Chicago a state; who dumps whom?

It is one of those periodic measures that gets introduced before the Illinois General Assembly – one that calls for the rest of Illinois to break away into its own state, or one that calls for Chicago to be separated from Illinois.

EMANUEL: Mayor gets a chuckle over splitting state

Regardless of the details of anyone’s specific proposal, those measures always manage to make me snicker. Largely because the people who are trying to express frustration with Chicago don’t want to admit how much the sentiment is mutual.

HOW ELSE TO interpret the comments Mayor Rahm Emanuel made this week during a meeting with the Chicago Community Trust. Although it should be realized that Emanuel, himself, was joking around.

For the record, the mayor was talking about Supreme Court decisions of recent days that were blatantly politically partisan in ways that go against the city’s interests, when he said, “Right now, after the last 48 hours, I’d like to pull out of this one nation and one state.”

When asked if he was talking about Chicago breaking off into its own independent city-state (a la the Vatican City that many people might mistakenly think is part of Rome), Emanuel quipped, “I’m going with Toronto.”

Which is Canada’s largest city, and one that is just slightly larger than Chicago.

Would these flags … 

OBVIOUSLY, NO ONE is going to seriously try to move forward with an independence drive. The real solution is that we all have to learn to work together, and to realize that each and every faction that comprises our society at-large offers some benefit.

That goes for just about every place in this nation of ours. We already had our “war” over secession in this country, and they lost!

I have similar thoughts when I hear there are officials in California who seriously think “the Golden State” ought to be broken up into three – the northern part of the state that would have San Francisco as its primary city, a southern part that would focus on San Diego and a third being the Los Angeles metro area.

… be at the heart someday … 

As though there are people who can’t appreciate having the nation’s second-largest city as part of their own political boundary.

SOUNDS SIMILAR TO those rural Illinois residents who think the whole world is focused on farms – even though most farms these days are corporate entities and trying to cling to the vision of a family-run farm is a large part of the reason those rural communities are so isolated from the mainstream of our society.

So are we ever going to get a state of Chicago that is separate from Illinois? Not likely, unless our society gets a whole lot more stupid than it already is tumbling down to in this Age of Trump that we’re now in.

Seriously, I think if anybody tried to split the state of Illinois up, they’d have one heck of a time figuring out where the boundary ought to be. Because it sure couldn’t be as simple as the city limits. Are we prepared to fight a “war” over who gets Naperville or Joliet?

I think people eager to think in terms of kicking Chicago “out” would be amazed to realize how much of Illinois would throw its lot in with the city. All those suburbs (more than 100 in Cook County alone, and those in the surrounding collar counties bring the tally to 250-plus) account for about two-thirds of Illinois’ population, and many of those residents merely think of “downstate” as the place where they, or a relative, went to college before coming back to “Sweet home, Chicago.”

THE REST OF Illinois’ population would be about 4 million people – placing the state at about No. 27 – just between Kentucky and Oregon (although bigger than Iowa’s 3.05 million), rather than the state’s current population rank of No. 6.

… of a 'battle' for the right to claim Joliet?

Anyway, this is all fantasy – which is why Emanuel can make jokes about the idea of “Oh Canada” becoming the new national anthem in these parts. Although it would be interesting if a new baseball rivalry were to develop between the White Sox and the Toronto Blue Jays.

The reality is that we are one, and that is our greatest national (and regional) strength. It is why I always have mocked people who try to tout the concept of “state’s rights,” because it seems to think we’re better off separate, and if it were really true, why not “city’s rights” being preeminent in which we work from the bottom up?

The truth is there’s a contribution to be made by everybody, and the only people who think of breaking apart as a serious concept are ones who deserve the label of “knuckleheads.”

  -30-

It took Hillary long enough to get here

That was my initial reaction to hearing the word earlier this week that the Associated Press (the same news-gathering organization that claims our city’s public transit elevated train system is the L and not the el) had proclaimed Hillary Clinton the presumptive winner of the Democratic presidential primary cycle.

 

CLINTON: The winner, it seems

Even though the people of California had not yet voted. Nor had those of New Jersey or the District of Columbia.

IN THEORY, THOSE places could have an impact on the purely committed number of delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Bernie Sanders was certainly counting on them to influence the uncommitted delegates to swing over to his side and make him the winner.

But it would seem that ain’t a gonna happen when the Dems gather for their convention in Philadelphia – which is destined to become a Hillary Clinton pep rally.

Even though it is likely a significantly large number of people siding with the Democrats will not feel all that peppy, on account of the fact that they have been lapping up the Bernie Sanders rhetoric.

For all I know, they may well remain angry at the fact their guy couldn’t beat up on Hillary, who admittedly is a politician who can compete with likely Republican nominee Donald Trump for the title of “most off-putting politico ever.”

NOW AS I have written before, I wound up casting an Illinois primary ballot for Hillary Clinton only reluctantly. It was the sense that Sanders was little more than cheap talk; an uncompromising sort who would not have the skills to carry out any of the things that he actually promised.

Not only because he can be an un-disagreeable cuss, but also because he’s the democratic socialist who has no other democratic socialists in Congress who would be aligned with him.

I could see where he’d have an actively hostile Republican opposition (be honest, there’s hardly anybody those people really like) and a Democratic caucus that would feel resentment.

It really would be a do-nothing four-year time period, if he were somehow to get elected.

BUT IT SEEMS that’s not going to happen. Because the reality is that Clinton is taking the primaries in the larger states with solid Democratic Party organizations, while Sanders wins Democrats in states where the organizations are weak and barely existent up against Republican-dominated political structures.

But more importantly, it really is ridiculous to think that the superdelegates – the political party regulars, the establishment themselves, are going to turn on the woman who was supposed to be the inevitable choice of the Democratic Party in this election cycle.

Especially not for a guy who went out of his way to avoid using the Democratic Party label while serving in the U.S. Senate from Vermont. When you think about it, it makes no sense.

It would be the wildest of fantasies to see all those superdelegates suddenly turn on Clinton to pick Bernie Sanders as the party’s presidential nominee.

IT MAKES ME wonder if Sanders supporters are the same kind of people who seriously expected an all-Chicago World Series this year (a thought now completely absurd considering that the White Sox are struggling to maintain a winning record; First Place is a fantasy).

If there is a larger theme to this year’s election cycle, it isn’t going to have anything to do with Bernie. It’s going to be to figure out why Hillary had so much trouble wrapping this process up.

Of course, the whole Hillary Clinton image is wrapped up in confusion. To many people, she’s that b-word who planted all kinds of crazy liberal ideas into then-President Bill Clinton’s head. She’s liberalism incarnate.

While the Sanders supporters want to believe she’s still that Goldwater Girl at heart who somehow snuck her way into the Democratic Party to commit acts of sabotage against progressive causes.

THAT IS, FOR those people who don’t just view her as a dried up hag from the 1960s whose time has passed. Except that it seems it hasn’t passed – it’s going to be her against Trump come the November general election.

And may the least despised pol amongst the two come out as the winner!

  -30-

Will redistricting be the compromise?

I have written on several occasions that I am skeptical of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s rhetoric concerning political reapportionment.

He has pushed for creating an independent body that would take over preparation of the maps that detail boundaries of political districts. Of course, the definition of “independent” can be open to interpretation.

It's not just a Texas issue. Provided by Texas Politics Project.

AS IN I wonder if it means anyone “independent” of the current political leadership who would deliberately favor the current political minority. It makes me suspect it to be an effort to undermine the current process – by which the boundaries are drawn by the legislators who (theoretically) are the representatives of the people who elected them.

In short, the people who couldn’t win the elections are now trying to find a new way to win – rather than going out and winning the election themselves.

So it is with some interest that I try to figure out what the significance is of the Supreme Court of the United States’ latest ruling on Monday – one that rejects the Arizona Legislature’s efforts to strike down the state Independent Redistricting Commission. It was created following a voter referendum, and was meant to take away the ability of legislators to draw political boundaries to favor themselves.

Although the real harm from the current process of redistricting is when politicos draw boundaries meant to screw over their opposition.

THE HIGH COURT on Monday ruled that there is nothing preventing a state from implementing a redistricting procedure that relies on someone other than the legislature to do the dirty work of political map-making.

RAUNER: Did high court give him a boost?

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that officials in California are viewing the ruling as supportive of their own state’s efforts. Which makes me suspect Rauner was very happy as well.

The governor now has a very high authority (the same one that pleased progressives by backing healthcare reform AND gay marriage just a few days earlier) in his favor.

Could this become the measure that makes Democrats now hostile to Rauner for his anti-organized labor rhetoric a little bit willing to compromise? Heck, could support for this Rauner desire become THE compromise issue that allows for the state to get something resembling a budget compromise in coming weeks?

OF COURSE, I’M not thinking that Democrats in the Legislature would back something meant to deliberately undermine themselves. I suspect we’d have to get a commission that wasn’t so blatantly biased in favor of any political party.

MADIGAN: He'll figure out way to protect self

Because the honest truth is that there is no such thing as absolute non-biased. Everybody is going to have their preferences they will want to favor. And for those who suggest a computer to take the human element out, I’d question the biases of those people who program the device.

But is the fact that this issue appears to have some sticking power means Democrats in this state ought to try to get a grasp on it so that it doesn’t wind up being implemented in a completely hostile form.

Otherwise we’re going to continue with the current format in Illinois, which is one that always amazes political people elsewhere – the idea that the balance of power can (and often does) fall to the draw out of a hat (or, one time, from a crystal bowl once owned by Abraham Lincoln).

IT WAS PUT into the state Constitution that way because it was believed that the fear of an all-or-nothing draw, with someone getting nothing, would be so fearsome it would force people to cooperate.

Instead, the greed of political people and the chance that they can get everything at the expense of their opposition has turned out to be stronger.

I don’t doubt that some Republicans are viewing the 2018 gubernatorial election as being all-important because it would give the GOP a veto come the 2021 reapportionment that could result in them having a chance at the “all-or-nothing” prize.

Which could also influence the Dems with their current veto-proof majority that prevents Rauner from being able to push his ideological will down their throats to consider this issue further – because nothing lasts forever.

  -30-

Some people determined to move us all backward; it's the only way they gain

We used to regard certain individuals in our society as being worth only three-fifths of a person. We used to think it natural that certain-gendered people didn’t have full citizenship – including the right to register to cast ballots in elections.

But we have moved forward in ways meant to include as many people as possible in our society. Which is a concept that offends some ideologically-minded people who want everybody who isn’t exactly like them to be excluded.

Will the high court take us back in time?

NOW THEY’RE TURNING to the Supreme Court of the United States, which this week said it would hear a case later this year that seeks to alter the way that determines the number of people included in political districts.

Currently, we undergo the redistricting process every decade, when local government officials take into consideration changes in population – then redraw political boundaries to try to make districts as equal in population as is possible.

Of course, the fact that political people are involved means a sense of self-interest gets worked into the process. Illinois has Democratic Party-leaning government because da Dems ruled in 2011 – and still have huge influence now, as Gov. Bruce Rauner is learning first-hand.

Just as a place like Texas had its boundaries drawn to maintain as much political influence as possible in the old white establishment of the state because Republicans dominate the state.

THERE PROBABLY IS no perfect way to draw boundaries – not even for those people who have fantasies about computers drawing arbitrary and neutral boundaries that ignore partisan political considerations. I’d wonder about the political leanings of the people programming the computers.

The nation’s high court is going to be asked to consider another means – the Austin, Texas-based Project on Fair Representation (which is most certainly unfair) wants only people registered to vote to be counted.

Which in a nation whose population is growing due to immigration means many people with a fully-legitimate reason to be here means there would be significant numbers of people who wouldn’t be counted.

That would wind up altering the composition of our government officials, reducing the numbers of non-Anglo officials in places like Texas and California – which is the very point that these people are pushing for, and which they’re hoping the Supreme Court will uphold sometime early next year.

I’LL BE HONEST – I could almost understand giving non-registered (to vote) people less say, but only if it were those native-born people who voluntarily choose not to cast votes. Except those aren’t the people being targeted by such an initiative!

Besides, the fact is that all people living here are covered by this nation’s laws. We’re all expected to follow them. We can’t be exempted from them by the fact that we don’t bother to vote, or that we’re not yet a U.S. citizen.

Nor should we be.

Which means we all ought to have some sense that our views are being represented in this government. Unless we really are determined to head backwards to the days when women couldn’t vote. Or when those of African origins were considered less than a full human being for census purposes.

NOBODY WOULD SERIOUSLY try to undo those changes in our society. At least not so bluntly. Although I wonder how much of an impact this particular measure would have on such people.

Also, I can’t help but think that this measure would merely slow down political progress. Because many of those non-citizen residents will eventually become U.S. citizens and take part in the electoral process – unless the ideologues plan to follow this up with measures restricting voting only to those who will cast ballots for their preferred candidates!

I believe that we as a society are better off taking measures that try to include more individuals. This particular measure is one headed in the absolute wrong direction – and one that the Supreme Court ought to reject out-of-hand.

But the court didn’t do that. They decided to hear the case, some time during the autumn months. Which means there’s always the chance that the ideologues of our high court will manage to get a majority ruling in their favor.

  -30-

What does it take to achieve literal sainthood – do Serra, Clemente qualify?

What does it take to become an officially-recognized saint of the Catholic church? It seems the criteria are ever evolving to the point where future saints aren’t going to be universally recognized.

With our current society being in a mode of wanting to turn every possible issue into a politically partisan brawl, how long will it be until our choice of saints becomes an issue to pick a fight over?

WHAT MOTIVATED ME to think about this was a pair of stories I stumbled across last week – one about the fact that Father Junipero Serra will be canonized as a saint. The other about the fact that certain people want to make a saint of one-time Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Roberto Clemente.

For those who are scratching their heads at the mention of Serra, he’s a character most of us encountered briefly in elementary school history classes. He was a Catholic friar who helped create the settlements that have evolved into California’s major cities.

Which means he helped create the first European settlements in what is now the United States. Although my own memories recall being in a fifth grade class in which none of my classmates could even fathom how to pronounce Serra’s name.

Serra helped to bring the Catholic church and European ways to the indigenous peoples who previously had called the west coast their home. We certainly wouldn’t have our modern-day society if not for his efforts.

OF COURSE, THE Los Angeles Times reported that is what ticks some people off to the point where they’re going to resent the fact that Pope Francis has given the 18^th century friar the highest recognition the church can bestow upon his memory.

Because the Catholic church, in its desire to spread its influence and “save the savages” from eternal damnation, imposed such pressure to assimilate that the tribal influences were devastated – along with many of the individuals to whom foreign diseases brought by the church’s individuals wound up being deadly.

Serra – the saint who created our society, or some sort of Catholic killer?!? I’m sure there are those who can come up with even more over-the-top rhetoric when expressing their contempt for the lack of a native presence in California.

Then again, there are those who are all too eager to believe that California – and just about everything west of St. Louis – was a vast land of emptiness until the white settlers came along in the 19^th century.

I’M SURE THEY’LL be the ones who will aggressively push Serra’s sainthood because it fits their notion of what the world ought to be.

Although I wonder what they’ll think of the notion of slugger Sammy Sosa’s idol also being recognized as a Catholic saint? It hasn’t happened yet – and may never happen. These kinds of things take time.

But the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported how the producer of a documentary film about Clemente’s life now wants to document the “miracles” he performed so that he can get official Catholic recognition.

Clemente was a ball player from 1955 until 1972 and is likely the best ball player the Pittsburgh Pirates ever had – whose career, and life, came to a sudden end when the airplane he was riding while filled with goods for victims of a Nicaragua earthquake crashed into the ocean near San Juan.

CLEMENTE’S BODY WAS never recovered. Although his memory became all-the-more elevated. Baseball gave Roberto its highest honor when it eliminated the five-year waiting period and immediately inducted him into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y.

Apparently, that isn’t good enough for some.

Richard Rossi, who made the documentary and is trying to build actual support for sainthood, cites evidence of Clemente’s knowledge of pressure points and how they could be used to help ease pain. Does that amount to the ability to heal the sick? By that definition, just about every chiropractor qualifies for sainthood!

But how many chiropractors could win the World Series MVP (in 1971, against the Baltimore Orioles) while also inspiring the Latin American community? Or create a culture along the West Coast?

  -30-

Activists must fight vocal opposition when it comes to marriage for all (even gays)

The most interesting aspect of the marches that took place in cities across the nation to express outrage with Californians backward enough to vote for a measure repealing the state’s recognition of marriage for all people (regardless of orientation) is the fact that some people claim the vote ought to end the issue.

It happened in Chicago as well, as the activists who like to politicize their religion held their own counterdemonstration Saturday across the street from the Federal Plaza – where hundreds (if not thousands) of gay rights activists held their own march and rally.

THOSE PROTESTERS OF the (far) right want to believe that if Illinois law were as ridiculous as California law in allowing so many fringe elements to put their pet crusades on the ballot so easily, they’d be able to get a majority of Illinoisans to vote against allowing gay couples to have any of the legal rights associated with marriage.

“The people spoke in California and we believe they’d speak the same way here,” Peter LaBarbera (who on Saturday identified himself as being with a group calling itself Protect Marriage Illinois – the rest of the year, he is with the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality) told the Chicago Tribune.

He’s probably right.

There are enough people who get irrational when it comes to the issue of marriage that a majority probably would be silly enough to vote “yes” on a measure they perceived as opposing the interests of gay people.

BUT I HAVE to argue – that attitude is irrelevant, regardless of how prevalent it is.

There are times when the correct thing for a society to do is the minority opinion, and it is the duty of a responsible government to be able to figure out when those issues occur and to prevent the majority opinion from running roughshod over the rights of the minority.

The most drastic situation was with regards to the days when segregation based upon race was completely legal in this country (it even had Supreme Court backing from the case of “Plessy vs. Ferguson”).

I have no doubt that any “vote” on the issue taken in the Southern states on whether segregation of the races was justified would have created a majority of voters (even if one assumes that black people were not interfered with at the polling places) who would have voted “yes” to maintain it. Anything promoting integration would have been voted down.

IN OTHER PARTS of the country, there likely would have been a majority of the people who would have been willing to look at the issue as being purely local – as though certain basic rights ought to be denied to some people, based upon what state they happen to be in.

That wouldn’t have meant they would have been correct.

If anything, it would have been more evidence of the repulsiveness of society as it existed then, just as the vote in California last week to repeal new laws that permitted gay people to marry legally (just like everybody else) is an example of how flawed our society remains.

It just strikes me that gay marriage is an absurd issue for people to get worked up over, particularly how I don’t see how one couple’s decision to live their lives together and seek the same legal rights as other married couples have affects my life, one way or the other.

THE REALITY IS that these gay couples seeking marriage likely are not going to find many religious denominations willing to perform them. So we’re talking about a lot more people going to City Hall to have a justice of the peace or some other clerk perform the ceremony.

It’s not like we’re hearing people argue for church weddings. It’s not like any religious denomination is being pressured to change its ways or beliefs because of this.

And if this issue comes down to religious fanatics upset that their particular religion’s beliefs are not being allowed to dominate society over all others, then to me it sounds like these people view religion as their excuse to bully others into submission.

They come off sounding as ridiculous as the Illinois General Assembly did a few years ago when they passed a law saying that marriage between couples of the same gender was NOT legal in Illinois – even though the state’s laws concerning marriage already defined the concept as being a union between couples of differing genders.

IT ALWAYS STRUCK me as completely appropriate that then-Gov. Jim Edgar went out of his way to sign that bill into law at a time when there was so much other business pending at the Statehouse that there was no way he’d have to answer questions about it – because I suspect even he realized how absurd the argument truly is.

If someone truly believes that marriage to someone of the same gender is wrong, I’d argue that no one is forcing them to marry another man (or woman, depending on the crackpot’s gender). That’s actually similar to my belief on abortion – nobody forces a woman to have one if she truly doesn’t want to.

In short, the people who make these arguments against gay marriage come off as the ultimate schoolyard bullies, all grown up and still looking for reasons to use force to cram their sense of ignorance into everybody else’s mind.

Aside from being immoral, such an attitude is ironic because it strikes me as being incredibly un-Christian.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Did California voters manage to anger gay rights activists to the point (http://nwi.com/articles/2008/11/16/news/illiana/docd9f575e2941b54038625750300043904.txt) they will fight seriously on the issue of gay marriage?

Chicagoans joined activists in many other cities in engaging in protest on the access to legal (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/chicago-crowd-protests-calif-gay-marriage-ban.html) marriage issue.

Gay ‘civil unions’ backers bring ‘senior citizen’ tactic to Illinois General Assembly

At a time when California officials are going to boldly address the issue of whether marriage ought to be legal for gay people, politicos in Illinois may try to sneak the issue in through the back door.

Specifically, supporters of a bill pending before the Illinois House of Representatives this spring to create the concept of civil unions (which gives some of the legal rights to couples that a church-sanctioned marriage already provides) are now touting the notion that it’s not just gay people who could benefit – senior citizens who are widowed and have potential for a new relationship at the end of their lives would also gain.

IN THE IMAGINATIONS of the activists who want this issue to pass, a unique pairing will develop – gay rights activists and the small army of retirees who can be organized by the American Association of Retired Persons and other interest groups that look out for older people.

They will supposedly create a force that will pressure the Illinois Legislature into actually voting for something resembling civil unions. After all, who’s going to say “no” to that sweet grandma-like woman?

In reality, when it comes to the prospect of gay marriage entering a debate, there are a lot of people who will screech and scream – perhaps even a few of those sweet-looking grandma-types.

At stake is what happens to elderly people who are widowed, then get into another relationship in their final years of life. Some of them go so far as to get married, but many do not – in large part because their Social Security benefits would take too big a hit if they were legally joined as one.

SO THEY MERELY live together, although supporters of this new strategy note they suffer when one of the people passes on or incurs a threatening illness. Because of the lack of a legal marriage, the other person in the couple has no legal say in what happens.

A civil union, these people say, is the perfect alternative to marriage in that it would invest each person with a legal say in the other’s future. Hence, civil unions are not just something for gay people anymore.

Who’s to say whether that line of reasoning will be considered acceptable? It has been tried in other states, but did not appear to sway many people.

AARP officials in Florida last autumn tried arguing against measures to outlaw gay marriages. They cited civil unions as acceptable, provided that provisions were written into the law to allow heterosexual senior citizens to take advantage of the measure as well.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS that conservatives wound up blasting the attempt to include senior citizens as, “a pathetic, desperate strategy.”

Already, various Internet sites that attract social conservative elements of our society are denouncing the possible use of the tactic in Illinois, making it clear they will not tolerate anything that would (in any way) benefit gay people – which makes this an issue more of trying to keep gay people down than it is of protecting anyone’s legal rights.

The one that caught my attention was an anonymous half-wit who felt the need to tell the world (through the Springfield State Journal-Register newspaper’s reader’s comments section) that without heterosexual marriage, our very essence would be, “out in some farmer’s bean field plowed under with the rest of the sewage.”

So what’s going to happen here in Illinois?

IT’S A GOOD thing that the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Greg Harris (who represents Chicago’s Ravenswood and Lincoln Square neighborhoods) is non-committal about when this issue will come up for a vote.

He thinks he could get enough support in the Chicago Democrat-controlled Illinois House if the measure actually got to a vote. But with all the other potential issues for legislators to dump on each other with, the last thing that House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is going to want is something that stirs up the social conservatives.

He’s already geared up for battle with Gov. Rod Blagojevich on a myriad of personal slights. He doesn’t need another enemy. That is what makes this issue (and strategy) a likely bet to come up in 2009 – if at all.

Perhaps the 2008 elections will help bring on a change in the mindset of our public officials to allow them to view the issue of gay marriage more rationally.

I KNOW. QUIT laughing.

Reality makes that scenario even less likely than the seniors/gay activists working together as an effective coalition to pressure the Illinois Legislature to take action on civil unions.

Which means the interests of gay people in Illinois who want their relationships to have legal status ought to be looking to Sacramento, Calif., rather than Springfield, Ill., for any sort of movement.

IT WAS ON Thursday that the state’s high court struck down the two laws that made marriage a legal option only for heterosexual couples. The court, in its majority opinion, ruled that marriage, “properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual.”

That could result in gay couples from around the country converging on California to get married, then return to their home states to pressure their local political people to recognize the result of their union.

Social conservative activists already are working with their California sympathizers, trying to push for an amendment to the state constitution that would ban any gay-marriage options. That, if they can get it on the ballot and get a majority of voter support, would overrule Thursday’s high court ruling.

IN SHORT, GAY marriage is now an issue that Californians are going to be confronted with – although I won’t be the least bit surprised if it creeps its way into the presidential campaign and the entirety of the United States of America has to put up with the ridiculous rhetoric.

I can already envision Republican John McCain trying to gain the support of people pushing for the constitutional amendment and conservatives trying to tar Democrat Barack Obama as the candidate with the crazy black preacher, the hippie terrorist friend AND who supports gay marriage.

It’s one more thing they can try to pile on him. I would consider it a victory for Illinois (and society as a whole) if voters rejected such ridiculous reasoning and didn’t take the issue of gay marriage into account at all come Nov. 4.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Wearing their “Seniors for Civil Unions” t-shirts, a group of elderly people led by state politicos (http://www.sj-r.com/news/x194397179/Sponsor-Civil-union-bill-would-help-seniors) want to show that civil unions is not just a gay rights issue.

The desire for civil unions is growing (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-xgr-civilunions-o,0,2952794.story) amongst gay people in this state.

The Statehouse Scene in Tallahassee, Fla., already went through this attempt to link senior citizens (http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2007/12/aarp-marriage-a.html) and gay rights activists.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT among the Republican politicos wanting to overturn (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1210878799-Jj/xwntb5wCqzwzdXIgcMA) the California Supreme Court’s action that legitimizes marriages of gay couples beginning in mid-June.

Recall could drag down Quinn legacy

I’m going to tick off a lot of people with this statement, but I have always considered the concept of a “recall” election to be one of the most Un-American things permitted in U.S. politics.

I always took a bit of pride in my home state of Illinois for not succumbing to the silliness of allowing people to un-do the results of a perfectly good electoral system.

NOW, THE PEOPLE who couldn’t defeat Rod Blagojevich on Election Day in ’02 or ’06 want the possibility of ambushing the Illinois governor with special elections at their whim to try to undo the will of the majority of Illinoisans – who actually voted for this goof to be guv.

The Chicago Tribune is trying to throw the muscle of its editorial page behind the concept, which doesn’t surprise (or concern) me all that much. What really bothers me is that the lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, is giving the ridiculous recall concept his backing.

He is supportive of the measure pending in the General Assembly that would allow for people to call for new elections, if they could get significant support on petitions. It also would provide for an immediate replacement election (so no, Pat isn’t calling for a recall, just so he could move up to the gubernatorial post).

I realize lieutenant governors don't have much in the way of official duties (which is why Pat Quinn had time to do the "first pitch" honors at a Kane County Cougars game), but somebody needs to find something of substance to keep Quinn busy. Photograph provided by State of Illinois.

I will be the first to agree that there is a high level of discontent with the political performance of Blagojevich – more so than just the usual malcontents who want to “throw the bums out of office” regardless of whom the bums actually are.

BUT I HONESTLY believe the American Way of doing things would be for these people to focus their attention on the next Illinois government elections in 2010. Get yourself organized and put up a credible candidate who can challenge Blagojevich.

If the level of discontent with Rod is truly as high as they want to believe it is, they should be able to defeat him. If they can’t, then they should quit whining like sore losers.

All too often, the people in states where recalls are permitted who screech the loudest are the sore losers who are just too miffed that a majority of the public didn’t agree with them on Election Day.

And in the cases where a government official turns out to be a political mope, I happen to believe that people tend to get the quality of public officials they deserve. Maybe the majority of us who voted for Blagojevich (including myself, both times) deserve this.

MY OBSERVATIONS ARE that the people pushing the hardest for a recall provision in Illinois law are those Republican followers from rural Illinois who have seen how the Land of Lincoln has turned Democrat in recent years. They want to come up with another way to get rid of a states chief executive who won’t cater to their demands over those of the bulk of Illinois.

With the condition the Illinois Republican Party is in now (virtually brain dead), I’ll be the first to admit that Blagojevich’s chances of winning re-election to a third term in office in the 2010 election cycle are excellent.

Even when they had a respectable candidate in 2006 (Judy Baar Topinka), the Republican political mechanisms have become so rusty they were unable to do anything significant to help her. A tainted Blagojevich was able to beat her easily.

Now some people are going to bring up (probably, they have been screaming all through reading this commentary) about the sleazy details that will come out of the federal corruption trial of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who helped Blagojevich raise funds for his political campaigns and who helped pick some of the people who got government appointments during the Blagojevich era.

THERE HAVE BEEN people who for years now have insisted that Rod will wind up facing his own criminal charges for political corruption, and could someday wind up doing time himself in a federal penitentiary.

To my mindset, that is not a good enough reason to whack the people of Illinois with the concept of a recall election. If it turns out that Blagojevich truly has done something seriously illegal, Illinois law already contains provisions for impeachment.

For those people who will argue that the standards required to impeach and convict a public official to remove him from office are too high, I say, “So what?”

It is supposed to be hard to remove a public official from a government post. The burden of proof ought to be on the accuser, not the politico. This is a Democracy we have in Illinois, where the results of an election of the people, by the people and for the people (remember the Constitution?) ought not to be cancelled out just because a few individuals in our society are sore losers.

JUST THINK OF how ridiculous the spectacle would be if all the malcontents of our society were to decide to want a recall of President Bush. It serves us right for voting for him twice (or voting for him once and allowing the Supreme Court to pick him the other time).

Actually, we don’t have to imagine how pathetic the concept of recall elections are in actual practice. We saw for ourselves a few years ago in California, when voters there got worked up by the malcontents and went along with the whim of dumping Grey Davis.

As if replacing him with actor Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t silly enough, we got to endure the spectacle of a special election with more than 100 candidates – and not a single legitimate pick in the batch. If I had been a Californian back then, I may very well have voted for Gary Coleman just as a protest of allowing electoral politics to devolve into a circus.

YET THIS IS the direction that Quinn would like to take our fine state. Here’s hoping that the Statehouse observers are correct in saying that the recall measure will never come up for a vote in the Illinois Senate. If true, then Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, will have performed a great service on behalf of all the people of Illinois – even though some will be too blind to realize it.

Quinn is among the blind. During an appearance earlier this week on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” program, the lieutenant governor insisted that a recall measure is necessary to ensure good government. In reality, it is more likely to cause chaos by making it easier for a disgruntled minority to wreck havoc on the majority.

What is sad is that Quinn is the man who already has earned his place in the Illinois history books for leading the effort that slashed the Illinois House of Representatives from 177 individuals to 118.

THAT MOVE BENEFITTED politics by eliminating excess politicos, particularly those who were only managing to get elected because state law required every district to have officials form each major political party (Republicans in Chicago, Democrats or Independents in rural Illinois).

The people who got dumped from the Legislature in the “cutback amendment” were those who didn’t have the support of the constituents they allegedly represented. The old way of compiling a Legislature created the illusion of bipartisanship, whereas the current way is probably more honest to the feelings of the people.

By pushing for a recall, Quinn threatens to undo the good he accomplished back in 1981. Pat needs to quit while he’s ahead, or else he threatens to reinforce the image that political observers joke about – the egomaniac who just loves to have a press conference with the Statehouse statue of Abraham Lincoln looming in the background.

-30-