What is satire?

The New Yorker magazine, one of the few publications that tries to give a forum for respectable writing and detailed reporting, is the same outfit that these days thinks it is being satiric by feeding off the notions that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Dropping the “S” word is how the magazine is defending the cartoon that provides the art for the cover of this week’s issue.

OBAMA IS DEPICTED wearing robes and a turban similar to what he wore in that photograph circulated earlier this year amongst the websites of many Barack bashers, while potential first lady Michelle is shown as some sort of Angela Davis-wannabe – packin’ an AK-47 (she can’t even use an All-American M-16 assault rifle!).

The cartoon also shows a U.S. flag burning in the fireplace of the Oval Office, and a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs overhead.

Backers of the artwork are screaming “satire” to describe this, claiming they are throwing in every cliché that has been spewed by Obama’s critics (even down to the “terrorist fist bump”) to show just how ridiculous the Muslim image is.

By that logic, we’re supposed to realize that Obama is as “true blue American” as they come. (Actually, he’s the perfect example of the 21st Century America, as opposed to the 19th Century version of the country that some social conservatives wish they could resurrect).

THE PROBLEM IS that this particular piece of artwork is extremely complex. It requires that people know a lot of details about Obama to appreciate how ridiculous it is.

And the simple fact is (as I have been forced to acknowledge repeatedly whenever listening to people talk about what they know of the two candidates) is that most potential voters know only little snippets of the two men with serious dreams of living for the next four (or eight) years in the District of Columbia at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

To those people in this country who are convinced that this “Osama” guy who wants to be president is showing he’s a liar by trying to pretend that he’s of a Christian religious faith, they likely will see this cover and take it for confirmation of all the rumors they have heard.

What’s worse is the fact that there are many people in this country who don’t pay the New Yorker any attention at all. So all they are likely to hear about is that some magazine had a cover picture of Obama the Muslim with his whacked-out wife.

THE NEW YORKER, as unintended as it might have been, may have given comfort to the very elements of our society to whom they were trying to refute.

Satire is a tricky thing to use. The whole point of a commentary or artwork being satiric is that it is supposed to make the exact opposite point of what it appears to be on the surface.

Too many people who write or create art for a living think “satire” is synonymous with “critical,” as though they can use the label of satire to defend themselves when people start attacking their work on its merits.

Satire can be offensive. When done properly, it is supposed to make people feel squirmy about their beliefs.

AT ITS BEST, it is supposed to get the public aroused with anger over an injustice in our society. The ultimate piece of satire was Jonathan Swift’s, “A Modest Proposal,” where he suggested that the impoverished people of Ireland eat their children so as to reduce their numbers. Its serious point was to show that the people of that Celtic country were living in misery.

For a more contemporary piece of satiric artwork, there’s also the New Yorker magazine itself. Back in 1995, the magazine’s editors noted that Good Friday fell on the same date when the Internal Revenue Service demands that people file their income tax returns.

The magazine managed to offend many fundamentalist Christians with their cover art that depicted the Easter Bunny being crucified on a cross made up of IRS 1040 forms. But it did capture the feelings of agony many people go through every year when having to justify their income to the federal government.

This latest New Yorker magazine cover does not capture any greater truth.

THIS ARTIST MIGHT have meant well with his cover art, but the only people who are going to see merits in the cover art are those xenophobes who are most bent out of shape over the presidential candidacy of Obama (“How dare a man whose father came from a non-European country and who lived part of his childhood in an Asian land think he can be fit for president?,” is what many of them think).

That is why it was reassuring to hear Republican presidential opponent John McCain speak out against the New Yorker. His attack likely will prevent all but the most socially pathetic of our society from being able to trot this cover art out and use it to score political points.

So where do we go from here?

The shame is that the cover art is likely to draw attention away from the story the New Yorker published about the Obama campaign, which seems like the millionth magazine take on the Barack phenomenon.

THERE’S A GOOD chance that most people who pick up the magazine will stop reading after they look at the cover cartoon. After all, there are so many other magazines on the rack with Scarlett Johansson’s appealing pictures, why bother with yet another Obama piece?

In that regard, the cover is a journalistic failure. Magazine covers are supposed to draw people into the contents of a particular issue, not serve as a barricade to people wanting to read what’s inside.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: This is the New Yorker story about how much of Hawaii native Barack Obama’s personality is influenced by his Chicago connections that will be totally (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza/?yrail) overwhelmed by its cover art. It is ironic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071301904.html?nav=hcmodule) that the Washington Post came out with a similar story on the same day.

A rehash of “A Modest Proposal,” for those of you who thought Jonathan Swift didn’t do anything more with his life (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) than write “Gulliver’s Travels.”

Was “Theology of the Tax Cut” crass commercialism, or a serious commentary on the (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n14_v112/ai_16883510) overbearing pressure of the “tax man” in the United States?

It's a wonder sports fan accidents like Cubs incident don't happen more often

Considering how little many people pay attention to their surroundings, it is a wonder that incidents such as what befelled Dominic DiAngi do not occur more often.

For those of you who haven’t paid attention, DiAngi is the 7-year-old boy from suburban Frankfort who got hit in the skull by a stray baseball that was hit into the stands at Wrigley Field during a ball game last week.

ALTHOUGH HE INITIALLY was in a doctor-induced coma, Dominic is now out of the intensive care unit of Childrens’ Memorial Hospital, and some medical officials are hinting the boy could be released from the hospital some time this week.

The boy is like many other kids of suburban backgrounds these days, growing up watching ballgames on television when the parents finally decide to treat their child to a live game.

Hence, last week Thursday was the first time Dominic was ever in the stands at Wrigley Field. In a sense, he got hit by the million-to-one shot, as a foul ball off the bat of Cubs pitcher Ted Lilly went right to him.

Because it was hit so hard and likely reached his seat within one second, he never had a chance to get up his gloved hand and catch the ball for a souvenir – which would have made for the once-in-a-lifetime story for a baseball fan (catching a ball the first time ever in a ballpark).

TOO MANY PEOPLE are fooled by all the ridiculous rhetoric about baseball being a pastoral game played on a bright green pasture at a relaxing pace. Baseball is actually a game of split-second decisions where every player on the field and in the dugout (and the umpires working the game) are at risk of getting felled by a hard-hit ball.

And now, as evidenced by Dominic DiAngi, we see that the fans are also at risk.

It is the reason why I mock anyone who insists on bringing their cellular telephone to a ballgame. These knuckleheads ought to be paying attention to the activity on the field instead of talking to someone on the telephone.

Not just because of the chance of seeing some “athletically historic” moment take place, but because you never know when a ball will suddenly be sent rocketing toward your head, or a piece of a ballplayer’s bat will break off and go into the stands.

THERE’S ALSO THE often-occurring instance of a foul ball that heads toward the stands, but a heavily-padded and masked catcher thinks he has a chance to get to the ball before it goes into the seats.

If you, the fan, are not careful, you could have a 200-pound ballplayer come crashing down on top of you, and you could be the one who gets hurt.

Just what can be done about this?

Probably nothing. In the old days, ball clubs used to print on the backs of their tickets some legalese language that was meant to imply that a fan was fully responsible for any injuries caused to himself (or herself, I shouldn’t be sexist) while watching a game. Various court rulings in recent years have found that ball clubs share some responsibility toward keeping their fans safe from stray balls and bats and any other activity that spills over from the playing field into the stands.

THERE’S ALSO THE fact that, particularly for those fans who pay the big bucks (or have connections to corporate interests that pay for the tickets) to sit in the prime seats so close to the field that ridiculously close access to the ballplayers is part of the charm of going to a game.

Yet being so close to the field also means you are putting yourself in the firing line to get hit by a stray ball. Those people are the ones who ought most to be paying attention to every single pitch.

A lot of kid ballplayers can remember being told by irate “coaches” (a.k.a., frustrated insurance salesmen who took out their life’s failures on their youthful ballplayers) to, “keep your eye on the ball.” That line got repeated so much that it is a cliché.

Yet it also is a truthful statement for fans, particularly if you get into the good seats. Some fool sitting in the top of the center field bleachers at Wrigley Field (or in Section 538 at U.S. Cellular Field) can get away with missing a pitch or two, knowing the action is over 500 feet away.

BUT A FAN in the first or second row right by the dugouts ought to keep in mind that she (or he) is sitting less than 100 feet from the batter, which is about the same distance as the first or third basemen are.

Even if you are in the 20th row from the field (which is where DiAngi apparently was sitting on Thursday), you are still a lot closer to the hitter than the middle infielders or the outfielders.

Basically, too many people behave as though there’s some magical force field separating the playing field from the stands that will offer them protection. There isn’t.

I remember attending one game at Elfstrom Stadium (the Geneva, Ill.-based home of the Kane County Cougars of the Midwest League) where my brother and I had third base right in front of us about 50 feet away. My brother joked that he could coach third base from his seat.

IT ALSO PUT us right in the firing line so that I was never more away of the location of the ball in that game than any other I have attended. I would have wanted to duck (knowing full well that sticking my bare hand out to catch a foul line drive would have more likely broken the bones of my hand).

The reality is that there is only so much a ball club can do to shield the fans from on-field activity. When I attended ball games at Peoria’s old Vonachen Stadium, I thought it ridiculous that they stretched the backstop screen around the field for the entire length of the first- and third-base stands. Everybody in the 5,000-seat stadium had a piece of screen offering minimal protection.

But now, the logic behind that ought to be apparent, although there’s no way one could do the same with either of the stadiums used by Chicago’s major league teams.

Aside from the fact that it would look like a giant spider had spun a web around the ball park, there’s also the fact that 40,000 seats are impossible to screen from the field – unless one wants to put up so many obstructions that you then make it impossible to see what is happening on the playing field.

SO WHAT SHOULD we learn from the tale of Dominic DiAngi?

There probably are places where it is not safe to sit if you are taking a kid to a ballgame. I remember one of the most reckless things I ever saw was a young couple taking their one-month-old child to a White Sox game against the Boston Red Sox.

It was cute that they brought the camera and got pictures of him sitting in the stands while wearing a White Sox shirt and Red Sox cap (when I asked, I was told that a Boston guy fell for a South Side girl). But sitting as we were five rows up from the field right behind the third base dugout, that boy could have easily become a disastrous story.

There also are times to forget about the hot dog vendor or the yahoos around you who want to start “the wave” (if there was any cosmic justice on this earth, those would be the only people getting hit in the head by a stray foul ball). You go to a game, you watch the game.

AND KEEP IN mind that the odds DiAngi overcame to get hit by the ball are astronomical. I have attended professional ballgames (major and minor league throughout the Midwest) for more than three decades.

The closest I have ever come to having a stray ball come near me was about 15 feet -- which means I got a close-up view of two drunken meathead fighting over which fool caught the foul ball.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Dominic DiAngi’s injury helps put it into proper perspective that a Chicago Cubs loss (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=280710116) is not that big a deal.

Cubs pitcher Ted Lilly and first baseman Derrek Lee visited DiAngi Saturday at the hospital (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/13/Cubs_stars_visit_boy_injured_by_foul_ball/UPI-91721215966357/), providing a pleasant aspect to what could have been a scary childhood memory.

Does BHO have the same aura as JFK?

Barack Obama would like to use the Brandenburg Gate, built originally as a monument to peace, for an address that would have his presidency work to bring the world together as one. Could such noble rhetoric be beyond Obama's political skills? Photograph provided by http://www.berlin101.com/

At what point do we start lambasting likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama for relying too heavily on the imagery of John F. Kennedy for the background of his presidential campaign?

To me, that point was reached when Obama made it known he wants to make an appearance at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin – which brings to mind two of the classic U.S. presidential sound bites of the past 50 years.

NOW I KNOW there are the people who insist that John F. Kennedy’s sense of the German language was flawed when he tried to identify spiritually with the Berlin people then living under the heavy hand of Communism, causing him to refer to himself as a “jelly-filled doughnut.”

Also, Kennedy technically spoke that classic “ich bin ein Berliner” line at a different location in West Berlin, before visiting the gate that overlooked the infamous (and now non-existent Berlin Wall), separating west Berlin from east, and capitalism from Communism.

But in the way that people tend to lose track of details and rewrite history to tell a better story, Kennedy had the gate’s chariot of victory looming over his shoulder when he spoke his line.

That line, along with his inaugural address plea to, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” are likely the most memorable sound bites from the mouth of JFK.

OBAMA WOULD LOVE to be able to play off the imagery to give his presidential campaign its own memorable moment. The problem is that it is starting to seem like overkill, the way that so many Kennedy/Obama allusions can be drawn.

First and foremost is the fact that the Kennedy family survivors are backing Barack – from “Uncle Ted” to JFK daughter Caroline Schlossberg. He’s even got California first lady Maria Schriver (the niece of JFK, although her husband, Gov. Arnold Schwarzennegger, is backing McCain) on his side.

Former first daughter Caroline will have her own lasting influence on an Obama administration, as she is helping to go through the records of prospective running mates to find the perfect political companion to Obama as vice president. It probably is her Kennedy heritage that has kept her from the abusive rhetoric Republican activists have come up with for all the other people who are helping to “vet” V-P’s. Aside from the Kennedy relatives, Obama plans to stage his speech in August accepting the Democratic nomination for president from a massive football stadium (Invesco Field in Denver), similar to how Kennedy took the 1960 nomination during a rally at the Memorial Coliseum in Los Angeles.

EVEN SOME OF Barack’s rhetoric is Kennedy-esque, in large part because of the presence of Theodore Sorensen, the JFK speechwriter who has become an adviser to the Barack Obama campaign.

When piled on to that mound of Kennedys, a trip to Brandenburg Gate seems like overkill. While Obama would love to be able to play off the imagery to give his presidential campaign an international affairs boost, I can’t help but wonder if he will get more criticism than praise for relying so heavily on a JFK-influenced moment.

The Berlin trip is expected July 24, and is part of an tour that will take him through Europe and the Middle East (including Iraq) to try to create the notion that he fully understands international affairs – one area where some would-be U.S. voters think the junior senator from Illinois is lacking.

I say “some” because “international experience” is defined differently by different people.

A POLL COMMISSIONED last month by the Associated Press showed that 61 percent of people surveyed thought McCain would make a better military leader than Obama (who had the backing of 27 percent).

But that same poll showed 43 percent of those surveyed thought the U.S. perception around the world would improve with a “President Obama,” compared to 33 percent who think the world would regard the United States more highly with a “President McCain.”

It all comes down to how significant one thinks the role of a U.S. senator is. Does McCain have more experience because he has been a senator for decades, compared to the man who has four years in the Senate, nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate and a couple decades of experience as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side?

The reality is that any member of the U.S. Senate is a “follower” when it comes to international experience. They get special briefings and the chance to take trips to the world’s “hot spots,” but ultimately do nothing more than vote on proposals put together by experts in world affairs. Neither Republican McCain nor Democrat Obama has an innate understanding of the world that gives either a true advantage.

THERE'S JUST ONE aspect of the use of the Brandenburg Gate (which has some German officials concerned that they would be perceived as taking sides in a U.S. presidential election) that I find ironic.

Some of the news coverage I have read of Obama’s desire to campaign there barely mentions Kennedy. Some (likely written by a younger generation of reporters) ignores him altogether.

For the gate was also the proper site of one of former President Ronald Reagan’s great rhetorical moments, when in the mid-1980s he urged the Soviet Union to apply political pressure to the Communist government of East Germany to end their isolation from the rest of the world, particularly through demolition of the Berlin Wall.

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall,” coming from the mouth of Reagan is one of those moments that, to a younger generation, sticks in their minds more than old archival video of John F. Kennedy, particularly if those individuals are clueless in their knowledge of history.

OBAMA LIKELY IS hoping that the older generation (many of whom were devoted to the presidential aspirations of Hillary R. Clinton during the primary season) will think of Kennedy (and not Reagan) when he makes his appearance.

The problem is that truly memorable political moments cannot be staged. They happen by capturing the public imagination. It is impossible to predict what will be historic and what will be remembered.

It is very possible that Obama will flop while standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate. If he does not say something particularly inspiring, his reputation will be matched up with that of Kennedy and Reagan and he will come off as falling short by comparison.

It also is true that even people with great rhetorical skills have only one or two truly great moments in their professional lives. Obama may have used his moment up in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention when he told the crowd of John Kerry supporters, “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Theodore Sorensen recalls his former boss and the similarities to his (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/25/obamathenextjfk) current boss.

Barack Obama is including a Berlin visit during his European/Middle East tour this summer (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25428793/) that is meant to bolster his knowledge of world events.

Is the Brandenburg Gate more reminiscent of John F. Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2270372/Barack-Obama-to-be-granted-JFK-moment-with-Brandenburg-Gate-speech.html)?

When is profanity too stupid to use?

When I wrote a commentary Wednesday night concerning the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s admission that he’d like to commit a particularly intimate act of bodily harm on Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, I didn’t use the actual word of “nuts.”

For one thing, the audio I initially heard was so poor and garbled (which is why Jesse Ventura refused to comment on the matter when questioned Thursday morning on MSNBC by former Chicago newswoman Tamron Hall) that I wasn’t sure which slang term for the male sexual organ the long-time civil rights leader used.

HENCE, I WROTE around it, and made general references to the act of committing bodily harm. Now that I have heard slightly improved audio and can pick out the actual word, I can say that everything I published Thursday stands as written.

I wouldn’t change a single thought. And in pondering the issue in my mind, I would not have used the actual word in copy. People who get obsessed about hearing the actual profanity on tape have too much of “Beavis and Butthead” (“you said butt, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh…” ) in them.

In short, I would have followed the old wire service rule of only using profanity as, “part of direct quotations, and there is a compelling reason for them.” (That’s the stylebook entry for United Press International, my one-time employer).

As I see it, Jackson made a physical threat. Conveying that meaning was what mattered. Which naughty word he used to do so is nothing more than political trivia not much more important as when Rolling Stone magazine recently let us know the contents of Obama’s personal I-pod.

NOW I NOTE the two major metro newspapers in Jackson’s hometown differed on the issue. I can’t say I agree fully with either of them.

The Chicago Tribune suffered from potty-fingers (if someone who says naughty things is a potty mouth, then someone who types them has, well you get it) and gave us the word “nuts” while the Chicago Sun-Times gave us “n---.”

I can already hear the little old ladies of Pontiac and Oswego and all the other rural Midwestern communities where the Tribune is the newspaper of choice when the locals want to know more about that Gomorrah known as Chicago.

They will get all worked up over the fact that The Tribune used a naughty word. Some may even threaten to cancel their subscriptions, all because Rev. Jackson quoted Gen. Anthony McAuliffe’s response to the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge.

THIS IS A case where I think the actual word detracts from the story, getting everybody all worked up on a side issue. The serious issue in this case is that Jackson expressed the thoughts of some black people that Obama is willing to sacrifice them with condescending talk in order to get white voters come the Nov. 4 elections.

You may disagree with that premise, but it is an interesting issue to be considered as this presidential campaign progresses. It is definitely more important than talking about whether Rev. Jackson has a dirty mouth, or whether his namesake son, the congressman from Chicago’s south suburbs and Far South Side, was justified in trashing him so vehemently on Wednesday.

But at least the Tribune decided to use the actual word, rather than going to the old tricks (used a lot these days when writing sports stories and trying to convey the crude, often juvenile tone of athletes’ speech) of implying obscenity.

That is what the Sun-Times gave us, reducing the naughty word to a puzzle, by which readers would have to fill in the missing blanks.

THE OTHER COMMON trick is to come up with some sort of word that rhymes with the obscenity so that people can mentally figure out what was really said. I hope there wasn’t anyone out there in the world who really believed that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush back in 2000 referred to a New York Times correspondent as a “brass mole.”

I have always believed (and have argued with many editors, particularly the ones whom I used to work with at the now-defunct City News Bureau of Chicago) that if one is going to imply an obscenity, one should just come out and use it.

If for whatever reason, one does not think the naughty word should be spelled out, then it should not be used at all in copy.

I stand by my vague writing around of the slang term for the male sex organ on the grounds that what mattered about Jackson’s comments was that he was making a threat (facetious as it may be) of physical harm.

THAT THREAT WOULD have been just as intense had Jackson said he wanted to punch Obama in the face. (What would really be interesting would be the Secret Service detail’s reaction to Jackson trying to do anything to harm Obama).

The implication of a physical threat is what is important. Getting hung up on the naughty-sounding slang term does nothing more than feed the mentality of the Buttheads and Beavises of the world.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Is public attention to the Rev. Jesse Jackson having a potty mouth (http://www.illinipundit.com/2008/07/10/state-american-political-discourse) stealing attention away from discussion of more crucial issues.

When is non-use (http://dingesgang.com/blog/?p=382) of a “profanity” responsible, and when (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-garry-/what-is-it-that-jesse-jac_b_111909.html) is it just lame?

Barack Obama is accepting Jackson’s apology. Somehow, I suspect the reverend’s (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTPPM5eyoWa5PgeObNcWP0chAopQD91QVB9O2) invitation to the inaugural ball in January still will get lost in the mail.

“Childish” is the way to describe Illinois political officials' behavior these days

When I was a reporter-type person at the Statehouse in Springfield, Ill., I got to know Rich Miller, the publisher of a newsletter that includes much of the minutia of state government. That newsletter has evolved to include a pair of sites on the Internet that government observers consider significant reading.

Which is how I came across Rich’s “Question of the Day” for Thursday, asking people to come up with the one word that best sums up Illinois government these days.

I COULD JUST add my word to his running list and be done with it. But because I want to elaborate in ways that would take up his precious space, I’m going to say it here.

That word is, “childish.”

Watching Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the Legislature’s leadership squabble over how to resolve a monetary shortfall in the state budget for the current fiscal year reminds me of the ridiculous shouting matches that would take place when I was a kid in Kindergarten.

This whole political dispute has been like all the other political disputes that have arisen in recent years – both sides want to one-up the other and come up with the rhetoric that makes them appear to be justified in their actions (or non-actions, as the case may be).

HOW ELSE TO explain Blagojevich breaking down and using his amendatory veto powers to make $1.4 billion in cuts to what was a $59 billion budget. Those cuts include $600 million for health care programs, $210 million for social services and $100 million for public education.

Since Democrats in the Illinois House were always saying that Blagojevich should quit threatening them and forcing them to remain in session during the summer and should just take the political hit for making such severe spending cuts, some might say they won.

Except that Blagojevich made a point of spinning the issue that he would like the Legislature to come along and over-rule him, which would then force the Illinois House and state Senate to decide how to balance out a budget that (until Wednesday) contained up to a $2.5 billion shortfall in income.

Even the lawmakers themselves see this as a matter of childishness run amok, except that each side seems to think (erroneously) it is the responsible adult in the relationship.

BLAGOJEVICH ON WEDNESDAY compared legislators who passed a budget in May knowing it was not balanced to the parent who lets their child run through the toy store picking out everything they want, while forgetting to bring their wallet with money to pay the bill.

This came a couple of days after House Speaker Michael Madigan loyalist Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, said Blagojevich’s problem was that he wouldn’t “play nice” in the sandbox with other lawmakers.

So what should we think about this political equivalent of a schoolyard shouting match, which threatens to turn ugly for the people of Chicago and the rest of Illinois when valued services start getting slashed because everybody waited until after the last minute (the old fiscal year ended June 30) before taking the problem seriously?

It is times like this I wish Mrs. Pugh (my elderly Kindergarten teacher) were on hand right now.

I COULD EASILY see her taking Gov. Rod and the other political loudmouths and sending them to separate corners (noses touching the walls) so they could contemplate how ridiculous their behavior is.

Considering how childish the political rhetoric has become, it makes as much sense as any other solution.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: If you want to add your comments on Illinois political behavior, the Capitol Fax (http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/07/10/question-of-the-day-563/) weblog will gladly accept them.

At least we can postpone (for now) talk of a shutdown of Illinois state government and all the services (http://www.sj-r.com/news/x544083368/Blagojevich-vetoes-parts-of-budget) it provides.

Hot microphones a political nightmare

Some people who monitor government activity think the worst thing that can afflict a political person is a sex scandal. I disagree.

I think the worst thing that can happen to a person with political aspirations is when they speak candidly in the presence of a microphone when they think the “off” switch has been triggered.

THE APOLOGIES THAT always come about afterwards are lame, because we all know deep down that the person was speaking a bit of truth about the way they really perceive something. The only thing they’re really sorry about is that they are in circumstances that require them to apologize.

We all recall Dick Cheney and George W. Bush bantering back and forth about what an “a—hole” a New York Times correspondent was, only to have their chatter picked up by a nearby microphone at the “End of Summer/Labor Day” parade in Naperville, Ill., that they happened to be campaigning at in 2000.

There also was the time then-President Ronald Reagan announced he was unleashing the Air Force on the old Soviet Union to begin massive bombing, thinking that no one could hear the line he was using to warm up his voice for a real government pronouncement – one that got completely overshadowed by the presidential joke.

Now, we can add the Rev. Jesse Jackson to the list. Jackson technically is not a candidate for office in the 2008 elections. But he fell victim to the same affliction.

EARLIER THIS WEEK, he made comments about Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama that were picked up by a microphone being used by a Fox News Channel reporter.

The cable news channel did not rush the material onto the air. Instead, they are planning to use it judiciously during the various programs hosted by their conservative commentators. It is going to be used to take pot shots at Jackson, while also embarrassing the Obama campaign.

There’s a very good chance that the long-time civil rights leader will have this tape resurrected against him whenever the network wants to “take down” Jackson. It may very well become part of the source material used when the day finally arrives that Jackson’s obituary needs to be compiled.

For the record, Jackson made comments about Obama’s attitude towards black-oriented churches. He said recent comments by Obama about black people’s lack of responsibility being the cause for problems many face in our society were hurtful.

SPECIFICALLY, JACKSON GOT caught on tape saying he’d like to do physical harm to the Democratic presidential hopeful to punish him for having a condescending attitude toward many black people.

When he learned that Fox News had him on tape, was planning to use the material, and there was no way he could possibly deny having said it, Jackson went into a control mode.

He made a private apology Wednesday afternoon to Obama, then held an early evening press conference timed to coincide with the local television newscasts (at least one Chicago station, CBS-affiliated WBBM-TV, aired part of Jackson’s comments live) so he could let the whole world know he was sorry, so very, very sorry, for what he said.

“This thing I said, I offer an apology for that,” Jackson said, reiterating how long ago he endorsed the Obama presidential campaign and how much he is willing to work in upcoming months to try to get Barack elected president.

“THIS CAMPAIGN REPRESENTS too much the dreams of people (the civil rights activists in the segregated South of the early 1960s) who paid a great price to get this country to the point where it is now,” said Jackson.

The thing that people need to take into account when considering these unintentional comments by politically-oriented people is that they represent a bit of truth to the way they really think.

Reagan really did find some humor in the thought of nuclear annihilation of the old Soviet Union, while the Cheney/Bush duo had contempt for the reporter-types who covered their presidential campaign of 2000.

As for Jackson, he may say publicly that he is completely behind Obama.

BUT IT ALSO reminds us that there was once a time when Jackson was unsure of what to think of Obama, while also letting us know there is some resentment among the African-American population for the way Obama has tried to appeal to non-black people for Election Day.

Obama has used appearances at black churches to urge African-American people to take more responsibility for their lives, which is meant to make the candidate more appealing to white voters who may resent what they perceive as too much attention paid to the social problems of the black population.

His line, “don’t just sit in the house and watch “SportsCenter” all weekend long. That’s why so many children are growing up in front of the television,” may have got him a lot of favorable notice. But it also created resentment in some quarters that Obama was so anxious to get white people votes that he was willing to excuse many of the problems of the past that were afflicted on the black population.

Jackson got caught in the act of representing the view of a segment of the U.S. population that some people in this country would just as soon ignore.

SO I’M NOT willing to condemn the Rev. Jackson, even though I don’t find any humor in the thought of someone saying they want to commit physical assault on someone’s private parts the way Jackson said he would like to do to Obama.

I definitely am not willing to go so far as to denounce the reverend the way he was trashed on Wednesday by the House of Representatives’ member from Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District – who just happens to be his son.

Jesse Jr. let loose on his father in a prepared statement that said Senior was being reckless in even thinking such a thing, calling his comments “divisive” and “demeaning” and contrary to the notion of making the United States a better place to live.

Of course, this disagreement is totally in character for the two.

JACKSON SR. MAY say he has been a long-time supporter of Obama. But the fact is that it was Jackson Jr. who originally saw Barack Obama as anything more than just a lowly state legislator from the Hyde Park neighborhood.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Senior said as little as he had to about Obama, while Junior campaigned with him and mailed out leaflets depicting the two of them together in front of a U.S. flag and saying of Obama, “he’ll hold America to its promise for all of us.”

It was only after Obama became credible enough a candidate that he could no longer be ignored did Jesse Sr. hop on board the Barack train so he could try to lead its direction.

This latest incident gives us a subtle reminder of the fact that the concept of “friendship” is an alien one to many political people. “Allies of the moment” is a more accurate assessment of how political people feel about each other.

IN FACT, THERE’S really only one question about this latest outburst from the Rev. Jackson.

Will it overshadow what has been, to date, his most serious case of foot-in-mouth disease – the time during his presidential campaign of 1984 when he used ethnic slurs in describing Jewish people to a black Washington Post reporter, complaining that all Jewish voters cared about was the fate of Israel.

Will the thought of physical assault on Barack Obama top “hymie” and “hymietown” (a.k.a., New York City) when determining Jackson’s legacy? Only time will tell.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Barack Obama isn’t the least bit ashamed of the kinds of comments (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/06/15/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_78.php) that have Rev. Jesse Jackson and some other African-American people concerned.

Rev. Jackson’s upcoming public humiliation by the “friendly” folks at Fox News Channel (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/09/rep_jackson_blasts_his_father.html) has captured the attention of political observers (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/jackson-apologizes-for-obama-remarks/?hp) around the country.

Jackson seems to have problems whenever he thinks he’s talking privately with a (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm) news reporter, forgetting the fact that the reporter-types around him are paid to quote him (http://www.wifr.com/news/headlines/24272924.html), not chat idly with him.

Which dies first - Sun-Times or Trib?

When the Chicago Sun-Times recently renewed the contract of prominent sports columnist Jay Mariotti, many sports fans were upset at the thought of having to endure three more years of Mariotti’s often-acidic prose – particularly when it relates to the concept of Jerry Reinsdorf.

Yet my first reaction was to express a sense of wonder at the thought that the Sun-Times thinks it will still be publishing three years from now. Mariotti himself has said it is a guaranteed contract (he gets his money regardless of what happens to the newspaper), and the company’s CEO, Cyrus Freidheim Jr., has said there is enough money on hand to ensure the paper lasts another two or three years with the business status quo.

BEYOND THAT, HE’S promising nothing, unless serious changes take place in the current economic situation.

I bring this up because whenever people talk about dying newspapers and the concept of dueling newssheets becoming antiquated, they automatically assume it is the Sun-Times that will someday die off.

Long Live the Chicago Tribune! Col. McCormick’s newssheet of isolationism that tried to create the concept of “Chicagoland” as a separate nation apart from the elitist east coast will be the ultimate winner of the Great Chicago Newspaper War.

That is, unless it manages to die first.

Which of these newspaper nameplates will have a longer life?

IT IS WHAT I wonder every time I hear news accounts of business problems within Tribune Co. and the need for CEO Sam Zell to sell off yet more assets and let go more staff on the various newspapers he now owns. Officials let it be known Tuesday that about 60 Chicago Tribune editorial staffers will lose their jobs later this summer.

Most recently, the Los Angeles Times let about 250 people go, including about 150 members of the editorial staff who were producing the detailed product that allowed the newspaper to have dreams of being one of the best in the country (in reality, it falls short of the New York Times or Washington Post, as does the Tribune itself).

I keep hearing talk of the need for serious change within a year’s time if there is to be a long-term future for the Chicago Tribune and its sister newspapers. I couldn’t help but notice the Sun-Times earlier this year reporting that the Tribune Co. could default on its debts by the end of 2008.

So is it possible that the bloat of Tribune Co. will crush the Chicago Tribune, thereby leaving the Sun-Times as the newspaper war winner by default? It is no more ridiculous than the situations in Denver or Detroit, where recent accounts indicate the likelihood that the Detroit News and Rocky Mountain News will someday soon be the equivalent of Chicago Today – just a memory.

I’M SURE ANYBODY affiliated directly with Tribune Co. will snicker upon reading this and say I’m being ridiculous. They will claim the Tribune has so many editorial advantages over the Sun-Times that it can’t be expected to die.

Some will even cite as an advantage the recent scaling back and redesign of the Orlando Sentinel (a Tribune sister newspaper). Officials have said the Chicago Tribune will undergo a similar alteration at summer’s end.

A scaled back Tribune (seriously, they are talking about fewer pages, which they think will significantly reduce their printing costs) will be able to cope with the current economic situation and survive, while also still providing a forum for some of the detailed reporting on international and domestic events that the Tribune often offers.

The problem is one of perception. How many Tribune readers will be willing to accept a scaled-back product? It could be a case where a slimmer newspaper scares off the people who have been loyal readers to date, while doing nothing to attract the people who are not now (and maybe never will) read anything printed with ink on paper.

BY COMPARISON, THE Sun-Times has always been a scaled-back product.

Its readers often cite its smaller size as an advantage. Admittedly, it is an easier newspaper to read while riding a commuter train or as a passenger in a carpool (I hope nobody is trying to read while driving that car).

Chicago newspaper readers could have an easier time accepting a scrawny Sun-Times than they would a slimmer Tribune.

That actually is the problem with newspapers as a medium for disseminating the news – we readers expect more substance from a newspaper than we demand from a broadcast news program or even a website devoted to offering news and commentary.

WEBSITES CAN BE considered complete if they cover one issue particularly well, yet a newspaper is expected to provide the same detailed coverage of that issue along with detailed accounts of many other issues that are totally unrelated.

Municipal government, local business, culture, athletics. What website can cover City Hall, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the White Sox equally as well as any newsprint publication?

Any worthwhile newspaper had better be capable of doing them all well. Any paper that can’t do it isn’t worth my 50 (or 75) cents. In fact, it has me wondering if the Tribune on Sundays is worth the $1.99 they started charging last week.

I think my brother put it best when he said, “I’d better at least get 20 cents worth of better comics.”

WHICH NEWSPAPER DIES first will have nothing to do with the merits of what they are publishing, unless it becomes an issue that they are publishing so little that they are not worth reading at all.

Both of the Chicago metro newspapers come up with stories that are worth knowing about in order to fully comprehend the way things operate in the Second City. Personally, I wouldn’t trust any one newspaper to give me a full account of what is happening (and too many websites are so limited in their focus that they can’t be trusted by themselves to cover the world either).

There are times I wonder if Chicago would be better off if the old Daily News were still a newspaper (and not just the inspiration for the name of a Chicago-based website), giving us a third voice that tries to cover the entire metro region.

That ultimately is the problem if either the Tribune or Sun-Times dies off. It is true that the various suburban daily newspapers will continue to exist. They often do a more thorough job of covering their particular segment of the metropolitan area than either of the two downtown Chicago-based newspapers.

BUT THERE’S ALSO the problem that those papers can develop such a tunnel vision in thinking their particular region exists all by itself without ties to the rest of Chicago. They can miss the significance of issues that only a metro newspaper can capture.

Regardless of which newspaper goes first (and I would be thoroughly shocked if both were still publishing 10 years from now, even though back in the late 1980s I thought the Sun-Times wouldn’t live long enough to see the 21st Century), Chicago will lose something significant. At the very least, one of these papers won't get the joy of covering an Olympic games staged in its own home city.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Tribune Co. has its own (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=85840) financial problems that make the U.S. government look well managed.

Is this news account just an example of Sun-Times braggadocio (http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/business/1011276,CST-FIN-suntimes18w.article), or are things really that bad (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30111) at the World's Greatest Newspaper?

Is The Detroit News (http://crainsdetroit.com/article/20080707/SUB/807070321/1069) destined for the journalistic scrapheap?

Is the Rocky Mountain News really doomed because it doesn’t contain the word “Denver” (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/01/milstead-media-meltdown-tests-two-newspaper-town/?printer=1/) in its title? Or will the Denver Post’s (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2008/07/rocky_mountain_news_david_mils.php) lagging circulation bring it down?