, if allowed to go at all, given one-way tickets only. Har har. And let's change the rules about who qualifies for official astronaut wings so that the person who bankrolled Blue Origin, Amazon's obscenely rich Jeff Bezos, can be denied his wings for putting his life at risk riding just past the internationally recognized boundary of outer space on his own rocket. Even though that meant that, once again, Wally Funk was denied official recognition.
In the first modern Age of Exploration, the analogs of the Bezoses and Bransons and Musks of today did not venture out in their wood and canvas ships in search of trade, gold, or glory. Oh, no, they limited their personal risk by staying home, directing affairs from London coffee houses and, in the course thereof, inventing the insurance business to limit their financial risks as well.
Who else -- besides governments -- could afford any sort of space exploration except for these flamboyant, egotistical billionaires? Hate on the uber-rich all you want, but governments have done a lousy job of space exploration because (surprise, surprise) they made it political: Richard Nixon couldn't wait to cancel the Apollo Program at the first possible opportunity precisely because it was perceived as the signature achievement of the Kennedy Administration. And the pattern hasn't changed any time the White House has changed hands: The new administration will announce its own grand plan -- and cancel those wasteful plans promulgated by its predecessor. It's a wonder the Space Shuttle ever launched or the International Space Station ever got built. But, by now, it must be no suprise to even the dullest among us that next year will mark the 50th anniversary of humankind's last trip to the Moon.
Compare that, if you will, to the development of aviation in the 50 years following Kitty Hawk. Governments contributed substantially to the development of aviation in that first half-century (see, World War I and World War II) but governments did not completely control it. As the governmental death-grip on spaceflight has lessened in recent years, even only slightly, the pace of development has finally quickened. And is becoming ever more rapid.
Which brings us back again to Wally Funk. This summer Funk became the oldest person ever to fly in space (at 82, she was five years older than was John Glenn, when he made his second trip to Earth orbit, in 1998, aboard the space shuttle Discovery).
If all goes as planned, Wally Funk's record will fall this coming Tuesday, October 12, when William Shatner, 90, better known as James Tiberius Kirk, will boldly go to space in a sub-orbital flight aboard another Blue Origin capsule.
Which leads to the funniest take I have seen about Shatner's upcoming flight. This is from an often funny, if sometimes juvenile, Facebook site called Captain Kirk, The Man, the Myth, the Legend:
OK... so I'm a nerd. But, if you got this far, maybe you are, too. In which case, live long and prosper, and enjoy the rest of World Space Week.
Logic students have a name for what is depicted in this cartoon, false dilemma or false dichotomy or something like that. Who cares? It's amusing. It's funny. It's just not true.
If only it were true. If only we could push a button -- or if Bezos or Musk or Buffett or Gates could just write a check -- and end child hunger.
Gazillionaire Jeff Bezos launched himself into space this morning, and returned safely, with his brother, the 18-year old son of a fabulously rich Dutchman, and an 82-year old woman (Wally Funk) who was part of a plan to shame NASA into taking women into space years before Sally Ride rode.
From a technology standpoint, today's Blue Origin launch is kind of primitive: Not only was the flight suborbital, the New Shepard capsule was of the Spam-in-a-can variety that our captured German rocketeers wanted to foist on the original Mercury astronauts (albeit with safeguards that couldn't have been imagined in the 1960s). The four persons launched this morning had no control over any aspect of their flight; they had no controls on their craft at all. The real Alan Shepard and his colleagues used their star power to acquire the power to navigate in their capsules -- which ultimately proved vital to the success of several subsequent manned flights. Go watch The Right Stuff again.
But Jeff Bezos, as you've perhaps read elsewhere, has a sense of history. Naming the suborbital craft New Shepard. Launching on Moon Day -- today is the anniversary of Neil Armstrong's one step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind. Bringing Wally Funk along -- the historic and cultural significance of including a "Mercury 13" aspirant -- who finally gets her astronaut wings today, as the oldest person ever to go to space.
There will be those that criticize today's venture as a stunt, which it was, but it was an inspirational stunt and a true and courageous bet: Bezos did not send up some recycled NASA astronauts; he was daring enough to go himself. Because today's flight says volumes about how safe and reliable spaceflight can be -- where the billionaire funding the venture feels secure enough to put himself on top of the rocket.
Bezos is and will remain a controversial figure, just as is Elon Musk, his main competitor in the corporate space race.
Most of the rest of us will spend years recovering, if we ever do recover, from the financial disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks to his other company, Amazon, Bezos emerged from COVID-19 richer than ever -- even after the world's most costly divorce. And there is the scandal and shame of Amazon employees who have to take government food assistance or insurance subsidies because Amazon doesn't pay enough to live without these benefits. I hope he pays his Blue Origin employees better. I'll bet he does.
Yes, there are grounds on which to roundly criticize Jeff Bezos. In many ways he is a perfect symbol of corporate profits run amuck. He exemplifies the truly appalling wealth gap between himself and his least well paid employees.
And he'll probably wear his astronaut pin everywhere now. Maybe even in the shower. He could well be insufferable.
But stow those criticisms for tomorrow. Today is a day to celebrate the achievements of Bezos and his Blue Origin team. It was a textbook flight. It was, in the understated lexicon of the NASA pioneers, nominal.
I know there are those -- the artist who drew this cartoon, for one, and most of the people who shared it on Facebook, where I saw it -- who will question why anyone goes to space when we have so many problems to solve here. But remember the old days, when you would have to leave your house for work? Were all your problems at home solved first? Maybe you made your bed... but was the living room painted? Was the grass even cut? Why would you leave and do something else when there was still so much to do at home?
Why? Because you had to -- that's why. And we, as a species, have to explore the Universe God gave us. And, today, Jeff Bezos joins Elon Musk as one of those leading the way for all of us. Congratulations, Blue Origin.
That same Times story says that 65% of all Florida residents aged 18 and up have received at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine, while 56% are fully vaccinated.
Despite it being a much "bluer" state, the Illinois figures seem pretty comparable: More than 72% of all Illinois "adults" have received at least one vaccine dose, while 57% of all Illinois "adults" are fully vaccinated, according to a July 9 announcement from the Illinois Department of Public Health. (Adults is the word IDPH uses, as opposed to persons 18+ or 21+ so I can't say authoritatively, from this, that our comparisons are exact. They must be pretty close, though.)
What would you expect from one of those crazy Red states, right?
Except... in a June 25 report, the IDPH reported 1,744 new COVID-19 cases in Illinois during the preceding week. Two weeks later, in the July 9 weekly update previously linked, IDPH reports 2,945 new or suspected cases... which works out to a nearly 69% increase in a comparable two-week span.
The City of Chicago doesn't report its figures the same way. As of today, however, the City's COVID Dashboard reports a 21% increase in the average number of new COVID cases over last week -- 41 as opposed to 34. So a small number, but increasing nonetheless.
The number of vaccinations is declining in Chicago on a week to week basis -- with 56.5% of all Chicago residents having at least one vaccine dose -- and only 50.5% fully vaccinated. (Why do the City totals continue to lag behind the State? I thought most of the Fox News-viewing Republicans were located outside the City of Chicago.)
On the other hand, Illinois is reporting, as of July 9, "The preliminary seven-day statewide positivity for cases as a percent of total test from July 2-8, 2021 is 1.5%. The preliminary seven-day statewide test positivity from July 2-8, 2021 is 1.7%." That compares favorably with the 5.5% national positive test rate reported by the Mayo Clinic.
That same Mayo Clinic site---as of today---does not show Illinois as a COVID hot spot, not compared with Florida, or Missouri, or Arkansas, or Louisiana. Even Iowa is worse off than we are in Illinois, on a number of COVID cases per 100,000 residents basis, according to the Mayo Clinic site.
But for how long?
We're starting to see---and enjoy---in-person events again. In my corner of the City, some people still wear masks. (I don't... but I almost always have a mask with me, just in case I wind up in a crowd or among strangers from whom I can not keep a distance... and I am fully vaccinated, thank you.) In suburban areas, according to my kids, very few seem to be wearing masks anywhere.
And yet... there are specific indications here, not just in Florida, and not just in IDPH press releases, that COVID cases are continuing to pop up. Last Friday the Chief Judge's Office announced another case, this one afflicting an employee of the Adult Probation Department in the Skokie Courthouse.
I know this is not how it is supposed to be... and I can't prove it, certainly... but my hunch, based on lifelong experience, is that, these days, the vast majority of those people still wearing masks are almost certainly vaccinated. Which would mean that a lot of unvaccinated persons are not.
Which, in turn, would presumably mean that things will get worse again... soon?
There was a movie back in 2013, called The Purge, set in a fictional, near-future America where crime has been largely stamped out -- except on a national holiday, also called the Purge, where all crime is legal for 12 hours.
The movie must have done well enough. It has so far spawned three sequels, with a fourth scheduled for release this Summer, according to IMDb.com. A television show, based on the same detestable concept, ran for a couple of seasons on cable.
Clearly, the idea of all crime being made "legal" for a limited period of time is so obviously ridiculous that no one would ever take it seriously, right?
Wrong.
I won't name the teacher or the school, but I heard from a junior high teacher yesterday whose homeroom was greatly agitated about "National Rape Day," supposedly set for this Friday, April 24. On that one day, according to the frightened students, rape would be "legal."
The teacher tried to explain that there is no such "holiday," that rape is never legal, and will not be made legal on Friday.
But the students were unconvinced. There were warnings all over TikTok, they said, so it must be true.
And the students were not entirely wrong -- there were warnings all over TikTok.
Internet watchdog Snopes.com put up a post about this subject on April 19. The post, by Dan Evon, links to a single Tik Tok video from @la.tania.ftn2 that was viewed 1.5 million times between its posting on April 17 and the April 19 publication of the Snopes.com post. An excerpt from that TikTok post, as quoted by Snopes.com:
I just saw a video on tiktok and i had to make a video myself … because I need to make sure that you guys are aware that there’s a video going around Tiktok of disgusting men … and they literally came up with a date to go around and rape women and children.
Except... Snopes.com can't find the video that supposedly prompted this reaction. According to Snopes.com's post, TikTok can't find such a post either. USA Today published a "fact check," by Devon Link, on April 19 (updated on April 20) that likewise came up empty in a search for the video that allegedly precipited the many warning videos:
Millions of social media users have viewed or shared reactions to the perceived threat on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. However, neither USA TODAY nor TikTok could find any evidence of the threat users were responding to.
And, yet, according to the USA Today fact check, there were more than 31.1 million views and more than a thousand videos using the #april24 hashtag. Quoting further from the USA Today post, "According to CrowdTangle, there have more than 1,000 Facebook posts and nearly 50 Instagram posts about 'National Rape Day' in the week before this fact check published."
USA Today tried to reach out to the TikTok 'creators' who spread these warnings. None responded. While some of the creators claim to have seen the video announcing the 'holiday,' none, according to USA Today, shared that link, or stitched it, or dueted it. I don't know what those last two terms mean -- but it does certainly seem reasonable to conclude that the threat was largely, if not entirely, made up.
Snopes.com unearthed archived pages on Urban Dictionary which suggested that someone had proposed a National Rape Day as early as 2018. But it didn't go viral until the condemnations of an apparently non-existent video began circulating.
So there is no "National Rape Day" Friday or any other day, ever. But April isSexual Assault Awareness Month. Wikipedia says the month has been observed since at least 2001. President Obama proclaimed April as National Sexual Awareness Month in April 2010.
The Internet has many uses, and the ability to rapidly---almost instantly---share information can be one of the most beneficial.
But only if the information is accurate.
And figuring out what is, or is apparently, accurate information is increasingly difficult for all of us. Especially where information, and misinformation, is surging through channels of which we may not even be aware.
The lead story yesterday on POLITICO's Illinois Playbook was Census Down for the Count, addressing the impact that undercounting may have on particular local communities. This sentence jumped out at me (emphasis mine):
Illinois is ahead of the national average with a 72 percent response rate compared to 69 percent. But Chicago lags at about 55 percent.
I don't know, of course, how one can count the percentage of those counted if one does not know the actual count and, if we already know the actual count, how come we're still counting? But, then, it was my inability to complete the 300-level probability and statistics course that kept me from being a math major in college.
But if the compliance percentages are accurate, how can this possibly be?
The first big push for census compliance was underway when the world ended, back in March. We are now entering the eighth month of our two-week shutdown -- but I distinctly recall, during the actual first two weeks of the two-week shutdown, turning on the TV every day at 2:30 p.m., risking exposure, on some days, to whole minutes of Maury if the start of the IDPH briefing was delayed. With all industry, commerce, and ordinary social interaction at a standstill, I was also tuning in most mornings for the City briefing as well. And I also recall, vividly, being annoyed with the Governor and the Mayor prefacing their daily updates on the collapse of civilization as we had known it with virtual commercials about completing the census.
I can't fathom how anyone with a pulse didn't know---in March---about the need to complete and return the census form. I will admit that I hadn't done it before the world ended. But I did do it in March. It gave me something to do while waiting for next press conference.
Now I fully understand that some people, in some communities, may have been reluctant to participate. Even without the Never Ending Pandemic, as the Illinois Playbook noted this morning, referring to Rep. Chuy Garcia's concerns, "many residents born outside of the United States... may fear they’ll be questioned about their citizenship status, something President Donald Trump tried unsuccessfully add to the census." That explains some undercount, surely -- but 45% of the population of the City of Chicago?
The Census Bureau, for its part, said, in a press release Tuesday, that the count is "99.9% complete" with "33.1% counted by census takers and other field data collection operations, and 66.8% of housing units responding online, by phone or by mail." Which is a far cry from 72% compliance in the State of Illinois, or 69% nationally, or 55% in the City of Chicago. Somebody is doing the math wrong.
But, whoever's right, and whoever's wrong on the numbers, if you have not been counted yet, today is the deadline. You must go to the Census 2020 website today and make sure you are not part of the missing .1% -- or the missing 45%.
Rich Miller reported on CapitolFax.com that Ken Griffin recently contributed $26+ million to the Coalition to Stop the Proposed Tax Hike Amendment. The exact amount of Griffin's September 30 contribution was $26,750,000, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections website.
This was in addition, Miller reports, to a $20 million donation that Griffin previously made. So... over $46 million.
That's a lot of money -- and it raises, for me at least, a question.
Before asking my question, I should point out that I am not now and (unless I hit it big in Powerball or Megamillions) not likely to be a millionaire during this lifetime. I am also, as FWIW readers know, no politician. So there's a whole bunch of this high-stakes, big money, power politics stuff I don't understand. Most of it, in fact.
Still, I am a registered voter, and a citizen, and I hope I am as entitled as anyone to ask a question here.
And my question is... why?
Why would a rich person, or in Mr. Griffin's case, a very rich person, be opposed to a graduated Illinois income tax rate?
Don't laugh at me. Stay with me just a minute.
I'm no prophet, but here's what I think the future may hold: The tax rate for rich people will go up, as promised, if the Fair Tax Amendment passes. In which case the Illinois tax return, which is now extremely easy to complete, will become increasingly more complex with each passing year. Many lobbyists will find full employment getting particular exemptions from the new, higher rates that benefit these rich people, and other lobbyists will make small fortunes seeking different exemptions for those rich people. Accountants and tax lawyers will also prosper.
So the tax rates will go up... but will rich Illinoisans really pay more? History and precedent suggest otherwise.
By 1918, just five years after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, Wikipedia says (footnotes omitted), "the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of $16,717,815 in 2018 dollars) to finance World War I. The average rate for the rich however, was 15%. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944" during World War II. These days, the top rate, again according to Wikipedia, is 37%. Which is a lot less than 94% -- but still a lot higher than the 4.95% flat tax rate in Illinois today.
Who actually pays those high Federal tax rates? Does anyone? Take an extreme example -- Donald Trump is almost always an extreme example -- according to the New York Times, Trump paid only $750 in federal income tax in the year he was elected and no tax at all in 11 of the 18 years of returns the Times reviewed (source). That's with a progressive, graduated federal income tax, too. Somehow, no matter what the rates are, many rich people finds ways to avoid paying their "fair" share. That's part of the secret of their success.
Seems to me, Mr. Griffin would have been better off spending his millions hiring Trump's accountants, or paying his own accountants to study the methods employed by Trump's accountants. But Mr. Griffin didn't ask me.
I know, as the proprietor of a political website, even one focused on the bottom of the ballot, that I am supposed to be fully engaged in the primary, and I will, I promise, get back to it, though I didn't get back to it yesterday as I thought I would.
Instead of engaged, I am confused.
Why are we doing this?
Every other social activity has been curtailed in the last week.
Sure, I understand momentum and money, lots of money, behind the election machinery. But there was a lot of money, much more money in fact, in pro sports, and in the collegiate tournaments. And momentum? The build-up to the NCAA basketball tournaments is more astounding every year. But the tournaments got cancelled anyway.
My youngest son is an assistant baseball coach at Illinois Tech (what we used to call the Illinois Institute of Technology). First, his spring training trip got cancelled. Then, his season. It's a D-III school, so the seniors on his team who were robbed of their final season were spared the discomfiture of crying before prying television cameras, as some local athletes, in higher profile programs, were not. But there were tears, just the same. And now my son is cleaning out his desk at school (he teaches in a south suburban middle school) trying to set his students up to learn from home for the foreseeable future.
My oldest son travels for a living. That went by the boards. For relaxation, he watches sporting events. He was planning on using some miles for a Spring Training trip to Arizona to see the budding White Sox powerhouse. Gone, all gone. With their busy schedules, he and his wife don't cook a lot at home; they dine out regularly.
Yesterday, that was taken away, too.
I could go on, but everyone reading this has their own stories, some far more serious. We are all disrupted. All at sea.
I know these harsh restrictions are imposed as much for my benefit as anyone's. I am in reasonably good health -- coughing and sneezing and dripping off and on since before Christmas, battling congestion and fatigue -- but my grandchildren are young, and they have nothing to give me but their germs. That was funnier a week or two ago. Besides, my wife (a teacher, too) has come home all winter with stories about this family or that one succumbing first to Influenza A, then Influenza B, then strep; at our worst, we were doing better than so many. The point is, I've been largely vertical all winter, able to help out with transport to or from school or doctor or to pick up and deliver sundries.
Now, I'm told, I'm at particular risk. A cancer survivor, I have far less colon than standard issue. But I think the real concern may be that, before I was 30, I had sarcoidosis. It was asymptomatic -- found by accident, really, while a surgeon was rummaging around in my chest looking for something else. This latest plague creates real problems with breathing, inexplicably worse in some than others. As the kid in high school who always finished last in the mile run -- even behind the really fat kid -- and, mind you, I was not a smoker then -- I'm a little concerned about whether my lungs will be equal to the virus when I get it.
So I'm worried about myself. And my kids. And my grandkids. And the economy. How long can people remain on salary 'working from home?' Money is evaporating in the stock market just as fast as if stacks of cash were piled in bushels and burned. Probably faster. And hourly workers in restaurants and bars, and those dependent on tips, are going to be without funds for the foreseeable future. How long must we hide in our homes until this contagion is contained?
And, yet, the election -- and only the election -- must go on.
The one in November, sure. That must happen regardless. But a primary? It could be done in August as easily as March.
But, no, we are told, it must happen, and it must happen tomorrow on schedule.
So... yes, I'm a little distracted this morning. Sorry.
In 2015-2016 about 25 Republicans -- or maybe, more accurately, about 24 Republicans and Donald J. Trump -- staged a reality TV show to see who would be the Republican presidential nominee.
Look what that got us.
Well, he had experience in the one area that was apparently important to the process: He was a reality TV host.
The Democratic Party's first response to this national tragedy was to say -- hey, let's get our own reality TV host!
But Oprah said she wasn't interested.
So now, for 2020, the Democrats have given us something like 50 wannabes -- some of whom have already been voted off the island -- in an even more glitzy and frivolous game show format.
In my email this morning, and also on Facebook, are breathless inquiries: Who won last night?
Who will move on? Who will get the rose? Why don't we just add a phone number to call during the show to cast our votes for best snappy comeback? Or biggest burn?
Can we make this process any more trivial? Any more farcical?
And yet, somehow, the problem with our presidential election system is the Electoral College?
Really?
If you want a serious President, you need a serious process. A truly national leader can not be a hyper-partisan. He or she will have to try to appeal to everyone -- try to build a national consensus -- try to bring us together as a nation.
It can't happen, of course.
I mean, Lincoln couldn't get everyone behind him... even in the North.
Even George Washington was slandered, viciously, at least in his second term.
But they tried. They understood that their job was to lead a nation, not just a party, and certainly not just a wing or faction of that party.
Today, in 2019, We the People have apparently stopped looking for persons willing to undertake the thankless task of building a national consensus. Trying to build a national consensus is just too hard. Or maybe its boring. Instead, we're looking to pick our national leader in game shows.
The fault, dear readers, lies not in our stars, and not in our Constitution, but in ourselves.
We are better than this. We can do better than this. We must insist that our politicians do better than this.
Channel 11's Chicago Tonight featured a panel discussion a week ago Monday with Law Bulletin editor Marc Karlinsky, former Circuit Court Judge Edmund Ponce de Leon, and John Marshall Law School Professor Samuel V. Jones, a discussion that started with the current headlines---the indictment of Judge Jessica O'Brien and the resignation of Judge Richard Cooke---but was repeatedly steered (in my opinion) by moderator Carol Marin back to the typical local media talking points: "Merit" selection (and the public's ignorance of who serves in the judiciary), the unhealthy political control over the judicial election process, the inability to throw out judges in local retention elections, and the potentially corrupting influence of money in judicial races. Watch the video yourself to see if you agree.
Ms. Marin may have struck all the conventional notes but, in his discussions with the Chicago Sun-Times following his resignation, ex-Judge Richard Cooke departed from the traditional narrative:
Of course, FWIW readers are presumably unsurprised by allegations of politics going on behind closed doors at the county courthouses. We might prefer that our judges all be members of a contemplative commune of black-robed legal philosophers---or we might say that this is what we prefer---but the reality is that we choose these men and women in a political process. (Associate judges are chosen by the elected judges in a different, but at least equally political process).
I have no opinions about the alleged conflict that Cooke said made it inappropriate for him to report to Traffic Court. I have had no opportunity to independently assess whether Cooke's concerns were or were not well-founded.
I do know that almost all new judges start out in Traffic Court. Traffic courtrooms are generally high-volume courtrooms and I believe that handling a room like that would usually be quite different from anything a new judge might have done before. In Traffic Court, new judges get a crash course in commanding the attention of a busy courtroom, assessing witness credibility, functioning as a neutral (quite different from being an advocate of one side or the other), and in making prompt decisions (there's not a lot of room for let-me-get-back-to-you-on-this in Traffic Court). Most new judges have little or no specific Traffic Court experience before going on the bench, but Traffic Court is considered to present legal issues that most judges can pick up quickly -- after all, most judges at least drive cars and have some familiarity with traffic law if only from that.
But, if almost all new judges go through Traffic Court, that means that not all do. There is no statute or ordinance that has been called to my attention that requires new Cook County judges to serve an apprenticeship in Traffic Court. In fact, by coincidence, about six weeks ago, at an Appellate Lawyers luncheon, one of the justices at my table recounted how he had never sat one day in Traffic Court; because of his extensive trial experience he was put immediately in a small claims courtroom instead. These "11th floor courtrooms" -- non-jury civil courtrooms on the 11th floor of the Daley Center -- are often the second assignment for new judges after Traffic Court. But these rooms are also fairly high-volume courts where some of those same initial lessons in how to be a judge may also be learned.
I also know that our Cook County court system is one of the largest unified court systems in the world; there are a lot of different assignments. So I don't know that it was really necessary for Chief Judge Evans and new Judge Cooke to wind up at loggerheads. One can't help but think that there might have been some agreeable compromise available, if both sides were willing.
Having said all that, of course, I freely admit that, if I were offered the opportunity to sit in Traffic Court, I'd sprint for the Daley Center escalator before anyone could change their mind. I suppose that many FWIW readers would do the same.
In my case, I will never have to worry about it. Even if I did have $500,000 or $600,000 that I could squander on an election campaign (¡ojalá!), those funds would probably not pave the kind of uncontested path to a judgeship that Mr. Cooke had.
Cooke was well-known to the political leaders in the 6th Subcircuit; he'd donated time and money to causes they held near and dear; he'd gained favorable attention from the operation of his legal clinic. I, on the other hand, would be---despite running this blog for many years---a stranger to most of the political operatives in my backyard (at best I'd be a nodding acquaintance). Sixth Subcircuit politicians had reason to believe that Cooke could (and would, if forced) spend his enormous war chest wisely and run a good campaign; on the other hand, politicians in my neck of the woods would at least be sorely tempted to see if I knew how to use my money effectively. And professional politicians can bleed a candidate, make no mistake. Petition challenges may be unfounded, but they are fraught with peril for the uninitiated, and expensive for all concerned. If I survived the inevitable challenges, and knocked any phantom candidates off the ballot, there would still be at least one well-funded challenger. Probably one with a much better-sounding Irish name than mine. Would I have enough savvy to seek out and enlist the aid of experienced political operatives (and follow their good advice) -- or would I throw away my money on buttons and newspaper advertisements? In my quest for good advice would I take on an adviser who was really working on behalf of maintaining the status quo? As the old saying goes, politics ain't beanbag.
Money alone, even large stacks of the stuff, carries with it no guarantee of success in the quest for any political office. (Remember how much money Jeb Bush had? That's why people who fret about the corrosive influence of money per se in politics are focused on a single tree in a tangled forest.) Richard Cooke was smart enough, and connected enough, to use his money as leverage to obtain his goal.
Cooke was no political naif. Thus, whatever the accuracy or merit of his specific contentions, Cooke's comments to the Sun-Times about a different level or species of politics being practiced within the judiciary suggest that clout outside the courthouse does not necessarily translate to clout within. As someone who believes in the importance of judicial independence, I find some comfort in this. A little, anyway.
Ronald Duebbert, pictured at right, was elected to the Circuit Court in the far Downstate 20th Judicial Circuit just this past November. He began his judicial career in December -- and was banished to administrative duties in January.
Why? His sometime roommate, David E. Fields, a convicted felon, paroled after serving time for the battery of a pregnant woman, was arrested on a new charge of first degree murder in connection with the December 30, 2016 shooting death of one Carl Z. Silas. At the time, according to a January 6, 2017 story by Robert Patrick in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the St. Clair State's Attorney requested the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate possible obstruction of justice charges against Judge Duebbert.
The Duebbert saga is in the news again this month because the Belleville News-Democrat, after a FOIA suit against the Prisoner Review Board and the Illinois Department of Records, has obtained records showing that Duebbert regularly visited Fields in jail prior to Fields' October 2016 release -- with some visits lasting up to eight hours.
Fields wanted to move in with Duebbert upon his release from prison, but that request was initially denied because Duebbert had guns in his home that he was, at that point, unwilling to relinquish. Then Fields did move in with Duebbert on November 4 -- just days before Duebbert was elected -- only to be "instructed to move from Duebbert’s home Dec. 2," according to Beth Hundsdorfer's article in the News-Democrat, "'because it was a denied host site.'"
According to Hundsdorfer's article, "St. Clair County Chief Judge Andrew Gleeson learned of Fields' residency situation and told Duebbert that he would not allow him to take the bench if Fields continued to reside at Duebbert's home." Duebbert, in turn, according to Hundsdorfer, did tell Fields he needed to move.
What is unclear, at least to me, after reading the various news accounts, is whether Fields in fact had moved from Duebbert's home by December 30, when Fields allegedly shot Silas in the face. Hundsdorfer's April 15 article quotes Duebbert's lawyer as saying, "They [parole authorities] knew where he [Fields] was. No one was trying to hide that."
As for the guns that had been in Duebbert's home, Hundsdorfer's article quotes Duebbert's lawyer as explaining that, after the shooting, Duebbert took police to the location where the guns were stored -- and all were present and accounted for.
The candidate that Duebbert defeated to win election last November was former 20th Circuit Judge John Baricevic. Baricevic and two other 20th Circuit judges, Robert Haida and Robert LeChien, resigned their posts effective December 4, 2016 (the last day of their terms) and entered the 2016 Democratic Primary, seeking to return to the bench in a new term beginning December 5. This maneuver was challenged on the basis that a sitting judge could only seek retention, not run in a partisan election, and the case went all the way to the Appellate Court which decided, in the case of Cook v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 2016 IL App (4th) 160160, that Baricevic et al. were free to do as they did.
In Baricevic's case, the maneuver failed. (Haida and LeChien were reelected; Duebbert beat Baricevic by just 839 votes out of 163,411 votes cast).
Why did these three jurists eschew the retention ballot in favor of running in a partisan primary and potentially contested election? (Haida was not opposed last November.)
Tim O'Neil, in a January 20, 2016 article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (accessed today on Lexis), explained Baricevic, Haida and LeChien were motivated by a "scandal involving former judges Michael Cook and Joe Christ.... Christ, a new associate judge, died of a cocaine overdose on March 10, 2013, at Judge Cook's family hunting lodge. Judge Cook later was sentenced to two years in federal prison for possession of heroin and for being a drug user in possession of a firearm." [See, Death of a Downstate judge, downfall of another (FWIW, May 31, 2013).] Barecevic and his colleagues wanted to respond to anticipated "smear campaigns" and Baricevic told O'Neil that they would not have the freedom to do this if they only stood for retention.
The announcement, just a few days ago, that Bob Dylan had won the 2016 Nobel Prize for Literature made me think immediately of Simon & Garfunkel.
No, Your Honor, I really can tie this up: See, in or about 1966, a half-century ago, Messrs. Simon and Garfunkel released an album entitled "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme." On the record was a song titled "A Simple Desultory Philippic." The song is a sarcastic commentary on then-popular events and personalities -- and in this verse Mr. Simon makes a comment about the cultural arrogance of the youth of his day:
I knew a man, his brain was so small,
He couldn't think of nothing at all.
He's not the same as you and me.
He doesn't dig poetry. He's so unhip that
When you say Dylan, he thinks you're talking about Dylan Thomas,
Whoever he was.
The man ain't got no culture,
But it's alright, ma,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, the youth of 1966 are the gray eminences of 2016. And, perhaps, everybody must get stoned, even the members of the august Swedish Academy.
My son Joe was looking for another place to pitch one summer. This was a decade or so ago when he was playing high school baseball. Maybe he'd just graduated; I don't remember exactly. I do remember that some of his school teammates recruited him to pitch for the Morton Grove American Legion team where they had signed to play.
There was a problem, however. We lived within the boundaries of the Portage Park American Legion team. Portage Park had to give up its territorial claim on Joe before he could legally pitch for Morton Grove. Paperwork was involved. (When isn't it?) But, with the help of the Morton Grove coach, the proper authorities in Portage Park were contacted and the papers duly completed. Joe was able to play on the same team as his friends.
I couldn't help but remember that story yesterday as the news about Little League International's decision to strip Jackie Robinson West of its national title stormed across the Internet. I didn't have the heart (or the stomach) to turn on local sports radio during the day. Watching the news last night was painful. I loved the JRW story. Like so many in Chicago, I watched the games on TV and rooted for those kids; I was so happy when they won. I was a fan.
I remembered a couple of other things yesterday, too. I had occasion to coach my youngest son, Jim, when he played at Oriole Park. Oriole Park did not have a Williamsport team, but in addition to our house league teams for various age groups there were "all star" teams that played in various tournaments, mostly against area parks. No one cared about residence in those days, but there was always concern that unscrupulous coaches would try and load up their 10 or 11 or 12-year old teams with older players. Danny Almonte was the Little League scandal in those days -- the 14-year old pitcher who mowed down 12-year old lineups in Williamsport like a sharp scythe in a field of ripe wheat. As a result, I had to bring more than the equipment bag to tournament games; I carried a folder full of birth certificates, one for each kid on my team. No opposing coach ever demanded to check -- but I had them just the same. And tournaments got wise to forgeries, too: I had to get a bunch of duplicate birth certificates from the County Clerk's Office over the years for Joe and Jim both because a lot of tournament organizers refused to accept photocopies.
Because my kids played ball and because I coached (however badly), I had a chance to see and observe a lot about youth baseball. I came to one overwhelming conclusion: There is nothing wrong with youth baseball except grownups. If -- as Little League International has concluded -- some involved with JRW played games off the field as well as on, fibbing about where kids lived in order to assemble a super-team, I know one thing: The kids -- the players -- were not at fault. The JRW kids won the games on the field and their accomplishment should not be diminished, and certainly not invalidated, because of grownup foolishness.
As for the coaches and the directors or officers of the program? They're supposed to know, and follow, the rules. If they did not, whether intentionally or because of ignorance, they should be punished. There undoubtedly were forms that could have been completed to allow kids from outside the boundaries to play for JRW. If some actively tried to conceal the truth about their players' residences instead of getting the proper clearances, those persons should be banned.
Fr. Michael Pfleger and the Rev. Jesse Jackson used yesterday's JRW press conference to suggest a racial motive for Little League's belated investigation. The Evergreen Park coach whose complaints about residence issues sparked Little League's investigation is white. He was on all the TV newscasts last night, too, telling the world that he has had to change his phone number and seek police protection. Only Channel 9, to my knowledge, reported that the Evergreen Park coach is married to an African-American. His Evergreen Park team, according to Channel 9, is composed of mostly African-American and Latin kids. On the other hand, it is impossible to overlook the evidence that some people -- way too many people -- are taking an unholy glee in JRW's downfall. Still, I believe it oversimplifies matters to reduce this sad story to black and white. The color green is also involved. Green, as in the color of envy, and green, as in the color of money. Grownup concerns.
And the timing of all this stinks, no matter what anybody's motivation may be in pursing this investigation now.
I seem to recall that, in the small-time tournaments I was involved with, opposing coaches could check my kids' birth certificates right up until the first pitch was thrown. After that, the only thing that mattered was what happened on the field. Grownup interference -- except for coaches trying to intimidate younger, inexperienced umpires (and that's a whole other discussion) -- ended and the kids got to play their game. So should it be with Williamsport. While the TV cameras are out filming the kids going to go-kart tracks and amusement parks in the greater Williamsport area, the grownups can sort through and validate all the papers from all the players and run down any rumors they want. If a 14-year old is found masquerading as his own little brother, bench him. If a team is found to have a player from outside their assigned area (without the proper paperwork) bench that kid, too. But once the games start, all that matters is what happens between the lines. If it later develops that tournament officials were snookered by doctored paperwork, punish the persons who did the doctoring. But don't punish the kids. Don't change the results.
Bruce Rauner's own campaign workers booed during his victory speech last night when he mentioned that he had called House Speaker Michael J. Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton. The TV Talking Heads were quick to praise Mr. Rauner's gesture, unpopular as it may have been in the hotel ballroom, pointing out that Mr. Rauner, who had until that moment put Messrs. Madigan and Cullerton on a par with Beelzebub in all of his public pronouncements, will need their cooperation if he is to have any chance to accomplish anything in his gubernatorial term.
But the Talking Heads didn't speculate, at least on the channel I watched, about what Mr. Rauner may have said.
Don't you wonder?
Here's the gist of what I imagine Mr. Rauner might have said: Since I know you are bound and determined to have the General Assembly make the "temporary" 5% income tax rate permanent, could you please get this done before I'm sworn in? Yes, I know Mr. Rauner expended millions on commercials prophesying that Gov. Quinn would do just this were he to be re-elected. And Mr. Rauner swore he'd insist on the rollback -- but that was never realistic. He simply does not have the votes in the legislature to accomplish this. Messrs. Madigan and Cullerton could wait until the new year to make the 5% tax rate permanent, forcing new-Gov. Rauner to veto the plan -- he absolutely would have to -- but a veto override, though it would render Rauner an irrelevancy at the outset of his term, may not be so sure a thing, even in a supposedly veto-proof General Assembly. Legislators who barely survived tight reelection races may be understandably skittish. Were the veto of the 5% income tax rate to somehow succeed, the plutocrats who run the credit rating agencies, Mr. Rauner's natural allies, would have no choice but to further downgrade the state's already terrible bond ratings. On the other hand, if a lame duck General Assembly makes the tax rate no-longer-temporary, Mr. Rauner can fulminate to his heart's extent from the sidelines, but without necessarily incurring potentially fatal damage to his credibility.
But that's just my imagination. Mr. Rauner may not have asked. But Mr. Rauner has stated ambitions for school funding, for property tax freezes, and other things that will cost money. Putting the income tax rate back to 3%, as much as he says he wants to, would presumably deprive Mr. Rauner of the opportunity to do much of anything except cut and prune spending and services. As an experienced corporate takeover specialist, Mr. Rauner may feel he knows all there is to know about cutting and pruning. But he may find that the lessons of the private sector do not readily translate to the public sphere.
If Mr. Rauner's budget plans remain somewhat nebulous, Mr. Rauner nevertheless packs for Springfield with two fully-formed ideas, both of them stinkers.
Even last night, Mr. Rauner was plumping for his term limits plan. Actually, we have a perfectly good term limits plan in place in this country already. It's called an election. Elections don't work very well as a term limits plan in Illinois most of the time -- but the problem here is not with elections per se, the problem we have is that Speaker Madigan is such a gifted map-maker. He has redrawn legislative districts in such a way as to prevent meaningful election contests just about everywhere, maximizing the strength of the State's Democratic voters, minimizing the impact of the state's Republicans. This does not make Mr. Madigan bad or evil; he is merely taking advantage of what the current law allows him to do. Mr. Rauner's term limits plan would, if it could be enacted (which it can't), force Mr. Madigan to give up the post of House Speaker. But it would not take the map-drawing pen from Mr. Madigan's hand. A truly non-partisan map drawing commission, on the other hand, just might succeed. The recent attempt to put a constitutional amendment allowing just such a commission failed in court, but the court may have provided a road map showing how the defects in the proposal can be cured.
The other truly bad idea Mr. Rauner floats is his service tax proposal. Basically, he would extend the sales tax on tangible goods to intangible services... like attorney's fees or hospital bills. Maybe some of the big law firms could absorb such a tax -- it might require only a software tweak -- assuming that well-heeled corporate clients are still willing to pay whatever Big Law requires, but a service tax would be a disaster for small service businesses generally (and small law firms in particular). Good Lord, we have enough trouble getting clients to pay bills now -- and Mr. Rauner would have us try and collect an extra 5 or 6 or 9% for the benefit of the State? Impossible.
And, of course, a service tax, like a sales tax, is just about as regressive a tax as one can imagine. That means it impacts poor people far more harshly than rich folks. If Mr. Rauner wishes to buy a new Timex to replace the one he wore out in his commercials, the sales tax on that item is a negligible portion of his vast income. But the poor person who buys the same watch pays a far greater share of his income as sales tax even though he pays the same sales tax as does Mr. Rauner.
Please, Mr. Rauner, drop this talk of term limits and service taxes.
For over 40 years I concentrated my law practice in insurance coverage, insurance litigation, insurance defense, and civil appeals. Although I am currently retired from active practice, I continue to serve as an Arbitrator in Cook County Municipal and Law cases. I am also certified as a Mediator in the Cook County Law Division Major Case Court-Annexed Civil Mediation Program and the Chancery Division Mediation Program.
Sanity Prevails
-
Well lookie here (no link for anti police haters at WTTW):
-
*A Cook County jury determined Chicago police officers were not liable
for th...
Common Sense, Not Ideology
-
The New York Post ran this on Mayor Daniel Lurie’s interview with CNN’s
Dana Bash.
The full interview is here: [VIDEO]
He said the city lost its way.
“...
Joe Zekas R.I.P.
-
Joe Zekas ran the real estate news website YoChicago. If you have been
following that site and their social media channels i.e. YouTube or
X/Twitter you...
Updated 2018
-
I just added all of my Illinois Entertainer columns to the archives here.
There are 60 additional interviews with media professionals in Chicago.
Refer to ...
Posts
