Showing posts with label wedding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wedding. Show all posts

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Do we give a fig about royal wedding?

If George comes to Chicago, I’ll crack him in the snoot” – William H. Thompson, former Mayor of Chicago

  -0-

I’m sure by now, many of you are sick and tired of hearing this line, spouted in the heat of the 1927 election cycle as Thompson ran an anti-British theme throughout his campaign for re-election that year.

Do 'we' really wanna 'read all about it?'
Because the “George” he refers to was then-King George V – as in the grandfather of current Queen Elizabeth II (who having been Queen since 1952 has the kind of lengthy term that American politicos can only fantasize about) and great-great-grandfather to Prince Henry (more commonly called Harry), who on Saturday will have the world’s eyes on him as he marries one-time Northwestern University student Meghan Markle.

THAT LINE FROM Thompson is being used by many people who try to come up with some sort of connection between the English royals and those of us native to the “Second City.”

It also gets used by those of us intending to show our disdain for anything happening in London on Saturday. Some of us feel the need to spew trash talk about how we fought a war against those people to break our ties to the English king.

George III, to be exact.
George V, with his 'snoot' intact

While others will want to get caught up in the pageantry of the spectacle and will think it sad that some people will be “haters” – although whenever I hear the word used like that, I’m reminded of the various delusional, and youthful, women who dated Hugh Hefner during his final years of life.

PERSONALLY, I CAN’T say I feel either way.

“Hate” would definitely be the wrong sentiment, because in order to hate something, you have to care about it. You have to have a legitimate sense of feeling that, in some ways, could border on “love.”

Yet I also have the same feelings of apathy whenever anything involving the English royal family comes up. It just all seems so trivial.
All bluster from 'Big Bill'

At least if we were talking about an American power-play wedding, such as a White House-staged event involving President Donald J. Trump’s younger daughter, Tiffany – we could complain about the gross misuse of tax dollars during the Trump years in D.C.

IF ANYTHING, IT bothers me to bring this up because we then have to recall the 1915-23 and again from 1927-31 mayoral reign of Thompson – the man whose tolerance of Al Capone is the reason why a hood was able to achieve such prominence in Chicago.

Remember that scene from Kevin Costner’s 1987 take on “The Untouchables” when Costner’s Eliot Ness is stopped from arresting Frank Nitti for bringing a pistol into a courthouse – because Nitti produced a note granting him permission to legally have the weapon?

A note signed by none other than “William Hale Thompson” himself. That scene wasn’t exactly fictional – although the follow-up scene where Ness throws Nitti off the roof of City Hall to his death inside an automobile (“He’s in the car” was Ness’ response when asked about Nitti’s whereabouts) was pure fantasy.

Do we really want to be recalling the sentiments of a man who makes the political people of our era seem so meek and mild? One who would make Rod Blagojevich seem like a choirboy by comparison and would probably upset the conservative ideologues because Thompson was a Republican – the last GOPer to date to hold the Chicago mayoral post.

NO WONDER WHY our local voters don’t think much of the one-time Party of Lincoln.
The queen w/ Chicago 'royalty'

But the other “local moments” in our history include the July 6, 1959 visit of Elizabeth, herself, to Chicago – spending 14 hours in our city and even having a meeting with Richard J. Daley himself.

Or that three-day visit Princess Diana made to Chicago in the summer of 1996 – with its profound moment being the formal ball at the Field Museum where some local “gent” managed to cut in and got himself a dance with Diana herself.

Although that, at least, left a memento, as the Drake Hotel suite where she stood is now known as the “Princess Diana Suite” (which TripAdvisor.com puts at $187 per night – if available).

  -30-

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Shouldn’t we be more offended if the police weren’t at the Jarrett wedding?

I had so desperately wanted this weblog to be a Jarrett wedding-free zone on the Internet.
JARRETT: Plans wedding w/ world watching

I was determined not to get all excited about the idea of the daughter of White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett (a long-time Obama ally with her own ties to Richard M. Daley) getting married on Saturday.

EVEN IF IT means that President Barack Obama will be back in Chicago. Or we have the prospects of Jarrett snubbing Mayor Rahm Emanuel (the two didn’t like each other much when they both worked at the White House) by not inviting him to the wedding (Rahm’s out-of-town this weekend).

Or any of the other nonsense that is going to involve a couple of hundred politically-connected people from the scene in which Chicago and Washington are intertwined these days.

It’s cute. It’s fluff. But personally, I have never met Laura Jarrett or fiancé Tony Balkissoon. I’m not wishing her ill-will by any means. I just don’t care about them getting married. It’s their business.

Yet it seems that the ideologues are using Chicago Sun-Times gossip columnist these days to spread nasty little tidbits that are supposed to get us all offended at the Obamas for being a part of this “elitist” scene and think that we should punish them with a ballot cast for Mitt Romney come Nov. 6.

OF COURSE, THE truth of the matter is that the people who really feel this way are probably more jealous of the fact that they weren’t invited and aren’t a part of this scene. Which strikes me as being petty and absurd.

But now, we’re getting those infamous Sneed scoops picked up and turned from dung to news – particularly the report she had on Friday in the Sun-Times that had somewhere in the area of 200 police officers being assigned to duty in the Kenwood neighborhood to maintain security.
OBAMA: What gift did he give?

Which means they’ll being doing tasks meant to ensure that this wedding doesn’t get out of hand and get out of control – or more realistically that some nut case doesn’t decide for himself that he can “make his bones,” so to speak, by crashing the wedding and making a scene.

Which would be easy to do if not handled properly. Because this is going to be a backyard wedding at Jarrett’s home, followed up with a barbecue at another neighbor’s house.

AND LET’S NOT forget that the Obamas’ Chicago residence is on the same block.

Sneed (actually, the people who are feeding her tidbits of information) are trying to create the image of taxpayer dollars being used to reduce police officers to the level of private security.

Or maybe valets! Can’t you envision Superintendent Garry McCarthy in full dress uniform, being reduced to the role of parking cars?

Sorry. But I just can’t share the outrage. I think this type of rhetoric is just too nonsensical to take seriously. A part of me is critical of anyone who pays it any mind for even one moment.

IT’S NOT THAT I care much about the Obamas personally. It’s just that this is a very unusual event for a U.S. president to attend. But that means it is an event at which a U.S. president will be present.

Which means the security measures are going to be extreme. Personally, 200 police officers sounds light. But if that’s all officials think will be needed to supplement the security measures of the Secret Service, then so be it.

I’ll trust the law enforcement types to be experts on such matters.
EMANUEL: Rare when mayor not invited

Seriously, though. What would you find to be more outrageous?

THE CONCEPT OF police officers in the Kenwood neighborhood or nearby Hyde Park keeping an eye open for any suspicious activity that happens to occur in the area?

Or the idea that someone slipped into the wedding and was able to make a threat on a U.S. president’s life or well-being, all because somebody has ideological hang-ups and would have preferred to have those officers assigned elsewhere?

Like it or not, this is the president. Anywhere he goes brings about a certain level of insanity that must be accommodated. If that concept bothers you, then I think we have to wonder more about your state of mind than anything else!

  -30-