‘Whole world was watching’ Chicago 50 years ago; does it still care now?

I was a mere child just a few days away from my third birthday on the days some 50 years ago this week when the Chicago police engaged in their officially riotous behavior that included use of so much tear gas that even patrons of the upscale Conrad Hilton Hotel wound up impacted.

History Museum artifacts of convention protests

For that matter, it was exactly five decades ago Tuesday that the protests taking place to express objections to U.S policy in Vietnam reached the peak of some protesters being thrown through the glass of the hotel’s front windows – and some protesters who tried fleeing police beatings wound up being dragged back outside the hotel before being administered a walloping in the name of “law and order.”

I’VE HEARD THE stories throughout my life, and those images pop into my head every time I have reason to walk past the hotel. Trying to envision the carnage that occurred in a stretch of Michigan Avenue that would like to think itself too refined for such uncouth behavior.

It definitely was not the typical presidential nominating convention such as the one held in Chicago 28 years later – that event held at the United Center felt like a political pep rally and I recall many people wishing their access to the arena included a pass to the team clubhouses so they could stop by and check out Michael Jordan’s locker.

What was supposed to happen

But it caught my attention that amongst all the stories being published in recent weeks commemorating the fifth-decade anniversary (of sorts) of the event that some people are determined to put their own partisan political spin on what happened all those years ago.

Even from some who, like myself, only have second-hand memories and tales to tell of the events of the Democratic National Convention of ’68.

THE CONVENTION HAPPENINGS did eventually result in an investigation – one that found the police to be responsible for the outlandish and violent behavior that occurred. A “police riot” was the official term used to describe the events.

Convention craze incorporated into film

Even though then-Mayor Richard J. Daley always tried defending police behavior by citing it as “fact” that nobody was killed amongst the violence. As though he wanted to think police showed restraint in the way they conducted themselves.

Similar to those people who these days probably think police officer Joseph Van Dyke – who is set to go on trial in a couple of weeks – was merely serving and protecting the Chicago populace when he fired all those shots into a teenager who may or may not have posed a physical threat to those nearby.

I don’t doubt there are people who think it was 50 years ago today that the world went haywire, and their idea of “Make America Great Again” includes returning to those days when a cop was a hero – and the perps all got what they deserved.

Convention outcome an afterthought?

I LITERALLY STUMBLED across an anonymous Internet comment recently about how it was the reporting of the convention happenings (both inside the International Amphitheater where the political rallies occurred and outside where the protests happened) that was flawed.

It was Walter Cronkite, this person wants to believe, who “lied” to the American people about what happened in Chicago, all as part of a plot to promote the anti-war message that the activists were trying to spread.

The “most trusted man in America” was supposedly an un-American freak? A conspiracy between the protesters and news media organizations?

It definitely seems like someone is trying to revise history in the image of The Donald; making sure our perception of past events coincides with this modern-day Age of Trump we’re all supposed to want to live in now.

THEN AGAIN, THE kind of people who want to believe this most likely are the grand-children of those gullible enough to believe all the Yippie-activist rhetoric of 50 years ago that they were going to spike the city’s drinking water supply (as in Lake Michigan) with LSD.

Which was something that activist Abbie Hoffman always encouraged because it would make he and his group seem much more powerful if they were actually capable of doing such a thing.

I don’t doubt that tales of protesters throwing bags of excrement at police have some bearing in truth. It was just the kind of behavior that would offend certain types of people into voting for Richard M. Nixon’s “law and order” platform and to thinking the only real wrong was that he was driven from office six years later.

As for the rest of us, we’ll wonder about the passage of time. And perhaps try to speculate on what Mayor Daley REALLY said in response to then-Sen. Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut when the latter accused the Chicago police of “Gestapo-like tactics” in their behavior of some five decades ago.

  -30-

Would Trump military parade merely honor the REMFs of the world?

I find it somewhat odd that President Donald J. Trump would be taking inspiration from France and Bastille Day for a way to put on a great big spectacle ultimately paying tribute to himself.

This is what inspired Donald Trump to think of a military parade in the streets of D.C.

For the storming of the Bastille, which led to the ultimate overthrow of King Louis XVI, was literally a moment when the peasants of France overthrew their wealthy royal nobleman of a leader who actually supported the concept of American independence – someone who along with Marie Antoinette were most definitely not of the people.

YOU’D THINK THAT even Trump would realize that he’s the comparative figure to Louis (with first lady Melania being the equivalent of the alleged “cake eating” lady). The comparable move would be if the masses of this country (the majority of whom didn’t vote for him) were to get fed up enough to violently overthrow him.

Is that really the image Trump wants to put in the public mindset? Besides, I thought the Trump-types were the ones who openly denounced anything associated with France?

Somebody’s not thinking this all the way through. But as Trump himself said, he saw the big Bastille Day parade last year in France, saw the grand martial display of power and authority, and wishes he could have something similar to pay tribute to himself.

How Trumpian is the image of old ...

Which has led to countless numbers of people using their Photoshop software to create all kinds of goofy images portraying Trump as some sort of equivalent of the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

WHICH WOULD BE the closest you’d find to photographic images of Trump in a military uniform – for as so many have pointed out, he was of military age during the Vietnam War era, yet managed to avoid doing any sort of military service.

Heck, even George W. Bush could claim to have been in the Texas Air National Guard (although some insist he didn’t even fulfill the minimum service requirements) back in that era.

Not that I expect the ideologues who claim to value military service to mind so much – maybe they can be bought off by the image of a military parade. Forget about a Trump presidency actually accomplishing anything significant or meeting any of its promises.

... of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette?

You got a great big garish parade!!!

IF YOU’VE GOT the impression by now that I don’t think much of the idea of a parade, you’d be correct.

It’s actually mostly because I don’t really care much for parades in general. There are more sincere ways to pay tribute to someone than to stage a grand spectacle clogging the streets of the city, while expecting the masses to stand passively by.

I think those who serve in the military deserve more than a parade whose real purpose would be to pay tribute to the man with the bad combover whom many (including my sister-in-law, Vicki) refer to as the “big cheetoh.”

Perhaps it’s because I remember the two big military spectacles in Chicago during my adult life – back in 1986 and 1991. The latter was a series of parades held across the country to pay tribute to those who were in the military (including a cousin of mine) during the Gulf War of 1990.

Is this Trump's image of himself?

REMEMBER WHEN WE were foolish enough to have thought we resolved all the disarray and chaos of the Middle East in a matter of two months in Kuwait?

The former was when some types of people felt the need to finally put an end to the Vietnam era by staging parades welcoming back the troops who were so callously ignored when they really returned home more than a decade earlier.

I still remember watching that parade, and being told by veterans who actually saw combat that the crowds of former soldiers on display here were most likely the “REMFs” who never even came close to the front lines of fighting (figure out the obscenity for yourself). Is that what we’re most likely to see from a military spectacle in this Age of Trump?

DUCKWORTH: Most accurate?

If that’s the case, then perhaps Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., is correct with her latest fund-raising e-mail, in which she says troops, “don’t need a show of bravado. They need steady leadership. They need long term funding.” And if they don’t get it, perhaps someday the masses will be offended enough to revolt in a Bastille-style image against Trump Tower buildings around the country. That would be gory.

  -30-

What does Trump know, really, about American people and what we think?

“They were like death. And un-American. Somebody said treasonous. Can we call that treason? Why not? They certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much.”
--President Donald J. Trump, reacting to people who didn’t applaud his State of the Union address last month

  -0-

DUCKWORTH: Sees 'Cadet Bone Spurs'

My own thoughts about the Democratic officials who didn’t engage in raucous applause when the president presented his first State of the Union address was that Donald Trump’s reaction was evidence of what a political amateur he truly is.

That, and to wonder, what would he know about loving our country at all.

WE, THE UNITED States of America, have evolved into a bastion that offers the potential of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all – a concept that Trump appears to hate because his vision focuses on ensuring that certain types of people be made aware they don’t really belong here.

But before anyone thinks I’m going off on a diatribe about Trump being un-American himself, I’m focusing more on Trump the political neophyte.

Anybody who pays attention to the way these formal government addresses are conducted knows how incredibly staged they are.

Down to the side of the aisle in Congress that sits silently against everything the opposition party chief executive, while the other side of the aisle engages in overly-phony applause.

USUALLY THE INTERESTING part of the political reaction is when some legislator or congressman screws up and misses the cue – resulting in the sound of a few seconds of lone applause from the governmental goof, while everybody else snickers at his (or her) gaffe.

 

TRUMP: Sees 'treason' all over

The idea of rude outbursts is truly a conservative ideologue concept that was never going to happen, largely because Democratic leadership in Congress made sure to tell their members to let Trump talk – and let his natural stupidity come forth before the American people.

Trump is now going around saying that those people who didn’t applaud him are not patriotic – using the word “treason” to describe their behavior. Even though treason is a very specific offense – a high crime that doesn’t even come close to applying to this situation.

Although I’m sure Trump’s reaction to that statement is to say that I’m being treasonous – questioning the presidential comprehension of what he says.

PERSONALLY, I FIND some amusement in the reaction of Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who on Thursday engaged in such questioning.

“Donald Trump might say ‘jump,’ but we don’t have to say ‘how high.’ Because in America we cherish the freedom of speech and expression,” Duckworth said. “They are rights brave men and women have fought and died for.”

Of course, Duckworth engaged in her own bit of politicking – referring to Trump as “Draft Dodger Donald” and “Cadet Bone Spurs;” references to the physical ailments Trump cited when he was of prime military service age, yet managed to get deferments that kept him from having to serve during the Vietnam era.

Her attack, which I saw as an e-mail message, included a fundraising plea. “I might not clap for Trump’s dangerous agenda, but I will fight for our shared values in the U.S. Senate,” she said.

I’M NOT CLAIMING a high-minded stance against Trump because he never did military service – besides, I think the ideological types willing to back him will consider his call for a parade paying tribute to the military will be considered sufficient.

Is this the part of the U.S. Constitution that Donald Trump regards as tissue paper to blow his nose at?

But it really shows a lack of knowledge about government and the way things are supposed to work. Did Trump really believe his State of the Union was going to have a Congress unanimously on its feet in raucous applause, telling him how wonderful a human being he was?

He may well believe the world works in ways just like the Trump Organization – where his staff tells him how wonderful he is and reacts as though he’s a deity whose thoughts cannot be questioned.

But if that’s truly who Donald Trump is and what his ego requires in order for him to function as a human being, then I have to admit to feeling sorry for the American people for being stuck with such an insecure schlep to serve as our national commander-in-chief.

  -30-

Where would we be today on Vietnam?

The Vietnam War documentary on PBS ending Thursday night has had many intriguing moments through its 10 parts, but I have to admit the moment that will stick in my mind was one bit that aired Tuesday night.

The downtown Chicago memorial to the U.S. military conflict in Vietnam, just off the Chicago River. Photographs provided by Gregory Tejeda

The moment was some footage of a woman, Jan Howard of Nashville, Tenn., whose son, Jimmy, had served in the Army and been killed in combat. Anti-war activists approached her, asking for her support of their cause – figuring that she’d be grief-stricken and they could claim her son’s death was pointless.

HER REACTION, IN the video snippets, was to tell the activists that her son may have died to support their right to protest, but that she’d shoot them dead if they ever approached her again.

Why do I suspect that in this Age of Trump, there were probably some people who viewed the two-week-long documentary who cheered that woman on – and probably wish that she could turn her ire on the ballplayers who now are protesting racial issues as part of sporting events.

In some ways, we need to comprehend the societal split we endured some 50 years ago – back in the days when a large segment of the populace decided our government officials could no longer be trusted to be truthful or honorable in their conduct because of what happened in Vietnam.

One of few spots where S. Vietnam flag still flies

Because much of the societal split we now have dates back to those days. The “hawks” of the ‘60s are now the grandparents of many of the modern-day types who are touting the rancid rhetoric of President Donald J. Trump – whom they see as leading an effort to take back U.S. society from the “doves” who opposed the war all those years ago.

THEY’RE THE BASIS of the “red” states of America, although I suspect if you had told that woman she was a “red,” she really would have pulled out that pistol and fired. She ain’t no “Commie,” she’d claim.

What always intrigues me about the societal split is the way that the divide plays out.

In the years after the war, the “right” was determined to believe that the “hippie freaks” LOST. That anybody who had ever opposed U.S. military involvement in Vietnam was permanently discredited – a stain that only the passage of time would wash away. The election of Ronald Reagan as president, followed up by the elder George Bush, reinforced that thought.

No dog poop in Chicago's Vietnam memorial

Which is why I always felt that Bill Clinton (and his mouthy bride Hillary) was despised so much by the right. If their theory were true, neither one of them should ever have had a life in the public eye. Yet Bill Clinton gained the presidency, while Hillary had a quarter of a century in the public eye, and came dangerously close (in their eyes) to winning the White House as well.

THE FACT THAT we got a Barack Obama presidency in the mix only further reinforces the notion that the left-leaning individuals of back then are not tainted for life – and in fact have left their mark on our society for the better. A reality that the Trumpites of our time wish they could undo.

Chicago relics of the Vietnam era

When U.S military interests pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, the hopes were that a split status would evolve – a North Vietnam of Communist leanings and a South Vietnam allied with the western world. Similar to what became of the two Koreas. It didn’t happen – the North stormed its way in and took the South two years later.

Although I have to admit that such a notion of a split Vietnam continuing to this day carries a bit of scariness. If you think about it, would we really want a North Korea-like nation in existence – one that would be all too eager to ally itself with Kim Jong Un’s constant threats to resume the Korean War of the early 1950s against the United States?

Which may be a “fight” that the “right” may be yearning for – a chance to undo a military stalemate and turn it into a “win!” Even though sane people have more sensible things to focus attention on.

NOW I DON’T know how all this would play out, if it were to happen. Much of the reason the anti-war movement became so intense was because of the practical fear of many to not want to get killed in combat. Maybe they had enough going for themselves in life that they wouldn’t view the thought of a medal awarded posthumously as a worthy accomplishment.

Nowadays, we have a volunteer military that makes it likely that everybody in service feels they’re gaining something of benefit to themselves. I don’t see the uprisings – except perhaps from the “right” who wish they could create John Wayne-like images for a modern-day military conflict.

PBS shows Howard still upset w/ anti-war movement

USA Today recently had a graphic on their website explaining the concept of the draft lottery that used to exist, and let people see for themselves how likely they would have been to be called to duty – in my case, my birthday was number 11 in the lottery, which means I would have had to scramble for a worthy excuse for a deferment to avoid active duty. Of course, I was only 5 back in 1970 – nobody called on me in reality.

But in my family’s case, I have two uncles who served in the military during Vietnam – one volunteered for the Marine Corps while another was drafted into the Army. Both saw their share of combat activity, but managed to come back in one physical piece – an accomplishment that I’m sure Howard would have wished for her son.

  -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-

Obama should not be trashed for associating with a 'Weatherman'

If a certain segment of society in this country gets its way, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama will be tainted by the fact he lives in the same South Side neighborhood as Bill Ayers.

To listen to the questioning that came up during this week’s presidential debate in Philadelphia, it becomes obvious that some people paid no attention during history class and have little to no clue as to what the social turmoil of the 1960s was all about.

TOO MANY PEOPLE seem to want to put that era into some sort of 1980s context by which the spirit of Ronald Reagan would have us believe that any association with the less conservative elements of our society during that era taints one for life.

Even when one takes into account that Obama was only a child at the time (he turned 10 in 1971), some people would have us believe the fact that he knows people who were not “hawks” when it came to the Vietnam War is enough reason to hold him suspect.

Obama got hit with questions about his support for Ayers, even though as best as I can tell, they have only met because they literally both live in the Hyde Park neighborhood, just a few blocks from each other.

Of course, nearly 30,000 people live in that neighborhood on the Lake Michigan shorefront. Do we hold them all suspect?

Barack Obama was all of 7 years old when Bill Ayers was posed by the Chicago Police Department for this "mug shot" in 1968.

NOW FOR THE bulk of his adult life, Ayers has devoted himself to academia. He currently is on the education faculty (a “distinguished professor of education” is his exact title) at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

But Ayers suffers from Jane Fonda Syndrome.

The social conservative elements of this country do not want us to forget the fact that Ayers (along with his partner Bernardine Dohrn) were a part of The Weatherman – that ‘60s collective of largely privileged white youths who believed they were waging war against the corrupt establishment that had the United States in a war in Vietnam.

Now admittedly, the Weatherman (named for a line in the old Bob Dylan song, “Subterranean Homesick Blues”), were considered by many people to be a bit extreme – even for those who fondly remember their liberal activities of that era. That’s what messing around with explosives will get for you – a reputation as a kook.

CONSERVATIVES ALSO TAKE into account the fact that Ayers, on many occasions, has said he is not apologetic for his belief that the United States should never have got involved in a war in Vietnam.

To listen to questions concerning Ayers during the debate (and the way Hillary Clinton piled on during her responses to Obama’s answers), Obama is friends with a man who is the moral equivalent of the people in the Middle East who commit acts of violence in the name of Allah.

They would have you believe that Obama is friends with a man who attacked the Pentagon and other public facilities and who also planted bombs that killed people. They also would want you to think this is the man who, on Sept. 11, 2001, while airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, told the New York Times “I don’t regret setting bombs,” and “I feel we didn’t do enough” to undermine the U.S. military.

By Clinton’s logic, the Weatherman attack on the Pentagon was identical in stature to the airplane three decades later that religious extremists piloted directly into the same building.

HERE’S A DOSE of “fact,” as it relates to those Weatherman bombs. The only people they ever managed to kill were themselves.

Property damage was what they were after, such as the “Days of Rage” protests of 1969 where members ran through the Rush Street nightclub district and shattered store windows and parked cars in a lame attempt to simulate the disruptiveness of war to the people of Chicago.

Explosives are tricky, particularly if one doesn't really know what they are doing. That's what caused a March 6, 1970 explosion at a Greenwich Village townhouse where Weatherman members were holed up. This “terrorist” group (as some on the far right are determined to label them, even though they’d dispute the same label being applied to the Ku Klux Klan) only managed to kill themselves off – no one else.

Another fact – the Weatherman attack on the Pentagon may very well be one of the most pathetic attempts by anyone to attack a military installation.

AS I UNDERSTAND it, the group placed an explosive in a men’s rest room at the Pentagon. When it went off, it caused some pipe damage and serious water overflow in part of the building. That water resulted in damage to computers that were processing information related to the Vietnam war effort.

The spin by Weatherman members was that the disrupted the Vietnam War – bringing it to a half for a couple of hours. Reality says they were more an annoyance than a threat, behaving in a manner like the kid in high school who thinks he’s cute because he lights a cherry bomb and drops it down the toilet.

Looking at it factually, it makes Clinton look ridiculous for comparing the Weatherman to Islamic radicals.

I can't help but wonder if she now seriously believes that the Pentagon was levitated (remember when Abbie Hoffman and his Yippie allies protested outside the building, then later told people they caused the building to float in the air as a sign of protest against the war?)

AND AS FAR as Ayers being the guy who badmouthed the United States on the day of the New York and Pentagon attacks? He had just published a book (semi-autobiographical, with some details changed to protect others) and was trying to promote it. The fact that a Times feature appeared on the same day, hours before the attacks, is coincidental.

His belief that he wanted to do more to oppose the military was NOT a response to the activity of Sept. 11, which is how Clinton tried to spin it during the debate.

Now for those who are going to accuse me of being an Ayers apologist, I’m not. I’ve never met the man, although I’m sure that if I were older (I was only 4 at the time of the Days of Rage), I would not have had the nerve to mess with explosives, no matter how negatively I might have perceived Vietnam (I have two uncles who served in the military – army and marine corps – and saw combat in that war. This is something we disagree on).

But I believe we need to quit thinking about the 1960s as some sort of litmus test by which everyone who opposed U.S. involvement in Vietnam or looks down on J. Edgar Hoover’s use of the FBI to harass civil rights dissidents is somehow tainted for life.

NOW IT IS true that some of The Weatherman people went on to commit crimes of violence separate from their activist protests. They have either done their prison time, or may be serving time still.

But Obama’s ties are only that he knows Ayers, who doesn’t have any criminal convictions of his own (in part because the FBI’s investigations into “radical” activity were so overzealous that all their evidence against him was ruled inadmissible in court).

Trying to tar Obama because Ayers wasn’t a “hawk” during the Vietnam War is absurd.

THIS RIDICULOUS MENTALITY belongs to the people who were behind much of the right’s disgust with the presidency of Bill Clinton (and for that matter, Hillary herself). The only people who are going to accept such a premise are the ones who would never vote for Clinton to begin with.

In short, it plays right into reinforcing the campaign of Republican opponent John McCain. It makes me wonder if those Democrats who suspect Hillary would secretly be comfortable with a McCain victory in 2008 (so she could try again in ’12) are not just being paranoid.

Actually, all she’s doing is taking down the reputation of the Clinton years among Democratic activists and ensuring that she herself could never get the party’s nomination to serve in the Oval Office.

If that’s the case, we might have to wait for Chelsea to become “of age” before we see another Clinton in the White House.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Bill Ayers’ website (http://www.billayers.org/) is devoted to his educational credentials, but does not shy away from his activist days.

Rick Ayers is disgusted with Hillary Clinton’s comments about his brother, Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/clintons-mccarthyism-and_b_97220.html), seeing them as evidence that Hillary will say anything to try to chip away at Barack Obama’s lead.

The Weather Underground’s “declaration of war” on Amerika (http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/weather-undergrounds-1970-declaration.html) can be found here.

Was President Bill Clinton wrong to give pardons to people with ties to the Weather Underground (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/17/clinton-campaign-gets-weather-underground-questions/) movement of the 1960s?