How many tried to march in Chicago to show contempt for Donald Drumpf

I remember once talking with an Illinois State Police trooper (now retired) who explained the art of putting together an official crowd estimate at large-scale events.
 

Evidence was about of the women's rally

He told me the trick was to count out a group of 500 people, figure out how much space they occupy, then figure out by how many multiples the total event is larger than that group.

A QUICKIE MULTIPLICATION then gives you a crowd estimate that sounds like it’s official and scientific. But in a way makes about as much sense as the so-called rules of crowd estimates that always said a president would draw 100,000 people, an astronaut would get 300,000 and the Pope would draw 1 million people. While Republican political candidates (in Chicago, at least) would be lucky to draw 10 people.

Well-mannered crowd let contempt be known

The point is that these estimates ought not to be taken too seriously.

Which is what entranced me about the Chicago version of the women’s march that occurred Saturday. The crowd got so big that the event originally planned got overwhelmed.

Organizers who wanted to have a crowd march from Grant Park to the plaza outside the federal government buildings for Chicago (about a three-block walk) expected it would be about 50,000 people.

BUT IT SEEMS the crowd that actually showed up would have stretched so long that you would have had some marchers literally arrived at the destination and waiting for followers while others would have been waiting for their chance to start marching.

Jessica, my niece, makes her view known. Photographs of rally provided by Vicki Magginnis-Burnett

The crowd was too big. The event wound up becoming a mid-day rally Saturday in the park.

Which probably makes a certain level of sense. Personally, I’d think a chance for people to gather and listen to speakers would make more of a physical impression than people walking through the streets.

Taste of 'Hamilton' for those who can't get tickets

Which would have the potentially negative impact of irritating passing pedestrians and possibly making some of them into Trump backers. Or maybe just crochety old people upset that their business downtown was interfered with?

SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 150,000 and 250,000 people (two of whom were my sister-in-law Vicki and teenage niece Jessica) was enough to overwhelm Chicago, and make us the national exception. Other cities were capable of doing marches, particularly in the District of Columbia.

Where it seems the official amount is 470,000 people. Which march organizers are claiming is more people than showed up for the Inaugural ceremonies held Friday for the beginning of the Trump presidency. Which we’ll never know for sure because federal officials are refusing to provide a figure for the number of people who showed up to see Donald J. take the oath of office.

Which may be a responsible thing to do.

Thinking of this event brought to mind the most recent large-scale event – the World Series parade and rally following the Chicago Cubs’ victory in early November. Five-Million-People is the officially recognized stat for that event.

NOW I REALIZE the Cubs’ rally was a stationary event, rather than a moving march. Which means it would be natural for more people to be present for baseball rather than showing contempt for the man they will forevermore refer to as Donald Drumpf (allegedly, that was once the family name).

But do we really believe the Cubs gain greater significance because of the concocted figure? Which always struck me as being something concocted by insecure fans who want history to record their World Series-winning rally as being bigger than the one held for the Chicago White Sox (which allegedly drew 1.75 million people) back in 2005.

The new expert in the field of crowd estimates?

The point of crowd estimates is often to provide a “fact” meant to reinforce whatever stance was being asserted by a particular group. Personally, I only offer crowd estimates when I report a story if it is possible that I can do a count for myself.

At least then, a reader can merely question my cipherin’ abilities (remember the Jethro Bodine gazintas?). None of these figures ought to be taken any more seriously than that.

  -30-

In Trump’s take on “America,” this is what passes for subversive speech

“We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us.”
--Brandon Victor Dixon, the actor portraying Aaron Burr in “Hamilton”

  -0-

Will denouncing this become conservative cause?

These are the words of subversion, as deemed by President-elect Donald J. Trump, who is continuing in campaign mode these days, using his personal Twitter account to take pot shots at anybody who offends his sensibilities.

Which these days seems to be a majority of the populace – since let’s not forget that a majority of the popular vote did go to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Nearly 1 million more people wanted her in the White House as opposed to him.

BUT WE HAVE the Electoral College system, which is likely to give Trump’s campaign 290 votes to 232 for Clinton (with Michigan technically still up for grabs) when it convenes in state capitols across the nation on Dec. 19 and make it official that Trump is No. 45 in the historical order of U.S. presidents.

So we’re likely to get the kind of government for the next four years that will benefit the interests of those in our society who think the foreigners, minorities and other forms of degenerates have been receiving way too much and that it’s time for real people (a.k.a., themselves) to take things back.

I didn't realize Hoosiers were so delicate

Which is what Dixon meant in his statement made Friday during a New York presentation of the musical about our nation’s early history when he said many in our society are afraid that “your new administration will not protect us” and may, in fact, use people not like themselves to bash upon.

So as the so-called majority to relieve its tensions at the expense of others, I presume.

WHAT MADE THIS an instance is that the Friday night performance of the musical was one attended by Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Apparently, he was walking out of the theater while Dixon was making his post-show comments.

Who bothered to see this show?

But it has been reported that Dixon’s comments were carried out in the lobby of the theater, meaning that Pence definitely heard the message that was meant for his ears.

Which led to Trump’s Twitter comment (a Tweet from a twit?) who said that Pence was “harassed” by the “Hamilton” cast and that they created an atmosphere that altered the theater from being its usual “safe and special place.”

He insists that the cast should “apologize!” to Pence. Which is a notion that makes me laugh. It makes me wonder if Pence has a tushy made of candy. Is he too sensitive to insult?

IF SOMETHING THIS lame is really worthy of an apology, then I can’t help but wonder how many apologies Trump himself needs to issue to so many different groups for the nonsense he continuously spewed during his presidential campaign.

Not that I expect him to issue Apology One. Donald Trump is exactly the kind of guy who thinks the Constitution’s first amendment (the one guaranteeing freedom of expression) applies only to himself – as in he can insult anybody he wants to.

But if those people dare to stand up to him and try to answer back, then they have committed a grave offense for which they must be punished! Hillary Clinton’s “crime” for which she deserves to be “locked up” is for having the nerve to challenge Trump during the general election.

By Trump’s mind-set, she should have surrendered gracefully and made a plea to the electorate to accept Trump’s ascension to the presidency by acclimation.

Is this more the way conservatives want history?

WHERE HE CAN now reward the nativist ideologues amongst his supporters with positions of power where they could seriously try to implement their xenophobic ways upon our society – which would make Dixon’s statement ever so accurate.

Where I also suspect they can now think of the theatre community as a batch of sissies and dilettantes who would dare to disrespect U.S. history by presenting it in a multi-cultural, multi-racial manner – as “Hamilton” does!

Of course, just about anything “historic” usually causes these peoples’ eyes to glaze over – with many of them probably believing they saw something truthful in that sappy 1997 film with actor Leonardo DiCaprio dying in the Atlantic Ocean when the Titanic sank.

Maybe what really bothers Trump is the notion that his life is too insipid to ever become the material of a successful Broadway musical. Would anyone really want to see a show about a guy with a bad combover and overuse of tanning lotions, particularly if he’s boorish enough to think the way to a woman’s heart is by grabbing her most private of places?

  -30-