Merry Christmas!

I’m giving myself the day off today.

Call it a moment of holiday-inspired laziness if you must, but I just can’t help but believe that a majority of people have better things to do than to turn to their computers on this holiday to find out what I think about whatever issue happens to capture my thoughts.

FOR THOSE OF you who might fret (all one or two of you), I will be back Saturday.

Until then, log off your computer, get out of your house and enjoy life on this extended holiday weekend, which for some of us (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-christmaseve-clos,0,3070094.story) began on Thursday.

Because come Monday, we all have to return to our work and our life’s responsibilities.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Among the interesting songs that emanated from 2120 S. Michigan Ave., was Chuck Berry’s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mevkipEj2nE) take on a modern-day carol that has been covered by, among others, Otis Redding, Bruce Springsteen and Hanson.

Courthouses to remain open on weekends, at least for the time being, Evans says

Perhaps some people think the only place where crime occurs is on the South Side of Chicago and in those suburbs that happen to surround it.

That was the impression I got from learning of a plan desired by the Cook County sheriff’s police to shut down the bulk of the courthouses based in the suburbs. Sheriff Tom Dart justifies the change as a cost-cutting move, saying he could get away with less staff if the courthouses in Skokie, Rolling Meadows, Maywood and Bridgeview didn’t have to be open on Saturday and Sunday.

FOR THE MOST part, they’re not. But invariably, there is crime committed Friday and Saturday nights, which means that bond hearings have to be held. That means a judge, his clerk and the deputies needed for security, have to be on call for the weekend.

Either that, or else those defendants would wind up having to sit in a holding cell at a local police station for several days until a Monday court hearing could be held.

That would be a financial burden for the local cops (whose cells are set up to accommodate a person for a couple of hours before he is transferred elsewhere) and for the judges who would have to preside over extremely long Monday dockets.

So I was glad to learn that Chief Judge Timothy Evans (who I still think of as the former alderman who was the first loser to Richard M. Daley for mayor of Chicago) sent Dart a letter this week telling him to forget (for now, at least) any talk of shutting down those courthouses.

“SERIOUS ISSUES OF public safety, due process and court administration have been raised that I believe deserve attention,” Evans wrote in his letter to Dart, as reported by the Chicago Tribune.

Those issues include what struck me as an obvious flaw up front about Dart’s proposal – the logistics of expecting that the county could do without those four courthouses in operation for the weekend.

For Dart’s proposal would not have left Chicago and its inner suburbs courthouse-less on weekends.

The county court’s first district (which is the city of Chicago proper) and it’s sixth district (the south suburbs, with a courthouse in Markham) would have remained open.

DOES THIS MEAN Dart (who early in his legal career was an assistant state’s attorney assigned to the courthouse in Markham) really thinks all the crime is concentrated on the South Side? That somehow, the north and west portions of Cook County have no need for a judge to hand down those rulings determining just how much money someone’s family has to come up with in order to keep their loved one from spending the next few months in Cook County Jail while awaiting trial?

I’d like to think Dart, who earlier this year was extremely critical of state officials for being shortsighted enough to think that video poker revenues would resolve the state’s financial problems, hasn’t suddenly fallen victim to similar shortsightedness.

Somehow, I don’t think all those northern, northwestern and western suburbs get that peaceful on the weekends. Nor do I think their local law enforcement officials want to have to take the added time to haul their defendants into the city to achieve Justice through a court hearing.

Part of the reason Cook County’s court system is broken up into the six districts is because there is just too much potential for overload at the Chicago courthouses if they tried to do all the work there.

AND WOULD THIS mean that some of those city cases would wind up getting shuffled down to Markham tp make room for all those northwest suburban “criminals” who now need to take up court space in Chicago?

It just seems to me that this is one of those necessary expenses that we’re going to have to live with.

After all, Thursday in Chicago is another one of those furlough days – a cost-cutting measure by which city employees will not get paid. So they’re not going to work. They get the day off and most city services will not be available.

But even with the concept of furloughs, police and fire department officials are still expected to work.

THINKING THAT THE county could shut down the bond court on Saturday and Sunday in Maywood or Skokie is about as short-sighted as thinking that the Belmont District or the Calumet Area of the Chicago Police could suddenly use some time off in order to save the government a few bucks.

It just doesn’t work that way.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is trying to portray the county’s chief judge as irresponsible (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/12/suburban-courts-ordered-to-remain-open-weekends.html) for not going along with his desire to shut down some of the suburban courthouses on weekends.

It’s a four-day (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-christmaseve-clos,0,3070094.story) holiday weekend for City Hall workers – or more like five days for those municipal employees who just slacked off on the job on Wednesday.

We ought to hold courts to high ideal

I can already hear in my mind all the complaints from courthouse types who will be upset that a federal judge dared to overturn the conviction of the former Streets and Sanitation commissioner.

Al Sanchez was the former high-ranking Latino politico who got caught up in the petty graft that takes place at City Hall, which was the reason he went from being a noble public servant to just another corrupt official.

ON TUESDAY, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman issued a ruling that struck down Sanchez’ conviction.

His reasoning?

One of the primary witnesses to Sanchez’ behavior crossing over the line from political to criminal was someone who, to put it politely, sells illicit narcotics to earn a living.

It was the opinion of Sanchez’ attorneys that they should have been informed of that aspect of the witness’ character so they could use it against him during the trial, doing everything they could to besmirch his reputation in the eyes of the jury.

NOT THAT THAT alone would have guaranteed an acquittal for Sanchez. Anyone who has ever covered criminal proceedings realizes that the people who usually know the most about criminal behavior and activity are criminals themselves.

The idea of Jane Q. Citizen being an eyewitness and testifying as her way of serving her public duty occurs so rarely. Most of the witnesses in criminal cases are people who have something to gain by seeing the defendant receive a criminal conviction.

Prosecutors in this case admit they didn’t disclose all the information about their primary witness, although they claim it doesn’t matter. Even if he is not an ideal human being, this should not (in their opinion) be enough of an excuse to toss out the conviction that they worked so many years to obtain.

That is where I would have to disagree.

I REALIZE WE don’t live in the ideal world and that all witnesses have some sort of taint to them.

But something like this should have been made public. Let the defense do their best to try to “take down” the witness.

Because if the overall totality of the evidence is such that it persuades the jury to vote “guilty,” then it can be overcome.

How many organized crime figures are currently serving prison time because their one-time associates decided it was in their best interest (less prison time for themselves) to “give up” their former colleagues?

MY POINT IS that this factor can be overcome by prosecutors. Trying to downplay it by taking the attitude that the prosecution is somehow entitled to a bit of favoritism (seriously, I have heard prosecutors argue that judges are naïve when they use this type of logic to toss out evidence) is a sad case.

For the reality of every criminal case I have ever seen is that the prosecution has so many built-in advantages that there are times I wonder how any defendant ever gets an acquittal.

They shouldn’t have had to try to cut corners such as this.

For now we’re going to have to go through another trial, which will cost the federal taxpayers yet more dollars.

I DON’T ENVISION Sanchez being suddenly willing to plead guilty to lesser charges. He told the Chicago Tribune, “I’ve always maintained I’ve done nothing wrong.”

But then again, I don’t envision the prosecution wanting to give Sanchez any sort of deal that would let him plead guilty to a lesser charge – even though that would be the practical way to try to resolve this case at this stage in time.

For Sanchez is one of the former Hispanic Democratic Organization officials (even the group itself no longer exists) who got caught up in what prosecutors say was a scam to get around the rules that are supposed to govern hiring of employees for city government.

(Yes, there really are rules about how to get a job at City Hall, even though most people don’t have a clue what those rules really are).

NOW, WE GET to relive the whole hiring scam, and probably will get to hear a few stories about the venal way in which HDO attempted to bolster the political interests of Richard M. Daley by working on behalf of Latinos who were sympathetic to Hizzoner Jr.

By this point, it ought to be old news.

But that is what happens when prosecutors think they ought to have more advantages, rather than remembering that – in theory – defendants are innocent until proven otherwise.

-30-

This is more about tweaking Madigan, but “search” for Ryan worth a chuckle

I got my chuckle for the day from the Illinois Republican Party, and not because the GOP did something stupid.

The party managed to come up with a humorous dig at the almighty Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, Michael J. Madigan, by reminding potential voters that there will be an alternative to cast a ballot for come the November 2010 general elections.

AS THE BALLOT now stands, Madigan is running unopposed in the Democratic primary for the Illinois House 22nd district seat, which represents a chunk of the Southwest Side of Chicago. But come the general election, the Republicans have a candidate.

Patrick John Ryan, whose greatest electoral advantage is his name – it reeks of Ireland and clearly falls within the old political cliché of how voters prefer the sound of the Irish to any other type of ethnic-sounding monicker.

The Republican Party on Monday put out a statement proclaiming Ryan to be a “missing person” of sorts.

Under the headline, “Has anyone seen Patrick John Ryan?,” the party informs us that Ryan is “willing to fight Madigan Machine,” while also telling us he is a former Democrat-turned Republican who, “believes in less government, lower taxes, true ethics reform and the need to end business as usual style of Illinois politics.”

OF COURSE, HOW they’d know that for sure unless they knew his whereabouts (he gave the Illinois State Board of Elections a home address in Chicago near 78th Street and Pulaski Road) is a bigger issue.

But their statement asking Ryan to call the party headquarters to inquire about what support they could give him was one of the cuter political digs I have ever seen, while also being quite possibly the most attention Ryan has ever got during his political campaigns.

Yes, Ryan is one of those perpetual candidates who takes up ballot spots only to get barely any votes come Election Day. His issue is Madigan. He has always challenged Madigan for his seat in the Legislature, being among the people of this state who somehow want to believe that Michael J. is somehow responsible for all that is evil in Illinois.

“The Illinois Republican Party is pleased to have an individual willing to step up to the plate by challenging the Illinois Democratic Party chairman and House speaker Mike Madigan,” said state GOP Chairman Pat Brady.

“THIS WILL NOT be an easy task for Mr. Ryan, and we look forward to providing him the necessary support to win this election.”

Not that they’re going to give him all THAT much support. After all, every dollar spent to help prop up a fringe candidate is one dollar less available to help a GOP candidate in a legislative district where they might have a chance to win – thereby reducing the size of the Democratic majorities in the Ilinois House and state Senate that are the true reasons why the Republican Party has become ineffectual in Illinois.

So what should we think of Patrick John Ryan, the Illinois House candidate who hasn’t done much publicly since he stood out in the cold of the Illinois State Board of Elections offices on Oct. 26 to file his nominating petitions?

Yes, he was one of those people out there at 8 a.m. when the office opened in hopes of gaining the all-precious Top Spot on the ballot – which in his case became a moot point when he became the only candidate to file for his particular primary.

I REALLY BELIEVE the GOP’s whimsical dig at Mike Madigan will be the highlight of this particular campaign season, on account of the fact that the man doesn’t leave much of a paper trail – at least not one that I could dig up in a single day.

Relying on Google to search for “Patrick John Ryan,” I learned that a man by that name was Archbishop of the Catholic Church in Philadelphia back at the beginning of the 20th Century. I also was reminded of Pat Ryan, who was involved in the efforts to get the International Olympic Committee to pick Chicago to host the summer games for 2016.

But probably the most amusing find was a mention of the Wikipedia entry for “Jack Ryan,” the fictional character from several Tom Clancy novels (Patriot Games among them) that have since been made into films.

That Jack Ryan has been portrayed by, among others, Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin.

WHICH MAKES ME wonder, if the latter were to ever decide that he has political aspirations, how strong would the GOP come out in opposition to him.

Somehow, I think the idea of Alec Baldwin as a politico scares Republican ideologues even more than Mike Madigan.

-30-

"Religious" imagery backfires too easily

The "offensive" billboard that is gaining a minor league ballclub some major league publicity and the ad (below) saying that a non-Latino "Jesus" backs the Census. Images provided by Jackhammersbaseball.com and the National Associaton of Latino Elected officials.

What do the Joliet Jackhammers and the National Association of Latino Elected Officials have in common?

The professional baseball team on the fringe of the Chicago area and the group that promotes the idea that there should be more Latinos serving as elected government officials both tried to use imagery inspired by the religious in their new campaigns, which means both groups are getting hit with accusations of having committed blasphemy.

IN THE CASE of the NALEO, they are trying to encourage Latinos to realize they should take it seriously next year when the Census Bureau sends them a form so they can be included in the official population count. For the Jackhammers, they’re trying to sell season tickets for 2010.

How does religion get involved in either of these “causes?”

For NALEO, they cited portions of the New Testament that would indicate that Joseph and Mary were headed to Bethlehem so they could be included in something resembling a modern-day Census, which would mean the baby Jesus was born just in time to be counted.

Their advertisements literally tell us, “This is how JESUS was born,” and adds later, “Don’t be afraid.”

NALEO IS ONE of about 136,000 groups cooperating with the Census Bureau to try to get as accurate a count as possible in the Census, which officially records how many people are living in the United States on April 1, 2010.

They’re claiming that nothing is inappropriate with their ad, even though the Washington Post recently reported that some Latinos are seeing blasphemy in the very mention of Jesus, or at least a lack of respect for the so-called Son of God.

Of course, some of the people who are most critical are the ones who are trying to inspire Latinos to engage in a misguided boycott of the Census process altogether. They think it will show the rest of the country that we’re disgusted with the way we’re often overlooked, although I still thinik it will merely delight the nativist element that would prefer to think we don’t truly exist and would use an inaccurate Census Bureau count as some sort of justification of their xenophobic thought process.

Then, there is the Jackhammers, a professional baseball team in the Northern League.

THEY’RE TRYING (LIKE they do every winter) to get local businesses and other fans to buy tickets in advance. It helps the ballclub if they have the revenue from ticket sales already on hand before the season starts.

Part of their campaign is a billboard on Interstate 80 near Joliet, Ill., that says, “Buy Jackhammers Tickets Today” and attributes that quote to “God.”

Does the Almighty really have nothing better to do with his/her/its time than look down upon this planet and watch Jackhammers’ ballgames? With all the success they have had throughout the years, I would have thought God to be a New York Yankees fan (does that make the ’04 championship of the Boston Red Sox some sort of Satanic plot?)

Now if one goes to the Jackhammers’ website (http://jackhammerbaseball.com), an explanation is offered that people who buy a season ticket package during the month of December can have the ballclub donate a portion of the purchase price to any church or religious organization the fan chooses.

IN SHORT, ONE can make that thoughtful donation while also ensuring they will have tickets to ballgames for the 2010 season.

Not that such a thought is at all comforting to those people who seem to want to find religious offense in every part of our society these days. To believe some people, rooting for the Jackhammers now is the quickest way to ensure that one will get to spend all eternity under the control of Mr. Applegate.

Some people have been screeching that the billboard needs to come down, although team officials seem to enjoy the free publicity they are getting – saying it will remain in place through Wednesday.

It also would seem that those critics of God being a season ticket pitchman are in the minority – a totally unscientific survey on the ballclub’s website indicated as of Sunday that 93 percent of nearly 140,000 fans think the billboard should remain.

NOW I’M NOT claiming to be a religious scholar by any means. But I have a hard time envisioning people who could have so few problems in their lives that they would have time to worry about either of these two advertisements.

To me, there is a big difference between something offensive and something being trivial. If anything, I would agree that both of these advertisements fall into the latter category. But then again, we as a society have become a group that seems to think there is something significant about the ongoing affairs of golfer Tiger Woods – a saga I personally could care less about.

If anything offends me these days, it is not these advertisements. It is people who want to belive it matters to us what Woods was doing with all those women.

I say it only matters to Elin Nordegren, just as I still have a hard time getting offended by the decade-old behavior of then-President Bill Clinton. I still say that Hillary should have done to Bill what Elin did to Tiger – and that should have been the end of it.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: I never realized that baseball (http://jackhammerbaseball.com/news/index.html?article_id=2096) or the Census (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121502928.html?hpid=moreheadlines) were issues of great theological concern.

If Obama was the uncompromising hardliner his critics claim he is, maybe we’d have health care reform by now

Barack Obama is the public official who’s so determined to pass something that he can claim reforms the way in which health care is paid for in this country that he’s willing to compromise on so many points that his so-called allies are now getting disgusted with him.

Which is why I find it comical whenever the “right” insists that Obama is some sort of socialist who is out to undermine everything they stand for.

ONE CAN MAKE the very legitimate argument that he’s so willing to give in to his critics that they ought to be satisfied. Not that I expect they ever would be. Because their rhetorical rants were never about discussion of serious issues.

They are about denying an Obama administration anything that could be seen as an accomplishment. It probably angers them enough that they couldn’t seriously knock down his choice for a Supreme Court justice, so killing off health care reform is what they’re going to be willing to settle for.

Because as things stand right now, I’m not sure what to think of the reform effort – other than to say anyone who thinks Howard Dean has a clue what he’s talking about on the health care debate.

Dean is the one-time presidential dreamer and Democratic Party head who thinks the president should just give up the fight for now, and introduce a new bill in 2010. In short, start all over.

MAYBE IN A theoretical world that would be possible, but not the one in which we live.

Because if Obama were to do that, it would embolden his partisan opposition to the point where they would feel even less of a need to listen to the president in future debate.

Obama aides are correct when they say this issue needs to be kept going, because there’s a good chance that if this particular bill (in whatever form it winds up being amended to) does not get passed into law, then nothing on the issue of health care reform will ever get approved.

And this is an issue too serious to dawdle around with. The Clintons tried to pass something in 1994, only to fail and we had to wait until this year for another attempt. Personally, I don’t think the nation has the ability to wait another 15 years (for the administration of President Lisa Madigan, perhaps?) for a new reform effort.

IT COMES DOWN to the fact that I see the 47 million uninsured as a problem that can drag us all down. We need to deal with finding ways to cover the cost of their health care. Doing nothing, which seems to be the Republican preference, ought not to be an option.

Yes, this ultimately comes down to partisan politics. I think the officials who object about abortion, or Medicare or any other aspect are merely using them for rhetorical reasons. They want to deny an accomplishment that Obama could use to claim he did something worthwhile, thereby justifying the faith of those who voted for him and makes those hard-core opponents look quite a bit foolish.

But then again, if Obama gives in so much that a health care reform proposal passes that does little to nothing to change the status quo, we could make the argument that Obama’s presence made no difference.

As much as I like the ideal of bipartisanship, I’m realistic enough to know how much partisan rhetoric and activity has tainted the process. If anything, Obama is going to start behaving more like a Democrat – rather than some Dem who’s too comfortable among Republicans.

WHAT’S THE OLD Texas cliché? “You dance with them who brung you.”

That is what much of the “liberal” complaints these days about the health care debate is about.

I’m curious to see how this issue plays out. A week ago, I would have thought something would pass. But now, I’m wondering if the GOP and the “blue dog” Dems who for whatever reason don’t just convert political party status will succeed at stalling the issue long enough.

Such motivation was behind their tactic on Friday of refusing to support a bill funding the military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. If that issue got stalled, it would force postponement of any more health care reform – probably until after the Christmas holiday break.

REPUBLICANS SEEM TO think that Democratic officials will return to their home districts and hear an earful from constituents who don’t want health care reform. That might be true if those Dems visited their GOP colleagues’ districts for the holidays. But there are also the masses who see a serious problem and aren’t willing to wait any longer for a fix.

Some Dems, meanwhile, are still pushing to at least get a Senate vote on a health care reform proposal so they can claim they acted before the holidays. Then, it becomes the “conference committee” responsibility to figure out what will happen (since the House of Representatives already has approved a similar – but not identical – measure) on the issue.

I’m not predicting what will happen in coming days, other than to say that Obama himself will have a lot on his mind when he and the First Family take their traditional annual holiday trip to Hawaii.

As for those of you who want to complain that he’s not spending Christmas in Chicago, I’ll agree it would be nice to have Obama back in town next week. But then again if it were possible to get a couple of days of sunshine, I’d probably take advantage of the opportunity as well.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Much of the complaining these days about Barack Obama is coming from his “allies” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18liberals.html?hp). At least the president gets a couple of days in Honolulu to recover from partisan headaches.

What does an endorsement mean?

It’s hard to say just what the effect is of an endorsement by a government official for someone seeking another electoral office.

Do I think there are thousands of potential Chicago-area voters who are now going to rush right out and cast their vote for Cook County Board president based on what Reps. Danny Davis or Luis Gutierrez, both Illinois Democrats, said on Thursday?

I DOUBT IT.

Yet that didn’t stop the two men who represent Chicago in Congress from issuing statements telling us who they think should replace Todd Stroger.

That’s the key. Neither man is backing the Son of John.

Davis thinks we should support Dorothy Brown, while Gutierrez gave his backing to Toni Preckwinkle.

NOW I DON’T think either man is all that interested in how the electorate is going to vote. What I mean is that they’re really not trying to influence the turnout.

What an endorsement like this is really about is a government official willing to take a gamble that they are picking the eventual winner. Meaning, that Davis fully expects the county’s circuit court clerk to make the move up to county board president. Which is also why people like Richard M. Daley rarely make such endorsements. He’s afraid of picking the wrong person and developing an enemy.

When Brown winds up holding that position of great authority (which some local political observers have been known to refer to imformally as the “mayor of Cook County”), Davis wants her to know that he was among her early backers.

Which really means he’s going to want to know that he can count on her to do his political bidding on local affairs.

WHAT IS INTERESTING is that Davis has taken the factual data that has cropped up thus far and come to the conclusion that Brown will be the county board president. That same information was made available to Gutierrez, who apparently interpreted it differently.

He’s banking on the fact that there will someday be a “President Preckwinkle” working out of the fifth floor office located down the hall from the Cook County Board chambers.

Who knows something that the other person doesn’t? That is the question we will be pondering for the next month-and-a-half until the Feb. 2 primary election.

There has been one poll of significance thus far in this campaign – the one commissioned by the Chicago Tribune so they could write stories that could try to influence the course of the electoral cycle.

THE PUBLIC SPIN put on that poll early on was that incumbent Stroger was lagging in third place in a four-candidate field. That means Brown and Preckwinkle are the numbers one and two candidates respectively.

But with a significant number of undecided voters remaining, no one should assume it is impossible for Preckwinkle to close the gap that she faces, provided she can put some energy into her campaigning.

There are those who wonder if she’s a tad too boring, and possibly Hyde Park-ish, to appeal to the bulk of Chicagoans.

For his part, Davis said that Tribune poll motivated him to make his decision, although he said the results matched up with two polls he commissioned as well. Davis is the guy who put aside his own desires to be county board president so as to reduce the chances that he would split the black vote up and enable a white guy to win the post.

SO I’M SURE he is viewing his endorsement as bolstering the leading African-American candidate’s chances of success.

Could Gutierrez be thinking just the opposite, hoping that his selection helps persuade many Latinos to start thinking of Preckwinkle as their preferred candidate?

Preckwinkle seems to hope so.

In her statement announcing Gutierrez’ support, she touts him as the “highest-ranking Hispanic elected official,” hoping she can repeat the Barack Obama formula of a variety of voters of all the ethnicities and races will come together to move her up to the county board presidency.

I BRING THIS up because while she may be trying to appeal to many of the same Chicago-area people who were smitten with the presidential bid last year of Barack Obama, she doesn’t necessarily have his same personable quality that enabled him to capture the emotions of the voter the way he did.

She may be from Hyde Park and may once have been Obama’s alderman, but that doesn’t mean things will automatically transfer over.

But then again, back in the ’08 Democratic primary season, Illinois was one of the few places where Obama won the Latino vote (remember how much we loved Hillary for awhile?). That was done with Gutierrez’ help.

Could the Preckwinkle bid turn out to be a political encore for Gutierrez? If so, then a Preckwinkle victory would mean some serious favors owed to the Congressman, which is what these kinds of endorsements are truly all about.

-30-