Hocker in hair of Trump heir?

It’s one of those stupid, nonsensical-type stories that get too many people all worked up – some lowly waitress had the unmitigated gall to spit a hocker at the son of the president of the United States.

ERIC TRUMP: The target?

It’s true – Eric Trump was eating at an upscale Chicago restaurant when his waitress spit at him.

BECAUSE HE HAS Secret Service protection, the agents immediately pounced on her, hauled her away, and turned her over to Chicago Police. Where she could have faced some sort of criminal charge along the lines of assault.

Except that Trump eventually decided to not pursue the matter – which would have required him to show up in court to be on hand as she worked her way through the criminal justice system in Cook County.

He probably felt the whole matter wasn’t worth his time or inconvenience. Although the reports on the incident indicate the waitress in question was suspended from her job.

It may well turn out she will lose the job altogether, and it may turn out that at least one potential future employer will decide not to hire her because of her conduct in this incident.

WHICH WOULD NOT be an unjust act. Losing her job because she lost her cool for a moment and let the junior Trumpster know exactly what she thought of him!

It’s that old cliché, the customer is always right. Even though in reality, it usually turns out when there are problems that the customer became a pompous ass – which brings on the bad behavior.

But one of the rules of working occasionally menial jobs is that there are times when people have to put up with pompous behavior of customers. All part of the rules of providing good service – which usually is what differentiates a good business from a bad one.

Scene of the 'crime'

Meaning the waitress should most likely have waited until after Trump, the Eric, was out-of-earshot – then developed some sort of story she probably could have told for the rest of her life about what a twit the younger Trump is. Many people would have eagerly believed her.

INSTEAD, THAT HOCKER wound up providing the content for countless horror stories that people will tell instead.

Even Mayor Lori Lightfoot is getting in the act – going around calling the incident “repugnant” and making people feel sorry for Eric Trump.

Personally, I always get bothered when people are eager to spread a story about something that could be a police matter – but they don’t want to actually go through the legal process.

For this story is finding as its source The Trump Organization – meaning it’s Eric himself, using the public relations people who have spent years making the boorish antics of Donald Trump himself seem as though he’s really a colorful character. Instead of someone who probably would have deserved to get dozens of loogies aimed in his own direction throughout the years.

MEANING I EXPECT that this woman will eventually have the most personal details about herself spread about – while Eric Trump continues to act as though what a shame it is that “poor, little ol’ me” was singled out for abuse.

Now I don’t know for sure whether this was a case of a waitress forgetting her place for a moment, or whether it was Eric Trump who did something that considered an act of provocation.

Prepared to take a 'loogy' for presidential son?

In fact, I don’t doubt that we’ll never find out exactly what occurred. Too many people who have their own ideologically partisan reasons for doing so will now concoct their own versions of what they want to believe happened.

And the layers of nonsensical rhetoric will be added on and on and on. Enough that I’m reaching for the Tylenol bottle – this so-called issue has given me a headache.

  -30-

Everybody upset w/ Van Dyke verdict

I suspect there was a moment, however brief, of joy when Judge Vincent Gaughan said “81 …,” giving people the impression that a former Chicago cop convicted of the shooting death of a 17-year-old black teen was about to put the 40-year-old cop away to rot in prison for life.

VAN DYKE: Nearly 7 years

But then, Gaughan continued with “… months,” not years.

AS IN GAUGHAN decided that his prison term will only last a period of just under seven years – of which he’s already served three months in the county jail out in Rock Island, Ill.

Considering that the family of Laquan McDonald came out and said Friday that they thought a prison term of at least 20 years was essential for Van Dyke to be properly punished.

And, in fact, prosecutors themselves made a recommendation of an 18- to 20-year prison term for Van Dyke.

But Gaughan ultimately chose to concoct a prison term based off the fact that Van Dyke was found guilty of a second-degree murder charge, and not to factor in all those additional counts of aggravated battery with a firearm – which in theory could have made for a prison term of nearly 100 years possible.

“A JOKE AND a slap in the face,” along with a slew of obscenities, was the reaction of McDonald’s family to the prison sentence after the sentence was handed down following a day-long sentencing hearing that occurred Friday.

McDONALD: Gone nearly as long as Van Dyke

But Gaughan made a point of saying he figured “100 percent” of people were going to be offended by his sentence. I don’t doubt that, because Van Dyke’s family made emotional pleas saying they have already suffered severely by the loss of Jason to incarceration for any length of time.

As it was, they argued that a sentence of probation would have been appropriate. Which I don’t doubt was an idea of great offense to the McDonald family. As it was, Laquan’s uncle read a letter into the record on Friday that was written as though it was crafted by McDonald himself.

Telling us that he was trying to make something of his life, give up his drug addictions, and that Van Dyke, by firing the 16 shots into his body, deprived him of that opportunity.

GAUGHAN: Upset 100 percent of people

THERE IS ONE thing that has to be conceded – it could have gone much worse for Van Dyke. He’ll be about 46 years old when he is released from prison. In short, he has a chance to put together a “rest of his life.” Even though I don’t doubt he’ll view the next six or so years as the most hellish experience he’ll ever have to endure.

It’s not going to be a pretty experience for a law enforcement officer. But some people see this whole Van Dyke ordeal as being about making police suffer.

If anything, they’re even more upset by the ruling earlier this week that three police officers facing criminal charges for filing false reports about what it was Van Dyke did to McDonald were NOT guilty.

There are those who wanted Van Dyke to rot in prison, and see a complete crackdown on the Chicago Police Department. Anything short of that is going to cause them to feel nothing but contempt for our legal system.

THEN AGAIN, THERE probably is nothing that would please those individuals. Some people get way too hung up on the concept of retribution. Even though what we as a society ought to be trying to do is figure out the way to move beyond this incident.

McCARTHY: Would win be seen as police victory?

Because the reality of the whole affair is that there’s nothing that can be done to bring Laquan McDonald back to life. There’s nothing that will restore the type of life that Jason Van Dyke had, or will protect his family from the harm they’re suffering as a result of what happened on that October night of 2014.

Of course, there could be one coming blow in the near future that would further “rub it in” the very notion that law enforcement is protecting itself, and NOT the public. What happens if Garry McCarthy somehow wins the mayoral election of February and run-off of April?

For McCarthy was the police superintendent who lost his job because of Van Dyke’s actions. Would the people eager to protect the police image be strong enough to make him our city’s mayor?

  -30-

Federal bureaucracy, red tape – is that the key to thwarting sanctuary cities?

It has long been the conservative ideologue manner for dealing with abortion – a medical procedure they’re determined to view as criminal, but which sensible people do not.

Just another step in Trump's efforts … 

They have their similar-minded elected officials push for policies and regulations that make a person’s ability to obtain the procedure so much of a burden that it effectively makes it impossible for many women to obtain – even if it remains in the law books.

IT SEEMS THAT the ideologues are taking a similar approach to immigration; specifically to the notion of Sanctuary Cities. As in the concept that federal immigration officials ought to do their own work in enforcing federal policies that are overly harsh, and shouldn’t be able to draft local law enforcement into doing their leg work.

It seems they’re once again trying to mess with the federal funds that many local police departments rely upon to fund their efforts. Almost as though they’re saying cities are free to declare themselves sanctuaries from the ideological nonsense that has taken over our federal immigration policies.

But those cities can count on being messed with in ways that it will make it difficult, if not impossible, to do the jobs that actually are within their listed responsibilities.

That certainly is happening in Chicago, where on Friday the city felt compelled to file a lawsuit yet again against the U.S. government for messing with the funds the Chicago Police Department expect to get. And that, in fact, every police department gets.

EXCEPT THAT IN this Age of Trump, officials want to withhold as their way of pressuring Chicago into accepting a more intolerant attitude toward “all those foreigners” whom they’re determined to believe are the root cause of all the problems our society faces.

Because once again, Chicago is being forced to fight for its share of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds – a program that has become a significant part of the federal government’s efforts to help bolster local law enforcement.

Which is something that President Donald J. Trump always claims he’s interested in doing whenever he goes on yet another of his nonsensical rants about how messed up he thinks Chicago is.

… to bully Chicago and Rahm Emanuel into submission

But yet what does he actually do? Trump has talks with singer Kanye West about a whole lot of nonsensical babble, while messing with the funding that might help local police to do more in addressing crime.

THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE is pathetic in so many ways – largely because it occurred a year ago.

Chicago had to take legal action in order to get its share of grant monies, and a U.S. District judge wound up ruling in the city’s favor that federal demands requiring city and Cook County jail officials notify them of every inmate they were holding who had questionable immigration status were not sufficient cause for the feds to withhold some $2 million from the Chicago Police Department.

Yet it seems the Justice Department is once again refusing to cough up the cash, as city officials still have yet to receive the letter confirming that they’ll get the money this year.

As though officials in this Age of Trump have decided they don’t want to pay attention to any court order. They’re going to persist in pursuing their ideologically-motivated policies whose long-range intent are to make certain people feel so unwelcome in this country that they’ll want to leave.

ALMOST LIKE THAT “self-deporting” nonsense talk that came up during the presidential campaign of 2012. It’s as if this goes beyond anything that Trump says or thinks, and has become a part of the Republican platform for addressing the issue.

Ought to think before rants about bullying

Ignore those people who won’t do what they’re told, and maybe they’ll just give up.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes the courts to issue an order forcing the federal government to cough up Chicago’s share of the proceeds. It’s not like there’s anything new this year that didn’t apply last year.

As for whether the same nonsense will occur again next year, most likely it will. That may be the ultimate reason that strong turnout come Nov. 6 (and again in 2020) is so important – perhaps the so-called “silent majority” needs to be reminded their guy got 3 million fewer votes in 2016 – and that they’re really a loud-mouthed minority whose ideological bigotry doesn’t belong in the 21^st Century.

  -30-

Will Van Dyke be bold enough to ‘take the stand’ to defend his conduct?

It’s a standard question going into a criminal trial – will the defendant testify in his own case.

Van Dyke is one of many thousands of criminal defendants to pass through this nearly-century-old building

There are those who think Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke desperately needs to give his perspective of the happenings of Oct. 20, 2014 – the night he killed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.

I STATE THAT as a fact beyond dispute; McDonald is dead and buried and not going to have the life his parents would have dreamed for him because of Van Dyke’s actions.

Which is why this entire trial is not about what Van Dyke did – but why!

Because we do give our police significant authority to use force, including deadly force, in the performance of their jobs. Which is why defense attorneys have tried to present the image of a McDonald who was strung out on drugs to the point where he was out of control.

Which made that knife he was waving about a very deadly weapon to anybody who happened to be near him.

IT’S CLEAR FROM the four days of testimony that prosecutors presented that they want us to think of this as an open-and-shut case. Van Dyke fired multiple gunshots into McDonald’s body and he died. So now, Van Dyke must go to prison.

But life is never that clear-cut, even though all of us want to believe life’s questions can all be answered with “yes” or “no.”

So when the Van Dyke defense begins its work come Monday at the Criminal Courts building, the big issue will be whether Van Dyke himself will take the stand and submit to questions about what he did that night in ’14.

VAN DYKE: Will he be able to clear his name?

Van Dyke has the legal right to refuse to say anything. He can’t be forced to take the stand and submit to questions. We require prosecutors to prove their own cases – and do not permit them to intimidate people into testifying against themselves.

IN FACT, MANY criminal cases do not result in a defendant taking the stand. I have seen countless trials in which a defendant does not put up any defense – with attorneys arguing that prosecutors so clearly failed to prove their case they don’t feel the need to say or do anything for the record.

And yes, it has worked, because the burden of proof is on prosecutors to show their case is legitimate. I’m sure Van Dyke would like to think he falls into that category.

But there are people who want to hear Van Dyke’s own words about that night. It’s almost as though they’re a group of “Ricky Ricardos,” telling Van Dyke’s “Lucy” to “splain” himself and what he was thinking when his reaction four years ago to encountering McDonald was to pull out his pistol and fire 16 shots into Laquan’s body.

But if he does that, he also opens himself up to questioning from prosecutors, who with their “yes” or “no” mentality will be more than willing to put pointed questions to him meant to make Van Dyke appear to be mean and vindictive.

IN FACT, I have seen criminal trials where prosecutors are so demanding of a “yes” or “no”-type answer that they refuse to allow the elaboration of detail usually required to get at the whole truth of a situation.

Despite the claims of legal officials that our judicial system is meant to elicit truth, my own experiences in covering courts throughout the years have led me to believe the reality is that prosecutors and defense attorneys are given the chance to present their own versions of what they want us to believe happened – then we leave it up to that mythical “jury of our peers” to decide which version we believe.

Will police reputation escape taint?

So does Van Dyke have enough faith in his memory of what happened that night that he’ll be willing to submit to prosecutorial questions meant to trip him up? Will his take on the events sway anyone who has spent the past four years developing their own impression of what they believe happened that night?

Or will it become more fodder for the cynics of our society that this trial – which is progressing much more quickly than I would have expected – was “rigged” from the beginning?

  -30-

Would Chicago be better off if Van Dyke were to get a bench trial?

Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer about to go on trial for a 2014 shooting death of a teenager, has until Friday to decide whether he wants his fate determined by a jury of his so-called peers, or by a judge.

GAUGHAN: Will he, or jurors, decide fate?

I can’t help but think we as a society would be better off if he were to get a bench trial – as in letting a judge decide his fate based solely on the merits of the law.

IT’S NOT THAT I have all that much faith in the mindset of the judiciary. It’s more that I suspect there’s no way any group of individuals will be capable of putting aside their emotions with this case.

We’re more likely to avoid offending the sensibilities of our society if we put this case into the hands of a judge.

Not that we can avoid offending people. When it comes to Van Dyke and the death of Laquan McDonald, there are going to be people who will be grossly offended – no matter how the case is resolved.

As things stand going into Friday, a 12-member jury has been picked, and officials say they expect four alternates who could be called upon if one of the dozen jurors winds up having to withdraw could be chosen soon.

WHICH IS WHY Judge Vincent Gaughan has given Van Dyke and his legal counsel until Friday to make the decision – jury trial, or bench trial?

If Van Dyke ultimately decides on a bench trial, then the outcome will be solely up to Gaughan. All of the jurors who have thus far been chosen will be dismissed – and they won’t ever have to make a decision on what should become of the cop who got captured on video firing 16 shots into McDonald’s body.

VAN DYKE:A decision to make by Friday

Defense, of course, sees this as a case of the teenager wielding a knife while walking down the street and behaving in ways that made it seem as though he was a threat to the public.

It’s apparent that Van Dyke took actions that resulted in McDonald’s death; although police officers are given authority to use deadly force on the job. Which makes this a trial solely about determining the line between justifiable homicide and murder.

IT’S SAD THAT this is going to become a race-tinged case. There already are those upset that the 12-member jury apparently has seven white people, three Latinos, one Asian and ONLY one black person.

The trial hasn’t even begun, and we’re already getting the accusations that defense attorneys went out of their way to eliminate as many black people from jury consideration as possible.

I don’t care if all four alternates wind up being African-American; we’ll get the claims that a group of white people refused to administer justice against a white cop. Although there will be others who will rant and rage about the notion of Van Dyke being prosecuted BECAUSE he’s white.

They’ll think acquittal is the only possible outcome that won’t be a travesty.

THAT IS WHY I’d prefer this to be a bench trial. Even though I’m sure the masses of Chicagoans who have taken an interest in this case will be prepared to decimate the legal reputation of Gaughan if he doesn’t ultimately rule in their favor with regards to Van Dyke. I actually have more faith in a judge to make such a decision than so-called civilians, and to understand the nuances of "the law" than some individual who likely is peeved that his/her life is being disrupted for a few weeks by being called upon for jury duty,

McDONALD: Chgo gets to relive his death

Because for every person determined to think Van Dyke is being unjustly prosecuted, there are also masses determined to believe that the only reasonable outcome is for Van Dyke to be brutalized while serving a prison term.

This truly is an ugly trial; one that will bring out all the nasty elements of our society. A part of me thinks we’d have been better off if Gaughan had accepted the suggestions that this trial venue be transferred to somewhere else.

It also makes me all the more grateful that my own name didn’t get called for consideration of jury duty because (with two uncles who served as Chicago police officers) I honestly don’t know how I’d have handled the questioning over whether I could be impartial in deciding between the gun-wielding cop or the knife-wielding teen.

  -30-

One bit of truth to Van Dyke’s talk?

VAN DYKE: His life's on trial

Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer who will go on trial beginning next week for a 2014 shooting incident that left a teenager dead, is telling a selective story to the Chicago Tribune – trying to get out some sense of the perspective that he’s not a thug in need of being locked away from society for life.

He gave the one-time World’s Greatest Newspaper an interview, and the competition Chicago Sun-Times felt compelled to do a quickie rewrite. Many broadcast outlets also are feeling compelled to acknowledge Van Dyke’s thoughts.

SO WHAT SHOULD we think of the officer who admits he shot and killed Laquan McDonald back in October of 2014? It certainly isn’t his claim that he faces the possibility of life imprisonment for doing his sworn duties as a Chicago police officer.

What caught my attention was Van Dyke’s statement, during a 40-minute interview with the newspaper where his attorneys often interceded and kept him from more thoroughly answering questions, that he acknowledges the potential consequences to the city at-large.

Could there wind up being some sort of riot by people who are offended by whatever verdict of his so-called peers that a jury winds up arriving at?

“I’m very scared for it. It obviously weighs heavily upon my mind,” Van Dyke said.

SOME, I’M SURE, will think back to the days of 1968 – where the Democratic National Convention protesters were not the only ones who experienced violence that year.

It was also the year that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by a racist-motivated assassin – and many black neighborhoods across the nation wound up in flames. Including in Chicago, where there are parts of the city’s West Side that for years remained in rubble and where they never recovered from the damage.

Does Van Dyke think he could be the cause of a similar reaction if he winds up being acquitted of the criminal charges? I don’t doubt some people would be grossly offended – and I have heard some activist types speculate how they fear this trial is headed for acquittal.

Van Dyke makes Page One in worst way possible

As though they expect “the establishment” will be prepared to protect a police officer because his “victim” was just a young, black male – particularly one whom prosecutors seem eager to label as a violent troublemaker who brought his fate upon himself.

TO TELL YOU the truth, I’m inclined to think it’s the other side that could get ugly – although I’d like to think that all could wind up showing some sense of self-restraint.

For in this Age of Trump that our society is now in, there are people who will be eager to defend Van Dyke as a cop doing his duty. They’ll want to think any kind of punishment is improper – and evidence that our society is all awry and out-of-whack with common sense.

People often talk about how there are “two Chicagos,” one upscale and thriving while the other is a dumping ground for those individuals whom the elite don’t want near them.

Could it be that Van Dyke and one’s attitude towards his actions will merely wind up being yet another bit of evidence as to which Chicago faction one falls into?

EVEN VAN DYKE himself realizes he’s going to be remembered in our city’s history for reasons he likely would never have dreamed possible and probably wishes he could avoid at all costs.

There is, of course, the ironic part of Van Dyke feeling compelled to submit to a newspaper interview. Prosecutors and his defense attorneys will be looking to pick a jury from those individuals who paid absolutely no attention to what was said or written about the case.

Meaning his words technically won’t influence them when they decide his fate of “guilt” or “innocence.”

They’re more meant to influence the way the rest of us think when we make our snap judgments after the trial is over about just how stupid that jury could possibly be for the verdict they ultimately reach.

  -30-

Do Chicagoans want former cop as mayor? Could he learn from namesake?

It’s not surprising that former Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy is peeved enough with Mayor Rahm Emanuel that he’d contemplate running against him come the 2019 municipal election cycle.

McCARTHY, G.: The future mayor?

As the Chicago Sun-Times has reported, McCarthy has gone so far as to hire a political strategist who theoretically would run his campaign – should he decide to seek the mayor’s office.

QUITE AMBITIOUS FOR a native New Yorker who came up through the NYPD ranks and eventually became the top cop in Newark, N.J., before his Chicago police stint from 2011-15.

Is Chicago anxious to give control of city government to a Noo Yawker? Are we ready to put someone originally from the Bronx (rather than the Sout’ Side) in the mayor’s Fifth floor suite of offices at City Hall?

It would seem that McCarthy thinks he can be the candidate of choice for all the people who are determined to “Dump Rahm” following two terms in office.

With the major offense being that it was under his watch the Chicago police became embroiled in the ongoing criminal proceedings against a police officer who allegedly fired 16 shots into a 17-year-old boy – ultimately killing him.

ACTUALLY, IT’S NOT really alleged that the officer now facing murder charges fired the shots. There’s police video (lacking accompanying audio) that clearly shows him firing the shots.

McCARTHY, T.: The failed politico

What’s questionable is the motivation for using force in subduing the 17-year-old. Defense attorneys for the officer have said they’re going to claim the lack of audio means the video has no context – and that the images by themselves are meaningless.

Not that any of this meant anything. When it became apparent nearly three years ago that this 2014 shooting wasn’t going to go away, Emanuel took the action of firing the police superintendent.

Meaning McCarthy had to go. He had to take the blame so as to save the mayor’s keister. Now McCarthy wants to return the favor by helping to deliver a blow to the mayor’s future political viability.

I QUESTION WHY anybody who wants to see Rahm Emanuel voted out of office because of this incident would want to have McCarthy as his replacement. I think Garry is the last person they’d consider voting for – and might well be enough to make them hold their noses pinched shut while casting a vote for Rahm’s re-election.

Can same political operatives drive Rahm Emanuel's rep ...

But McCarthy is likely to fight all-out. I find his choice of a political strategist interesting. It’s Joe Trippi, who most recently was working for the U.S. Senate campaign of Doug Jones of Alabama. Meaning he’s able to take credit for the campaign that caused the political downfall of Republican Roy Moore.

Does McCarthy think he can turn Rahm into as hated a politico as Moore – the former judge who liked to tout the 10 Commandments and other religious dogma, but now faces allegations of how he used to be attracted to teenage girls even though he was well into his 30s.

If that’s the case, the Chicago municipal elections that will come on the verge of the ugly brawl we’re going to face in 2018 for Illinois governor may become so vicious that the potential Rauner/Pritzker battle may come off as a few “love taps” by comparison. Because we all know if challenged, Rahm will fight back equally hard.

I HAVE TO admit that as I watch McCarthy’s preparatory actions, I’m reminded of the 1998 election cycle when Orland Park Police Chief Tim McCarthy (no relation) tried running for statewide office – specifically Illinois secretary of state.

... as low as that of Roy Moore in Ala.?

Tim McCarthy is the one-time Secret Service agent who actually wound up getting shot during a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan. He had hopes that memories of that moment could build up enough good will toward him that he could win office despite never having held a political post.

But Tim McCarthy became pushy and his backers wound up leading an effort against would-be opponent Penny Severns to get her kicked off the ballot – thinking he could clear the path for his own election. Even the Democratic operatives who liked the idea of feeding off a bit of Reagan love for their own benefit quickly turned on him – and we wound up getting Jesse White in the post. One he continues to hold to this day.

Is Garry McCarthy going to make the same mistake of getting too pushy? Perhaps he ought to learn from the actions of Tim McCarthy, who has never run for office since his ’98 bid and remains a beloved police chief in his Chicago suburb.

  -30-

EXTRA: Whole world was watching

I’ve been watching the Ken Burns saga reliving the Vietnam War, and Monday night was the point at which we reached the protests that took place in Grant Park in conjunction with the Democratic National Convention.

Protesters and police confront each other not all that far from where our city now officially plays in Millennium Park

The one that was officially classified later on as a “police riot,” but which Gallup Polls taken at the time showed 56 percent of the American people supportive of the Chicago Police conduct against anti-war protesters that some would have us believe lives on against those individuals who happen not to be sufficiently Anglo in racial origins.

The outside world crept into the International Amphitheater

IT WAS A quick review, and I have to admit to learning little new about those protests where anti-war people focused their attention on undermining the Democratic Party presidential process – while overlooking the fact that the eventual Republican presidential victor would wind up extending the war for another five years.

Although there was one tidbit I hadn’t been aware of – after Richard M. Nixon officially got the GOP presidential nomination, his first campaign appearance was right here in downtown Chicago.

Where he was greeted with cheers by local people pleased he was willing to support their police behavior. So much for this being a Democratic Party stronghold!

Friend or foe? Question of perception remains to this day

And something else to keep in mind whenever President Donald J. Trump these days claims he has the public support for whatever his latest inanities are. History will look back negatively upon those of us these days who are willing to look the other way, just as the Vietnam era in our society has produced its own share of shameful moments we wish we could undo now.

DALEY: What did he say?

ALSO, WE GOT to see the television footage from the convention floor when then-Sen. Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut infamously denounced “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.”

As for Mayor Richard J. Daley’s alleged response? His hand blocked his mouth, so I don’t know if he really said “faker” (as he always claimed) or a certain similar obscenity that the activist types always wanted to believe was uttered from his lips.

  -30-

EXTRA: How time passes

Some of us always want to think of the presidency of John F. Kennedy as a moment of youth and vigor being shot into our national psyche (while others want to think of it as the moment the “grown-ups” lost control).

White House and Chicago pols intertwined in the past

So what should we think of the fact that Kennedy, if he somehow magically were still alive, would now be 100?

IT WAS ON this date a century ago that Kennedy was born in Boston (he was 46 at the time of his death). We’re probably never going to come to a consensus as to how he should be regarded.

Chicago turned out vote for JFK

And we likely will forevermore dispute the significance Chicago and its electorate played in his 1960 ascension to the White House. Or just how much in debt the Kennedys were to Mayor Richard J. Daley in turning out the vote that put Illinois in his Electoral College column that led to victory?

Although the part that most astounds me over the idea of a centenarian Kennedy is that it means his “first lady,” Jacqueline (whom we perpetually envision in her youthful form) would herself now be 87!

Of course, that’s not the only “anniversary” we could be acknowledging this day. There’s always the labor dispute that got ugly in the South Deering neighborhood on Memorial Day eighty years ago.

ANYBODY WHO THINKS that the Chicago police conduct of the 1968 Democratic Convention protests was an isolated incident doesn’t know of the protest that turned ugly when Republic Steel officials called the police – who then came in, began beating picketers and wound up killing 10 men (all of whom were local residents who worked at the plant).

A leftover structure from the old Republic Steel plant

It’s no wonder that neighborhood residents still pay an annual tribute to those who died. And the fact that Daley himself always tried to justify the police conduct of ’68 by saying no one was killed as a result.

Just one discrepancy, for those who want to nitpick.

The actual date of Memorial Day back in ’37 was May 30. So it will be 80 years ago Tuesday that people lost their lives at a now-remote site along Avenue O.

  -30-

I don’t think even Trump knows what he means by “send in the Feds!”

President Donald Trump got a lot of people stirred up with his latest Tweet from a Twit, the one this week that said he would “send in the Feds” if there wasn’t a dramatic reduction in the rate of violence occurring in Chicago.

Is this really the image people think would make the streets of inner-city Chicago safe?

I suspect that getting everybody all riled up was his purpose. I don’t think Trump has a clue what the actual problem is with regards to the homicide rate in Chicago, or anywhere else in this country. I suspect he could care less – he’d probably find the details “Boring!” and want to move on to something else.

IN FACT, I suspect that with regards to his blurb on Twitter, the most significant part of it for him was the exclamation point that he put at the end of “Feds!” You’ve got to show excitement and outrage!!!!!

Actually dealing with the problem? That’s much less interesting than engaging in actions that allow you to express the sentiment that someone else is screwing up!

When Trump chose to rant on Twitter this week about the city’s homicide rate, most likely what really bothers him is that Chicago is a place where some 80 percent-plus of us are immune to his rhetorical nonsense. We are never going to be amongst the 46 percent of the electorate who actually think he makes a fit president.

So this is just the pot shot of the week at Chicago – as though we Chicagoans really care what a geeky Manhattanite (not even a real Noo Yawker) thinks about us!

IF IT HADN’T been the homicide rate, he would have found some other issue with which to try to trash us. Which ultimately is going to build up our immunity to his rants – who really cares what the cranky old man with the bad orange dye job has to say when it’s obvious he’s not based in anything resembling real fact?

Personally, I’ve noticed that some people are putting their own spin on Trump – largely because his “send in the Feds!” comment is so vague and has no real meaning.

They’d love it if the federal government were to provide all kinds of assistance in the form of Drug Enforcement Agency or Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms specialists to work with the Chicago Police Department. Getting rid of illicit narcotics or firearms would be a significant step toward resolving the conditions in our society that create high levels of urban violence.

TRUMP: Tough to take his talk seriously

Going through Facebook for the stray comments people post, I couldn’t help but notice both former Cook County Board President Todd Stroger and Rev. Michael Pfleger expressing such thoughts.

BUT I ALSO don’t doubt that strengthening such initiatives is the last thing Trump has in mind, although I also doubt he has thought this issue through to the degree of actually authorizing National Guard troops to patrol the streets of inner-city Chicago and shoot those they think pose a threat.

Which may be the image that Trump backers fantasize about becoming reality, but which is one that is so absurd that I even doubt Trump himself would have the nerve to try to impose it.

He’s along the lines of all-talk and no action!

So what should we think about the facts (as presented by Trump) that there have already been 228 shooting incidents in Chicago during the past three-or-so weeks, with 42 people being killed already. Although it has been reported the truthful figures are 182 shooting incidents and 38 homicides.

WHICH, ADMITTEDLY, ARE not something we ought to be proud about. This is a situation that needs to be addressed, perhaps such as Gov. Bruce Rauner did Wednesday in his State of the State address in which he suggested the need to create more jobs to keep people employed and less likely to resort to violence. An idea that I'm sure Trump would have absolutely no interest in pursuing.

RAUNER: Making too much sense for Trump

Looking solely for a law enforcement crackdown would only aggravate the situation. In fact, I’d argue that ridiculous rhetoric such as we’re receiving from the president isn’t going to do a thing to ease the violence level – which in reality is at its highest in parts of Chicago I suspect Trump could care less about.

Can we blame his apathy for the inability to make a dent in the problem? That might be a simple-minded response, but the fact that some are only interested in Chicago’s urban violence for the purpose of scoring partisan political points for themselves is a reality.

Then again, simple-minded responses that don’t address the problem is probably about all we should ever expect to get from this particular president!!!

  -30-

Do we really care what Garry McCarthy thinks about anything these days?

During the nearly three decades I have worked in the news business, I have done my share of interviews with people whose legitimacy to talk on a certain issue was questionable.
 

McCARTHY: He doesn't wear uniform any more

Usually, it was because they were “there,” as in available to talk and their comments could result in copy that filled newspaper space in between the ads – not because there was some great solemn truth that needed to be recorded for posterity.

MY POINT BEING that sometimes the stories we read or hear are merely being done to fill space. We shouldn’t presume the “great value to society” of any of it.

Such as one story I read Tuesday morning about the “evolution” of sorts of Tila Tequila – whom I have to confess to not having a clue who she is or why I’m supposed to care about this evolution – to a Donald Trump political supporter.

Or all the many stories I have read or heard about in recent days by which Garry McCarthy talks about the homicide rate in Chicago – which did a significant jump during 2016 to a two-decade high level (although not a record high as Trump implied earlier this week).

McCarthy has been gone from the post of Chicago police superintendent for more than a full year. He’s not employed here any longer. In fact, the last I had heard of him was talk that he was being considered for some sort of law enforcement post in London – potentially involving Scotland Yard.

YET HE’S BEING treated as some sort of authority on Chicago and our city – even though it could be argued that if the man really had any special knowledge or understanding of Chicago, he’d still be employed here.

For what it’s worth, the general theme of many of these stories (including an interview for CBS’ allegedly-prestige program “60 Minutes”) is that it is the fault of the “Black Lives Matter” movement that the crime rate is on the rise.

The premise being that the activists who have been so eager to draw attention to the perception that police are the REAL criminals who single out black people for their targets have created conditions by which police are not as aggressively policing the neighborhoods.

 

EMANUEL: Still having his own hide

Thereby making it more likely that violence is on the rise. Black people who are concerned about the number of black men being killed are actually to blame, or so McCarthy says.

ALTHOUGH TO TELL you the truth, reading the McCarthy comments makes me think initially that they were coming from the crackpot types who oft wear their hoods or other costumes while spouting white supremacist language.

I’m not calling McCarthy a Klansman or anything like that. I’m just saying that I’m not sure McCarthy is saying anything that really adds to the public understanding about the rising violent crime rate in Chicago.

Particularly when added to the fact that McCarthy is our city’s past – the guy who wound up being sacrificed politically so that Rahm Emanuel could keep his mayoral post in the wake of the public revelation of just how Laquan McDonald actually died. Even though to the activist-types most upset about this issue, nothing short of Rahm’s resignation will appease them!

McCarthy has moved on professionally. It would be nice if he’d move on personally as well. Because these kinds of reports aren’t telling us anything that truly adds to the public comprehension of the issue.

IF ANYTHING, I wonder if it’s because we in the news business are still in holiday season mode. Within a week, we ought to be up to speed and thinking about serious news.

Many reasons for why homicide on the rise

But we’re still feeding off the results of the past few weeks by which many people were on their holiday breaks. It may well be that during this time period, McCarthy made himself available to talk about an issue that truly IS in the news these days.

But that doesn’t really mean McCarthy has much to say. If anything, we ought to regard his comments as nothing more than space filler – about as intellectually worthy as the reports about the most ecologically-efficient way to dispose of your now-dead Christmas tree.

Certainly not by dumping its carcass out on the curb; similar to the way Emanuel dumped on McCarthy just before Christmas of 2015.

  -30-