Last man standing? It’s Mr. Speaker!

The Illinois General Assembly completed its business for the 2019 spring session this weekend – one day after they were scheduled to do so on Friday. History will record that they managed to get a lot of things done – including some measures (a casino within Chicago) that in the past seemed next to impossible.

 

MADIGAN: Illinois making recovery?

So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, felt the need to issue a congratulatory (of sorts) statement.

BUT READING THROUGH it, I couldn’t help but sense the real purpose was to remind people that Bruce Rauner is political history, while he remains in office. Rauner being the guy who spent four years in office perpetually blaming Madigan for Illinois’ inability to get anything done.

And even implying, at times, that Madigan ought to be the Chicago politico facing criminal indictment – rather than Edward M. Burke!

For as Madigan put it, 2019 will go down as the year of a balanced budget that boosts education funding, helps senior citizens and women and helps pay off $1 billion in old bills.

“While there remains more work to be done to put Illinois fully back on track, in these steps we see what Illinois can be when our leaders stand up for our middle-class families while still seeking common ground,” Madigan said. “When we use our time to build compromises, when we have a governor who encourages Illinois to think big again and when we all commit ourselves to working together to build a stronger Illinois.”

I’M SURE THE ideologues of the rural portions of Illinois will have their own retaliatory rants. But the sense is that we are better off for not having a government that was so anxious to play political games with organized labor that it was willing to disrupt its daily operations.

 

RAUNER: He gone!

Heck, even Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin of suburban Westchester called the budget deal “bipartisan” and praised the fact it did not include tax increases.

Which makes the Madigan proclamation of the session’s end seem all the more the equivalent of a political raspberry – aimed in the direction of Gov. Bruce himself.

  -30-

Presumption of innocence, unless it gets in the way of partisan politics

It is one of the pillars upon which our society´s criminal justice system is based – one is presumed innocent of any criminal charges they may face, until the moment they are found “guilty” by a jury of their peers.

BURKE: Not guilty until proven otherwise

That includes Alderman Edward M. Burke, who earlier this year was named in a criminal complaint alleging some improper activity (trying to shake down the operators of a Burger King franchise in his home neighborhood) – but who learned this week the charges against him are now upgraded to include a whole slew of criminal acts.

IT WOULD SEEM that the U.S. Attorney’s office for Northern Illinois (ie., Chicago proper) is planning on making a priority this year (and probably next) out of going after the man who has managed to survive a half-century in the City Council.

But instead of celebrating the 50-year mark with a gift of gold, there are those who want the color orange to eventually predominate (as in an orange jumpsuit like those worn by prison inmates).

Now I’m not trying to defend the conduct of Burke. I’ll be as interested as anyone else in seeing what kinds of details come out of any criminal proceedings that put Burke on trial before a jury of his peers – who will mostly be people who don’t have the clout to get out of jury duty.

It will be intriguing to see if federal prosecutors actually manage to prove their case against Burke to a degree they can get a criminal conviction against the already 75-year-old alderman who probably thought he’d finish up his time as a political elder statesman.

LIGHTFOOT: She wants Burke out NOW!!!

NOT AS A potential federal inmate colleague of the oft-despised former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich.

I don’t doubt, however, that some people aren’t willing to wait out the process – the enforcement of which is what gives our society the moral high ground and keeps our courts from being amongst the more tyrannical systems of the world.

Which is why I’m bothered by just how swiftly Mayor Lori Lightfoot jumped all over the Burke name this week in trying to demand his immediate resignation.

It would seem the one-time federal prosecutor is counting on her one-time legal colleagues at the Dirksen Federal Building to knock off the man who’s made it clear he doesn’t view her mayoral election as being some sort of great moment in Chicago history.

FRIAS: The lone acquitted alderman

WHICH ACTUALLY WAS the area in which Burke liked to think of himself as a master. He was the alderman who used to like to end City Council debates on issues with long, drawn-out statements that were loaded with historical trivia and political factoids that supposedly put every issue into context.

But which all too often made Burke seem like an overbloated ego with too strong a sense of his own self-importance.

Perhaps that’s the reason Lightfoot is eager to see Burke (who managed to win re-election earlier this year with ease) out immediately, and doesn’t feel like waiting for the courts to do their business and reach a “guilty” verdict that would force his immediate resignation.

Will it be the 'feds' challenging … 

It would be a lot fewer headaches for Lightfoot – even though someone of her legal background knows full well she doesn’t have the authority to force him to quit now. If anything, his continued presence at City Hall is more about political spite.

NOW IT’S VERY likely that a “guilty” verdict eventually will be reached. The process really is rigged against anyone whom prosecutors decide to go after.

Much is often made of the 30-plus aldermen who, since 1973, were found “guilty” of some sort of criminal act. Much less mentioned is the name “Ray Frias,” who is memorable because he’s the lone alderman indicted who ultimately managed to get a “not guilty” verdict.

So it may well be that Burke’s place in Chicago political history will be the most prominent alderman to wind up “doing time” for actions prosecutors deem criminal, but which some will try defending as, “the way Chicago politics works.”

… City Hall business-as-usual in Burke trial? Photos by Gregory Tejeda

Lightfoot may get her desire for a Burke-less City Council, but she’d better be wary of her own behavior. Because there’s also no doubt some might try to twist her own actions into criminal behavior – perhaps out of a desire they could add a mayoral name to the dozens of aldermen, Illinois governors and Congressmen, who have wound up doing time.

 -30-

EXTRA: Cheech & Chong gag obsolete? At least in Illinois!

The Illinois House of Representatives completed the legislative portion of the process by which marijuana use in the Land of Lincoln loses its stigma -- sending off to Gov. J.B. Pritzker the bill that will make it no longer any kind of illegal act for people to light up a joint/doobie/whatever you choose to call it.

Which makes me wonder about the old Cheech & Chong comedy skits involving the Sgt. Stedenko character. The overbearing, and inept, cop was forever trying to bust the comedy team -- and as I recall in one of their films, turned out to be a drug user himself.

BUT HOW WILL future generations view such moments? Will they wonder just why a cop was getting all worked up over someone wanting to indulge themselves in having a smoke for pure pleasure?

For the intent of Illinois' new law, which Pritzker is expected to sign off on some time this summer, will allow for people to purchase their "pot" from officially licensed vendors -- whose sales will be taxed, Meaning Illinois will get its "cut" of the proceeds. Which the cynics say is an immoral, if not ought to be criminal, reason to legalize something.

I don't doubt some people are going to wan to forevermore maintain the stigma of marijuana use -- mainly because they're going to object to the kinds of people they want to believe actually use the substance,

Which is why the most important part of this legislation, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2020, if Pritzker actually signs it into law, are the measures allowing for people to have their criminal records cleared of any offenses for past usage.

THE MARIJUANA POLICY Project estimates that some 750,000 people in Illinois will be eligible to have their records cleared for any times in the past they were caught by police using. It should be clear that people have to show they didn't commit other illegal acts while using pot -- their convictions will remain in place.

It should be noted that this change in law, when it takes effect, will not legitimize your neighborhood drug dealer. If anything, they're going to remain under police scrutiny. They will be, after all, selling pot products that compete with the officially-licensed vendors the state will want people to purchase from.

It will be something along the lines of the "illegal lottery" rackets that compete with the Illinois State Lottery games and are the remnants of the old policy rackets that allowed people to place nickel bets on numbers in hopes of winning a prize. The police still crack down on those people -- because they want us to buy lottery tickets from gas stations and convenience stores instead.

Which means that the cops are still going to crack down on the scuzzy-looking guy who tries growing his own pot product for sale. "Sgt. Stedenko," however, will become a less onerous law enforcement image -- and something more akin to "Barney Fife."

  -30-

DeLUCA: Our brains on drugs

EDITOR'S NOTE: Just a bit of evidence as to how some people will always remain opposed to the idea of legitimizing marijuana use. Amongst the legislators who voted "no" are state Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, who couldn't bring himself to side with the desires of his political party's governor. DeLuca brought to mind that old public service announcement, reenacting that moment by frying an egg in a pan within the House chambers, then telling us, "This is your brain on drugs."

Can government tell people they can’t pack pistols? Some would say ‘no!’

I can’t help but think the Illinois State Rifle Association is showing just how ridiculous and overbearing their interpretations of the right to bear arms truly are, what with the way they called “most onerous” a bill approved this week by the Illinois House of Representatives.

Victim of overbearing government? Some would say 'yes'

That bill is one requiring people seeking permits to legally own a firearm to submit their fingerprints – which would make it easy for police to check to see if there are any reasons this particular individual ought not have such weapons.

THE BILL WAS motivated by past incidents, including one in suburban Aurora, where a man with a criminal record that should have stopped him from owning firearms had managed to purchase them anyway.

The man who walked into his former employer and began shooting people (he was p-o’ed) slipped through the cracks of the process we already had in place to make sure people with relevant criminal records don’t obtain such weapons.

Which means these people shouldn’t have pistols or rifles or any other such firearm.

Yet it seems the people whose only interest in the U.S. Constitution is in the (some might say obsolete) Second Amendment are interested in protecting the “rights” of people whom those of us with sense would think it a ‘no-brainer’ that their rights to own firearms have been forfeited.

SERIOUSLY, IN THE Aurora incident (that left five people AND the gunman dead), the man had a felony aggravated assault conviction in Mississippi and had multiple arrests in Aurora and Oswego.

Technically, the law would have made his Mississippi conviction (for which he served a little over two years in prison) ineligible to purchase a firearm legally.

Yet he was issued a Firearm Owner Identification card in Illinois in 2014 in large part because the background check did not include a fingerprint check – which would have revealed the Mississippi conviction and made him ineligible.

That FOID card is what allowed the man to openly walk into gun shops and purchase the weapons (at least one of which he is said to have used the day he walked into his former employer and began shooting – upset that he had been fired from his job).

THE LEGISLATURE’S ACTION might appear common-sense to many, but to the people who want to view firearms as some inalienable, God-given, right, it is one that has them screeching and threatening to take legal action to find a judge somewhere whose willing to let his own ideological leanings interpret the law in such a way that the gun owner becomes the “victim.”

And yes, it would seem that it was rural and outer suburban-based legislators who provided the bulk of votes against the measure – which narrowly passed this week 62-52 (60 votes needed for approval).

There were other provisions of the bill, including one that says someone whose legal right to own firearms has been revoked must actually surrender them to police or document that they’ve turned them over to someone who can legally possess them.

Which would appear to be very sensible – except to those who think that gun owners ought to be able to slip through the cracks of bureaucracy in order to keep clutching their pistols in the grips of their fingers – until said moment that their grip becomes cold and dead!

IT STRIKES ME as hypocritical for some to think that these restrictions on firearm ownership are flawed. Particularly if they’re the types of people who think that a person’s felony conviction for a crime ought to forevermore prohibit them from being able to register to vote in elections.

Then again, there also are those types who want to think there’s no such thing as a unit of government that they’re obligated to respect.

It reminds me of one time I saw one of those daytime talk shows where a clergyman was the guest being interviewed – and he showed as evidence of his disdain for government his own special driver’s license. One not issued by his state’s motor vehicles bureau because he thinks no state has a right to tell him he can’t drive.

About the only consolation I take in any of this kind of thought is the notion that someday, these people will have to confront the lord almighty and have to justify their knuckleheaded line of logic. My faith says they won’t be able to do so.

  -30-

Lightfoot “wins” battle; we’ll need to see how she prevails in the “war”

Mayor Lori Lightfoot had her first official meeting Wednesday with the City Council, and the aldermen didn’t go out of their way to try to humiliate her.

LIGHTFOOT: Prevailed, for now

Now as far as how Lightfoot treated the aldermen, that is debatable. For it could be that Lightfoot came ahead on her first political conflict, but may also have cemented a reputation that is bound to have her name taken in vain in certain City Hall offices.

LIGHTFOOT GETS CREDIT for a “win” because the council formally approved her picks for whom amongst them ought to be in charge of the various council committees.

Including the selection of 32nd Ward Alderman Scott Waguespack as chairman of the almighty and powerful Finance committee. While the senior-most alderman who was the long-time Finance chair, Edward M. Burke, got nothing.

Another council veteran who didn’t get any sort of committee posting was 9^th Ward Alderman Anthony Beale – who had been vocal in his criticisms of Lightfoot and made it pretty clear he didn’t think much of her mayorality. Regardless of the so-called historic nature of her term that many attributed to her.

For what it’s worth, Lightfoot’s committee chairmanships were approved by the aldermen by a voice vote. Meaning there is no recorded roll-call.

Will Burke and Beale (below) become … 

IT IS MORE a matter of the mayor deciding that the “ayes” had it, and as for the “nays,” well, she didn’t hear any, so she says her side prevailed. She won! She so declared it.

Which strikes me as just as much a political “boss” behavior as any of the past mayors from City Hall history whom the Lightfoot proponents are quick to lambast.

For what it’s worth, various news accounts of the council session place the number of potential critics at about 10 – which would mean about 40 supported Lightfoot. Although the Chicago Sun-Times went so far as to say there were four aldermen who voted “no,” with Burke and Beale most definitely being amongst them.

… a bi-racial coalition speaking out against Lori?

But we should keep in mind that nobody recorded a vote, so we can’t say definitively that either man was opposed. Because, after all, the “ayes” have it.

NOW AS FAR as Lightfoot’s appointments on Wednesday, she chose 18 of the 50 aldermen to have committees that they would oversee – thereby giving them some degree of influence; if not outright power.

The appointment that caught my attention was that of 44^th Ward Alderman Tom Tunney, who in addition to being Zoning committee chair also is now vice mayor. Not bad for an alderman whom the Ricketts family tried to single out for political defeat because he wouldn’t cater to all the whims the family had in the way they wanted the Lake View neighborhood surrounding Wrigley Field to be remodeled to the financial benefit of the Chicago Cubs.

Then again, there’s the way the new mayor gave the back of her hand to Burke – who has been an alderman for 50-plus years but now has brought national notoriety (if not outright shame and disgrace) to the City Council for the criminal investigation now pending against him.

At one point, Burke tried to lecture Lightfoot on the use of the pronoun “he” in her measure, and tried to play the moralistic high-ground by calling for gender-neutral terms – to which she cut him off.

WHEN HE TRIED to bring up other issues, she responded, “Alderman, please. I will call you when I want to hear from you.”

TUNNEY: Chicago's new vice-mayor

I don’t doubt that Burke took it as a personal snub, and it most likely was intended as such. For all I know, Burke and Beale (who had been a council committee chair under mayors Emanuel and Daley) may form an alliance – which could also wind up including several Latino aldermen.

Some of whom are miffed over the notion that only two of the 18 committee chairs came from their ranks. Which may be given the political spin of being a multi-racial and ethnic coalition of people who object to the coming of the Lightfoot years.

But then again, we have to concede, Lightfoot did say “please” before treating Burke as coldly as the legendary Richard J. Daley ever treated those opposing aldermen who suddenly saw their microphones turned off in mid-rant!

  -30-

EXTRA: Reality tops fantasy

It's the reason I find it incredulous anyone would ever consider writing fiction; I find that reality usually has a knack of coming up with even more outrageous things than even my addled imagination could ever concoct.

Take the Chicago White Sox employee who, on Wednesday, was called upon to do the "first pitch" duties. She wound up uncorking a wild throw so erratic that she hit a photographer who happened to be on the playing field at the time.

IT LOOKED ALMOST as ridiculous as the bit from the 1988 film "Bull Durham." Remember when actor Tim Robbins' "Nuke LaLoosh" character hit the bull mascot? And probably more memorable than either of the ballgames the White Sox actually managed to win Wednesday against the Kansas City Royals.

Of course, this first pitch attempt brings to mind the one time that Chicago Bulls basketball star Michael Jordan did the duties prior to a ballgame at Wrigley Field. Made worse by the fact that Jordan himself once tried playing professional baseball.

No wonder he never made it beyond the Birmingham Barons. He couldn't hit (only .202 batting average) or throw!

And now, this White Sox employee is being overly grateful for the fact that the ball club won't publicly identify her. Because you just know she'll make "blooper" videos for years to come, just like that moment when then-Texas Rangers outfielder Jose Canseco had a ball bounce off his noggin for a home run -- a more-memorable moment than any of the 462 home runs (16 of them during a brief stint he played for the White Sox) he clubbed with his bat.

  -30-

State Line Road becomes battle front in the abortion “war” some want to wage?

Venture to Chicago’s far southernmost tip, and you’ll reach that point where the streets of the Hegewisch neighborhood are named in letters until you reach the appropriately-named “State Line Road.”

This part of State Line Road (between Calumet City and Hammond) is now loaded with shops selling cheap cigarettes, generic pop brands and fireworks … 

That is where Hegewisch becomes Hammond – and Illinois becomes Indiana. And the way things are going, it could become a battle front in the ideological war that some seem determined to fight as to whether or not we ought to regard abortion of a pregnancy as a fully-legitimate medical procedure,

ILLINOIS SEEMS TO be a place determined to protect the availability of a woman’s right to have a choice on whether to end a pregnancy. While Indiana seems to have officials inclined to want to revert back to the old days when abortion would be regarded as a criminal act.

Off in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued rulings with regard to actions that the Hoosier state tried to implement against abortion availability there.

The high court upheld an Indiana law that required the remains of an aborted fetus to be disposed of similar to the way a dead person. Perhaps reinforcing the belief in ideologue mindsets that the unborn is a full-fledged life – instead of an appendage whose life is dependent upon its mother.

Although the court wasn’t as supportive of an attempt to put into Indiana law a measure forbidding a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the yet-to-be born person was not of the race or gender preferred – or may be suffering from a disability once it is born,

IDEOLOGUES HAVE LONG said they view such restrictions as a way of preventing science from trying to create babies-to-order and have tried to use this as an excuse for limiting abortion, The high court made a point of saying its ruling this week “expresses no view on the merits.”

Although Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas issued his own dissenting opinion that tried comparing abortion practices to “modern-day eugenics.” But in a sign that the rest of the court doesn’t want to get involved in this issue, no one signed off in support of his stance.

In short, it seems that for every ideologue who is determined to do whatever they can to restrict a woman’s ability to decide her own fate with regards to giving birth, there are others who probably wish they could focus on other issues – rather than having abortion become the ultimate Scarlet letter “A” of the 21^st Century.

Will it someday be loaded with dueling abortion protesters?

Then, we have our own situation on our side of State Line Road, where the ideologues who favor the Indiana measures (or those of places like Alabama or Missouri that are trying to make abortion impossible to obtain) are trying to demonize Illinois.

I’VE LITERALLY LOST count of the number of commentaries I’ve read where people are trying to scare everybody into believing that Illinois – and most likely Chicago – will become THE place where women flee to in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Largely because of the political situation, where in addition to marijuana legalization and sports gambling, the future of abortion access could be one of the key issues to be contemplated (or not) in this final week of the 2019 spring legislative session.

Back when the Supreme Court struck down all the various state laws restricting abortion, Illinois officials included a legal clause saying that if the “Roe vs. Wade” ruling that legitimized abortion ever was struck down, Illinois law would automatically revert to the old days – when a miscarriage could be considered reason for a police investigation to determine that the mother didn’t do anything to bring the end of pregnancy upon herself.

But the Illinois House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would strike down all those restrictions – so that if ideologues really do succeed in their effort to abort abortions, Illinois could remain as one of the few places that didn’t explicitly ban them. Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan said that "women's health will always be a fundamental right in Illinois." Just a thought to keep in mind the next time you hear ideologues demonize the Madigan persona.

IT’S A LOT of legalistic maneuvering to try to keep Illinois on the side of women who, for various reasons, may think it not in their best interests to have a baby. A concept that will offend the ideologues.

And could well make the Illinois/Indiana border – particularly the part between Chicago and Hammond, Ind. – a place where people will glare at each other and shake their fists in outrage while accusing each other of being immoral.

Will Illinois Legislature act to protect abortion rights, regardless of what other states choose to do?

Of course, what constitutes a more-immoral act (letting a baby die, or thinking you have a right to meddle in someone else’s decision about that act) is probably going to be one of those perennial ideological splits. We’ll never come to an agreement.

But just think, before you start ranting about Chicago’s potential support for immoral acts, keep in mind that less than a mile to the east of State Line Road is the Horseshoe Casino.

A WOMAN COULD end her pregnancy legitimately in Illinois, while gambling away her money in Indiana – with the state and local governments taking a cut of the proceeds.

Does that really make the gambling any more legitimate in the eyes of the overly-moral?

  -30-