Cubs finally (maybe?) sold

While many people enjoy the thought of attending a professional baseball game as part of the Independence Day holiday celebration, it would appear that the Ricketts family took things a step farther.

It appears they finalized a deal to buy themselves a major league (theoretically, that is) ball club – the Chicago Cubs.

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE reported Monday that Tribune Co. reached a tentative deal to sell the Cubs to the Ricketts family, a deal that could have been made months ago had it not been for the stubbornness of some officials that any transaction involving the Chicago Cubs set records for the amount of money paid for a ball club.

But in these tough economic times, nobody is going to pay record-high prices.

And what seems odd about the deal as reported by the newspaper is that the actual price is pretty close to what was nearly agreed upon several months ago. This plot of land, which hasn't changed much in 76 years, could be a valued part of the overall Tribune/Cubs transaction.

So for somewhere in the area of $850 million, the Ricketts family will get the rights to operate a National League ball club in Chicago, ownership of a square block of land at Clark and Addison streets in the Lakeview neighborhood and one-quarter ownership of the Comcast Sports Chicago cable channel (ch. 37 on many local systems).

THIS DEAL IS close enough that baseball officials are turning over the financial data to that legal entity known as Major League Baseball.

For now the owners of all the other 29 teams in the American and National leagues will get to have their say (including Jerry Reinsdorf and his business supporters who run the Chicago White Sox). It will take a majority of them to agree that the Ricketts family isn’t “bad” for baseball.

Just what that means is vague. Baseball gets to define its ownership qualifications pretty much on its own terms, and likes to operate as though it doesn’t have to answer to anyone. Remember how the White Sox themselves a couple of decades ago could have been bought by the DeBartolos, but baseball officials suddenly got religion and complained about the family having interests in racetracks?

It was like Capt. Renault objecting to “gambling” taking place in Rick’s Café Americain, but it stuck.

SO WILL THE other owners find the equivalent of racetracks in the Ricketts business operation? Or will they be so eager to have the Cubs transferred to ownership that cares about the ball club that they will approve anything?

I hope so. Because even though I personally am a baseball fan who cares less about the Cubs or anything in the National League (except to see which team they put forth each year to lose the World Series to the American League champions), the fact that this Cubs transaction has stretched out for so long is embarrassing for this city.

After all, Sam Zell made it clear on the first day he and his group took over Tribune Co. that the one property they weren’t interested in was the Chicago Cubs.

He pleaded ignorance as to the ways of operating a major league baseball team, even though he had long been one of the anonymous business executives who supported Reinsdorf and the White Sox by owning a tiny sliver of that ball club.

ADMITTEDLY, MANY PEOPLE thought Zell was being overly optimistic when he said back in December 2007 that he’d sell the Cubs by Opening Day.

But here it is, mid-way through the 2009 season, and Zell still has the team in his possession. For a guy who was so eager to unload the team, it seems strange that his tenure will wind up consisting of two full seasons with the Cubs.

There was all the talk early on that the Cubs sale would top $1 billion – which would be a record for a professional baseball team. It was supposed to be evidence that the Cubs were somehow a property more treasured than any other sports franchise.

It ignored the fact that the previous records were set by companies that bought broadcast properties and also acquired the ball club so as to have direct control over the sports product they were broadcasting.

THE TEAM ITSELF isn’t worth that much (those of us who root for the White Sox wouldn’t pay more than a buck to see a ball club that hasn’t won a league championship in 64 years, but that’s just our funny little quirk about wanting to see a winner).

But in the end, it was those declines that are hurting the news business (both broadcast and newspaper) that caused people to quit being stubborn, and allowed the Ricketts family the potential of saying they got a “bargain” at $850 million.

That’s assuming the major league owners and the Bankruptcy Court that is reviewing the Tribune Co.’s finances these days don’t find reason to object.

I hope they don’t.

BECAUSE IF THE Zell era winds up running into Season No. 3 and he still has control of the team in 2010, then Chicagoans are going to start including the Cubs’ on-field woes among the list of failures that he brought to the Tribune Co.

The Tribune Co. stripped the Chicago Tribune down in content to the point where many of its longtime readers don’t recognize it, and failed to take advantage of many situational perks that appeared as though things were aligned for a championship or two on the North Side.

Zell was the guy who had a legacy of making big money out of financially struggling companies. But he could be converted into the guy who trashed the Tribune and the Cubs all in one shot.

Sell, Zell, sell it already.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Could the Chicago Cubs have new ownership by year’s end? It would (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/cubs-sales-deal-finalized.html) seem so. How much (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34635) did a profit margin declining from 19 percent last year to 8 percent so far this year influence the decision to finally sell?

This fantasy (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cubs21dec21,1,1477370.story) once was treated as reality.

Madigan & Didrickson – could they become a unique pair in Illinois history?

I can understand why Lisa Madigan is being so cautious in trying to figure out what elective office she will seek in the 2010 elections.

No matter what strengths she would bring to the campaign season, all it would take would be one stupid move now and her whole future in public service could get flushed away.

THINK I’M KIDDING? How many people remember Loleta Didrickson these days?

Now I’m not saying that the one-time state legislator from suburban Flossmoor who served one term as Illinois comptroller was ever as highly regarded among Republicans as Madigan is among Democrats.

I don’t think Didrickson ever had the potential to go as high as Madigan does. But I recall her political career coming to a crashing end back in 1998.

Didrickson was among the flood of Republican officials who took over state government in 1994, creating a two-year period where the GOP ran everything and another two years where the Democratic voice on issues was a mere whisper.

BY 1998, THE Republicans were trying to figure out how they could run a solid ticket for the elections so that they could ensure their chances of keeping power. Of course, we now know they were unable to do so, and that election cycle was the beginning of a process that four years later saw the Democrats gain as solid a hold over state government as the Republicans had in 1995 and 1996.

How did this affect Didrickson?

After serving her one term as state comptroller, she decided she wanted to move up on the state government pecking order. Loleta got it into her head that she wanted to become Illinois secretary of state.

Aside from putting her name on the driver’s license or state identification card that virtually every adult Illinoisan carries, it is a position that would put her in charge of a large staff of state government employees.

BEING THE STATE’S secretary of state would make her a significant politician – even if she were never to gain a higher office in her career.

The problem was that the powers-that-be of the Republican Party had hopes of trying to show they weren’t totally the party of aging white guys, and they talked of having Didrickson run for the U.S. Senate seat then held by Carol Moseley-Braun.

They had dreams of the Moseley-Braun/Didrickson campaign, and had hopes that all the trash talk they could dredge up against the senator from Hyde Park could give them the Senate seat.

Didrickson ultimately decided to ignore the desires of the party bigwigs, and she announced her campaign to run for Illinois secretary of state.

THOSE SAME PARTY bigwigs had other officials in mind for secretary of state, so they weren’t particularly pleased. And they wound up doing as little as they had to in order to bolster her chances of Election Day victory.

After about a month of campaigning, Didrickson decided her inner party struggles weren’t worth it. She changed her mind, and shifted her campaign to a bid for the U.S. Senate.

Not that the party bigwigs were that forgiving. They did as little as they had to for her campaign, and it weakened her to the point that she wound up losing the Republican primary that year to Peter Fitzgerald (who wound up going on to narrowly defeat Moseley-Braun in the general election). Loleta has yet to hold elective office since.

When I hear the reports these days of how Lisa Madigan has been asked to show up at the White House and is receiving some pressure to run for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Roland Burris (even though I get the sense her personal preference would be to make the gubernatorial run), I wonder if she runs the same risk as Didrickson – having a whole lot of politicos turn on her if she dares to think for herself and seek the office she wants.

NOW I REALIZE that Madigan has the advantage of calling the speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives “Dad.” She would never get the complete turnabout that Didrickson got 11 years ago, and some people would wonder if trying to turn on Lisa would cost them in terms of retribution from the House speaker.

But would the thought of taking on an incumbent Democrat as governor (Pat Quinn) create a similar hostility as when Didrickson dared to think she (instead of some DuPage County officials) could be secretary of state?

She’s going to have to make up her mind soon what office she decides to seek. After all, the campaign season is getting in gear these days and any candidate who’s going to do serious fundraising and building up significant support has to get going now if they want to be taken seriously for the February primary elections.

But a wrong choice now could result in the names Lisa and Loleta being paired up in Illinois history in a most unusual manner.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: A whole lot of other political people can’t decide for themselves what (http://www.sj-r.com/news/x931218535/Madigan-decision-could-change-game-for-other-politicians) elective office to seek until they know Lisa Madigan’s intentions.

While people always expected Madigan to stretch this decision out as long as possible, the (http://chicagoargus.blogspot.com/search?q=lisa+madigan) deadline is approaching.

Palin, who has peaked, tries to leave on top by quitting gubernatorial post

Many of the political pundits who are trying to analyze Sarah Palin’s decision to give up her post as governor of Alaska later this month are figuring she wants to focus her attention on running for president in 2012.

I can kind of see the logic.

IF SHE IS going to be a credible candidate for the Republican nomination to challenge President Barack Obama, she needs to start working now. And if she is to become a national political figure, continued involvement on the Statehouse Scene in Juneau can do little more than drag her down.

But I can’t help but wonder if a part of her decision is based on the sentiment that there’s little more she can do to change her reputation in her home state. Could it be that the statewide elections to be held in the 49th State in 2010 would have created a perfect opportunity for someone to knock her down for the count?

Literally, is she quitting now so she can claim she left office on her terms, rather than as the losing candidate for re-election in the 2010 elections?

Some people might claim she’s doing an honorable thing by not running for re-election as Alaska governor in 2010, then immediately turning around and running for president while keeping the paycheck and benefits that are part of the compensation of being governor of Alaska.

BUT THE “HONORABLE” thing is something that political people rarely do. Even the most exceptional of public servants have a pragmatic streak when it comes to running for elective office.

And Palin, as we saw last year during the campaign season, is hardly exceptional (although I realize that some people consider her ordinary-ness to be her political strength).

Her decision to resign as governor effective July 26 (how nice, she’s giving the people of Alaska roughly three weeks’ notice of her intent to quit) is risky.

Because a public official without an elective office is nothing. That is why even the most exceptional public servants develop the pragmatic streak. It is next to impossible for them to do anything for the public good if they lose on Election Day and are sitting on the sidelines.

BUT I GUESS she figures that she developed such good name recognition in the 2008 election cycle that she can go for the next year-and-a-half without a political post.

Because the chances are that all Alaska would have done for her now is dragged down her chances of success. All it would have taken was one budget crisis to confront Alaska state government or one stupid act of political corruption by a state official.

Watching Palin show us her gubernatorial skills would have created the potential for her to screw something up, which would take her down for good. How can we take seriously the thought of Palin as president when she can’t even govern Alaska?

There’s also the fact that she was only a first-term Alaska governor. Like any other political official, the first re-election bid is the toughest because the benefits of incumbency haven’t yet kicked in.

THE PEOPLE WHO are upset their preferred candidate lost to her in 2006 would have been geared up for a challenge in ’10. Others who were embarrassed by her ’08 vice-presidential candidacy would have been inclined to work against her.

But by quitting now, none of that will ever happen. In her mind, she will be the golden girl who put Alaska politics on the national map (even though I’d argue Ted Stevens is more of a national political figure than Palin could ever dream of being).

I’m curious to see what she does to create a presidential image for herself during the next year. Will she wind up drawing a salary from some conservative think tank while she tries to put together the infrastructure of a presidential campaign?

Some of the political pundits already are suggesting she’s going to have to spend more time in the District of Columbia and on the mainland United States to bolster her professional image. She has to show there is something going on “upstairs” and that she’s not just some dim bulb who inspires stupid jokes about “lipstick.”

COULD SHE WIND up moving outright? Or are we going to get the political illusion of someone who maintains the Alaska home address while really living in D.C.? Or, since she’s a Republican, the D.C. suburbs in northern Virginia.

It’s kind of a shame she couldn’t move to Illinois. A part of me thinks she’d fit in well in those outermost suburbs of Chicago.

You know where I’m referring to – places like the towns of Kendall County where the locals are split on whether they’re really becoming suburban or should remain rural.

At the very least, it would let Illinois have possession of the craziest governor again.

ON THE SAME day that Palin let it be known she’s quitting, it was announced that she won the National Society of Newspaper Columnists’ “Sitting Duck Award,” which is given to the most ridiculed newsmaker of the past year.

It turns out that Palin beat Rod Blagojevich for the title (he finished second).

So that could be a fact we Illinoisans ought to take into account when we ponder Blagojevich and his erratic behavior and the conduct of his wife, Patti.

Being mocked by a nationally known comedian for being able to “see Russia from my house” tops having a funky pompadour hairdo and a foul-mouthed wife who eats tarantulas on television.

-30-

Fireworks fest leaves me cold

Friday is one of those events that has evolved into a Chicago tradition that I must admit leaves me cold.

I have never done it. And I wonder about the intelligence quotient of anyone who does partake in the festivities.

THE EVENT THAT I refer to is those people who will be among the 1 million-plus who will gather along the downtown Chicago lakefront this evening with the intent of watching the official Independence Day fireworks display.

Part of it is that I have never really understood the appeal of fireworks, or how the sound of explosions is supposed to make me feel patriotic and fortunate that my grandparents made the decision to immigrate to this country some eight decades ago.

But there is something about the pre-Independence Day festivities that I just can’t get into. Spots close to Navy Pier have proven to be a particularly popular area to watch the pre-Independence Day fireworks display scheduled this year for Friday. Photograph provided by State of Illinois.

I think I’d sooner eat one of those giant turkey legs, followed by a half-dozen pieces of pizza and a slab or two of ribs, followed up by a giant watermelon slice, at the Taste of Chicago. Of course, if I really shoved that much greasy food down my gullet, I’d be regurgitating it right back up (plus I’d be too broke to do anything else the rest of the holiday weekend) in a matter of minutes.

THE PEOPLE I have never understood are the ones who make the point of showing up ridiculously early on July 3 so they can get a so-called “front row” seat to the fireworks display.

We’re talking about a seat along the lakefront, bringing their blankets and beach towels so they can lay out in what passes for the beach.

They stake out their spots in the sand and wait there for hours so that come nightfall, they can be in front of everybody else for “the show.”

The problem is that “the show” is in the sky. So how is one seat any better or worse than any other? It’s all happening “up there,” not in front of us.

SO IT SEEMS like many people will waste a day in the sand for nothing.

Not only that, but there’s also the fact that they will be pinned in front of the crowd. Which means that by being the first ones to show up, they also will be the last ones who get to leave.

The people who head for the lakefront just in time to catch the first colorful explosion are going to be the first ones who get out.

Perhaps I’m being alarmist, but I have always wondered how big of a catastrophe could occur in Chicago on a July 3 if some sort of disaster took place that suddenly required everyone to evacuate the lakefront.

WOULD WE WIND up with hundreds of thousands of people stuck in a mass of human flesh and bone, unable to move? Or would it get ugly and turn into a riot, with people fighting their way out of the mass?

Some people have as a phobia the thought of spiders or flying in an airplane. For me, it would be being stuck in the crowd on the lakefront, all because I was foolish enough to want to see the pre-Independence Day fireworks display.

So I don’t go.

I honestly don’t feel like I’m missing much, even though I will be the first to concede that the downtown Chicago fireworks display the day before the Independence Day holiday is an event on a grander scale than any of the fireworks displays that will take place on the holiday proper.

ALL ACROSS THE suburbs on Saturday (and on every July 4), people will get their chance to see another fireworks display. If you really need to see explosions, I’m sure you can find a municipality nearby that will put on a show for you.

Or perhaps you will have neighbors who will decide to shoot off their own collections of rockets, which they probably purchased during a recent trip to the Land of Hoosiers. Just the other day, I was at the Illinois-Indiana border where I saw a family loading up their vehicle bearing Illinois license plates with the wares they purchased from a store that specializes in fireworks (along with cheap cigarettes and pop).

I can already anticipate which of my neighbors are going to think it is their Constitutional Right to blow things up (yes, some of my neighbors have a “Beavis and Butthead” mentality to them).

And while I won’t be one of the people rushing to the telephone to call the cops (figuring that the police can’t be so dense that they don’t hear the explosions for themselves), I certainly won’t get upset if someone else does.

PERHAPS I JUST have a “get those kids off my lawn” mentality, but I have always believed that Independence Day ought to be a day of quiet reflection – one in which we contemplate the advantages we have in our lives by virtue of the accident of birth that we weren’t born in Afghanistan.

Somehow, the idea of turning the day where we celebrate the creation of our nation into a cornucopia of cheap weenies cooked on the barbecue grill and bottle rockets being blown to smithereens seems like a trivialization of what the holiday is supposed to be about.

-30-

COUNTY BORED: How old is too old?

Is Cook County Commissioner Jerry Butler aging himself just a bit too much with his wisecrack Thursday about retiring broadcast newsman Art Norman.

The longtime reporter and news anchor for NBC-owned WMAQ-TV announced his retirement two months ago, but the Cook County Board took it upon themselves to pass a resolution praising Norman’s contributions to the Chicago-area.

MOST OF THE county officials’ witticisms were along the lines of comments from Commissioner Earlean Collins, who said Norman’s polite demeanor ought to be taught to all kinds of news reporter-types.

Then, there was the comment from Butler, who gets our “Quote of the Day” honors for the way in which he tried to say that Norman has been around Chicago for a long time (since 1982, to be exact).

Only it came out of Butler’s mouth as follows:

“Whenever I see one of you young guys retiring, it reminds me how old I’m getting. I remember when you weren’t here.”

FOR THE RECORD, Butler is three decades older than Jack Benny’s perpetual age of 39.

The "Iceman's" birthday is Dec. 8.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Needless to say, many of the people who had nothing better to do with themselves two months ago than to take anonymous cheap shots at Art Norman (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2009/05/wmaqtvs-art-norman-retires.html) on the Internet will disagree with the thought that went behind the county board’s resolution praising the broadcaster’s career.

Not a surprise Stroger gets challenges

Even if Cook County Board President Todd Stroger weren’t getting criticized from all sides for just about everything he does (mostly it is because some political people are still bitter about the circumstances under which he got the post), he’d be facing some serious challenges for his office.

The perception is that the son of the late Chicago politico John Stroger is young and inexperienced, AND he’s only finishing his first term as county board president. He doesn't have the benefits of incumbency now the way he will have in future years.

IF EVER THERE is a time to knock him out, it is now.

So that is why we’re seeing the people coming out of the woodwork saying they will challenge him.

Just on Wednesday I had a press release sent to this site’s e-mail, promoting the campaign of circuit court Clerk Dorothy Brown saying she’d like to run for the top post in county government.

And in the Chicago Sun-Times, we get an item telling us that Mayor Richard M. Daley is planning to back the candidacy of Toni Preckwinkle, the alderman from the Hyde Park neighborhood whose campaign rhetoric and literature almost tries to bill her as a female version of Barack Obama.

ADMITTEDLY, THAT ITEM from the newspaper was merely a “Sneed scoop.” So who knows what Daley is really thinking (he’d probably deny it, if publicly asked who he’s endorsing for county board president).

But the thing these two officials have in common (aside from gender) is that they are African-American.

Both of them are political people who have had some experience in the ways that things work in and around City Hall. And there’s no way that Stroger will be able to criticize them for trying to take an elective office away from an African-American official the way he likely would if some white official were to run for the post.

Things may be a tad more subtle in Chicago politics compared to the days of the mid-1980s and “Council Wars,” but there still remains a racial undertone to our city’s politics – primarily because there still remains the racial undertone to our society.

DO I THINK the sole reason that someone like Forrest Claypool decided not to challenge Stroger in next year’s Democratic primary for county board president is because he’s white?

Probably not. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t a factor that he didn’t want to get branded as some sort of “racist” the same way that many people now think of the memory of Bernard Epton.

Remember the one-time state legislator from Hyde Park who challenged Harold Washington for Chicago mayor with those “before it’s too late” commercials who in reality was that now-extinct breed of politician – a liberal Republican?

The only thing I wonder now is if the final lineup of candidates for the Democratic primary (which I honestly believe will be the real election, I just don’t see the Cook County Republican Party coming up with a legitimate candidate) will wind up consisting of Stroger, Brown, Preckwinkle, perhaps another African-American official like Danny Davis (who has hinted he might give up his seat in Congress to run for the post) and one lone white official.

COULD WE WIND up with a situation where all those African-American officials split the black vote in the primary, allowing that white official who has the gumption to run to take a slim victory?

The reason I wonder about this is because of the impact it could have on that overall Democratic party ticket for the November general elections.

This is the election cycle where a lot of political people who consider themselves to be completely responsible are behaving in ways that make it clear they want to dump Roland Burris as U.S. senator and Stroger as county board president.

There is the fear that if a final Democratic ticket winds up having Jesse White for another term as Illinois secretary of state as its lone African-American official, that the black vote for November could wind up being repulsed and staying at home.

ARE WE STUCK with Stroger in some sense that his presence is needed to maintain political harmony? I’d hate to think so, and the fact that other legitimate African-American officials are willing to come forth reduce the chance that such rhetoric can be spouted come next year.

Like I wrote earlier, Stroger is vulnerable because he’s still early in a political career, although his circumstance is unique in that his actions during his first term as county board president have angered enough people to want to ensure that the career dies prematurely.

When the county board meets again Thursday and is expected to vote on a plan to repeal part of last year’s sales tax increase (which is part of Stroger’s legacy since he pushed for it so hard and has used his power to ensure it remains in place), we hopefully will be putting aside this particular moment.

After all, the understanding is that Stroger will not continue to veto these repeals, and he will be able to get to keep part of the increase in place.

IN SHORT, BOTH sides won something.

Now, we can move on to the campaign rhetoric, as political people attempt to use the activity of recent months to attack each other in ways that help bolster their own chances of political success.

It will be curious to see what becomes of Todd Stroger during the course of the upcoming 16 months. He’s going to get hit with a political avalanche unlike anything we’ve seen in recent years.

If he’s able to survive it and get re-elected, then perhaps his detractors will have to start piping down.

-30-

Wrigley, the protesters and Al Franken

It is hard for me to decide what the most ridiculous spectacle was on Tuesday in the wide world of electoral politics in the United States.

I’m inclined to go with the Chicago City Council, which is preparing to take on an issue of monumental proportions – one where they will confront a force that threatens society as we know it today.

I AM SPEAKING, of course, of all those trashy vendors who try to earn a living by congregating around Wrigley Field and selling you overpriced goods (although not quite as overpriced as the ones sold inside the stadium proper) as you venture your way into the building to watch the women in tube tops who attend Chicago Cubs games.

Alderman Tom Tunney claims his concern is about public safety. He told the Chicago Tribune, “you can’t walk to the park.”

And I will be the first to admit there are instances where vendors get overly pushy in trying to peddle their extra-large bags of peanuts or cheaply-printed scorecards or whatever other item they have concocted to try to make some money.

But then again, I expect there to be something of a crowd around a sports stadium. Isn’t that part of the point of attending an athletic event – to be a part of the spectacle that cheers on the home team (and razzes them beyond belief when they play like trash)?

THAT IS WHY city ordinances have long prevented the unaffiliated street vendors from setting foot on the actual block that Wrigley Field occupies (Clark Street to Addison Street to Sheffield Street to Waveland Avenue back to Clark).

But under the Tunney proposal, which will now be debated with all the seriousness that officials are putting into trying to concoct a state government budget, now vendors would be banned from working within two blocks of the ballpark.

Not that this would affect the people who operate storefronts within a block of the ballpark to sell sports-related stuff. They aren’t affected.

Which makes me wonder if this great public safety concern has a touch of protecting the business interests of the vendors who work inside the stadium and in the storefronts directly across the street.

IF SO, THEN trying to bill it as a public safety concern is a bit of a stretch – even if it also served a local political purpose as well. I couldn’t help but notice that the measure came up the same day the City Council approved a measure requiring city employees to take 15 days off without pay before the end of 2009.

I suppose that’s better than requiring people to work those 15 days without pay. But most people I know with jobs need every penny they can get. Losing three weeks of work isn’t going to help. Better we pay attention to the public safety concern surrounding Wrigley Field.

Or perhaps the City Hall crowd would rather we watch the Statehouse Scene, where officials on Tuesday were treated to the sight of protesters being arrested.

Now keep in mind that protests at a government building, particularly the Statehouse in Springfield, are routine. There’s always somebody who stages a rally of sorts to try to gain attention for their cause.

BUT WHEN WAS the last time you saw protesters chanting, “raise taxes now,” while being carted off by the police?

These particular protesters were organized by the Service Employees International Union, and by their own admission were trying to get arrested to make a point. The union wants Gov. Pat Quinn to get the income tax hike he is calling for to balance the state budget for the fiscal year that begins Wednesday.

Usually, protesters protest against higher taxes. But that is how bizarre the political scene has been twisted due to the budget mess – which shows no sign of ending soon.

If either of those spectacles aren’t bizarre enough for you, how about this? Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.

THE STATE SUPREME Court in Minnesota issued a ruling Tuesday that, for all practical purposes, ends the legal battle over who won that state’s 2008 election. The one-time comedy writer for Saturday Night Live will soon be able to join his colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and will give the Democratic caucus 60 members, which in theory will allow them to run roughshod over the GOP opposition without having to worry about filibusters.

What I find bizarre is the whole idea that Franken is political. He strikes me more as a comedian going for the cheap laugh, and he is willing to use current events as subject material for his humor.

Does anyone really believe that his 1996 book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (and other observations)” was a serious political tome that will influence the thoughts and perceptions of government for generations to come? Or was it just a quickie laugh that some people were foolish enough to pay $21.95 (plus tax) for ($29.95 if purchased with Canadian dollars)?

At the very least, Roland Burris will now no longer be the only comic in the Senate, even if Roland, Roland, Roland’s humorous moments will be purely unintentional.

-30-