Will redistricting be the compromise?

I have written on several occasions that I am skeptical of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s rhetoric concerning political reapportionment.

He has pushed for creating an independent body that would take over preparation of the maps that detail boundaries of political districts. Of course, the definition of “independent” can be open to interpretation.

It's not just a Texas issue. Provided by Texas Politics Project.

AS IN I wonder if it means anyone “independent” of the current political leadership who would deliberately favor the current political minority. It makes me suspect it to be an effort to undermine the current process – by which the boundaries are drawn by the legislators who (theoretically) are the representatives of the people who elected them.

In short, the people who couldn’t win the elections are now trying to find a new way to win – rather than going out and winning the election themselves.

So it is with some interest that I try to figure out what the significance is of the Supreme Court of the United States’ latest ruling on Monday – one that rejects the Arizona Legislature’s efforts to strike down the state Independent Redistricting Commission. It was created following a voter referendum, and was meant to take away the ability of legislators to draw political boundaries to favor themselves.

Although the real harm from the current process of redistricting is when politicos draw boundaries meant to screw over their opposition.

THE HIGH COURT on Monday ruled that there is nothing preventing a state from implementing a redistricting procedure that relies on someone other than the legislature to do the dirty work of political map-making.

RAUNER: Did high court give him a boost?

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that officials in California are viewing the ruling as supportive of their own state’s efforts. Which makes me suspect Rauner was very happy as well.

The governor now has a very high authority (the same one that pleased progressives by backing healthcare reform AND gay marriage just a few days earlier) in his favor.

Could this become the measure that makes Democrats now hostile to Rauner for his anti-organized labor rhetoric a little bit willing to compromise? Heck, could support for this Rauner desire become THE compromise issue that allows for the state to get something resembling a budget compromise in coming weeks?

OF COURSE, I’M not thinking that Democrats in the Legislature would back something meant to deliberately undermine themselves. I suspect we’d have to get a commission that wasn’t so blatantly biased in favor of any political party.

MADIGAN: He'll figure out way to protect self

Because the honest truth is that there is no such thing as absolute non-biased. Everybody is going to have their preferences they will want to favor. And for those who suggest a computer to take the human element out, I’d question the biases of those people who program the device.

But is the fact that this issue appears to have some sticking power means Democrats in this state ought to try to get a grasp on it so that it doesn’t wind up being implemented in a completely hostile form.

Otherwise we’re going to continue with the current format in Illinois, which is one that always amazes political people elsewhere – the idea that the balance of power can (and often does) fall to the draw out of a hat (or, one time, from a crystal bowl once owned by Abraham Lincoln).

IT WAS PUT into the state Constitution that way because it was believed that the fear of an all-or-nothing draw, with someone getting nothing, would be so fearsome it would force people to cooperate.

Instead, the greed of political people and the chance that they can get everything at the expense of their opposition has turned out to be stronger.

I don’t doubt that some Republicans are viewing the 2018 gubernatorial election as being all-important because it would give the GOP a veto come the 2021 reapportionment that could result in them having a chance at the “all-or-nothing” prize.

Which could also influence the Dems with their current veto-proof majority that prevents Rauner from being able to push his ideological will down their throats to consider this issue further – because nothing lasts forever.

  -30-

Are we going to achieve equality over somebody’s “dead body?”

Heston more humorous here

I realize there is an opposition in our society to all the various states that are trying to make conditions more equitable for those individuals who are gay, and that there are some people who even take a perverse sense of pride in being opposed.

I’m just waiting for someone to make some arrogant statement the equivalent of the late actor Charlton Heston waiving about a musket and saying, “From my cold, dead hands.”

BECAUSE THAT’S THE direction we seem to be headed.

At a time when Illinois is among the 17 states and District of Columbia (about one third of the nation) that have approved measures to let gay couples marry, other places just seem to want to be hostile.

Indiana’s Legislature recently gave its approval to a measure that could, in 2016, let the voters decide the issue of a ban on gay marriage into their state Constitution. It knocked out a few lines that would have made the referendum more hostile – which is supposedly the concession to society as a whole.

Although its intent remains the same – they want to mark themselves as being apart from the direction of the 21^st Century. As though State Line Road wasn’t enough of a barricade – how long until the Hoosiers decide they want a “Berlin-like” wall erected?

I DON’T MEAN to pick on Indiana. Because they’re far from alone. In Arizona this week, both chambers of the state Legislature approved a measure saying that people can refuse their business services to gay people if they really believe that providing such services violates their religious beliefs.

Gov, Jan Brewer – who a few years ago was more than willing to back a flawed measure giving her local cops the authority to meddle in matters of immigration law – now has this issue in her hands.

What side would Indiana take today?

Her political allies are screeching that they’re looking out for the religious beliefs of people. Even though in this instance, what it really comes down to is that some people think their religious beliefs give them a right to single out other individuals for abuse.

Nobody forces anybody else into a gay marriage. How someone else’s marriage interferes with one’s own life is just absurd!

CONSIDERING THAT STATES ultimately are supposed to acknowledge marriages performed elsewhere in the nation, this idea of a split status within the United States just can’t work (unless we’re prepared to have the Second Civil War, which I suppose would amount to the ideologues contending it’s a matter of “state’s rights” to decide who can marry, against the cause of equality for all).

Now some might argue that somebody in Illinois with an interest in this issue ought not to get all worked up. After all, our state’s Legislature and Gov. Pat Quinn already acted – and even got the Catholic bishop of Springfield, Ill., to perform an exorcism, of sorts, in response.

But I couldn’t help but notice that poll commissioned by the Chicago Tribune – the one that says that in rural parts of the state, some 74 percent of those polled want the law repealed. Just like those who are continuing with increasingly absurd efforts to repeal health care reform in Congress.

The newspaper’s poll was of likely Republican voters – who weren’t exactly among the backers of the bill when it came before the Legislature last year. So this isn’t a shock.

IT ALSO ISN’T surprising that once you get into the Chicago-area, only 49 percent of Republican would-be voters want the matter repealed. Which is why there won't be much backlash to the Friday ruling in U.S. District Circuit Court to affect Cook County only that that says gay couples can marry immediately -- even though the state law says the change does not take effect until June 1.

Hasn't Arizona had enough?

It’s just more evidence of the depth of the urban-rural split that our society has devolved into – one that, at times, I don’t know how we can truly overcome.

This likely will turn out like much of the legal action taken a half-century ago as a result of the Civil Rights movement – the proper actions were put into law, but they also created a strong resentment amongst a segment of our society that has yet to completely wither away.

  -30-

It’s becoming hard to ignore Jodi Arias. That’s a shame, because she’s ignorable

Stumbling around the television this past weekend I had to go out of my way to ignore the CNN Headline News channel – one of those outlets that is treating Jodi Arias as though she’s somehow someone interesting.



ARIAS: Reknowned for less than nothing

Arias is a young woman facing criminal charges out in Phoenix, Ariz., for the shooting death of her boyfriend.

HER TRIAL HAS been ongoing since January, and that cable news channel has tried to give us every single moment of what really is a tedious criminal case. A non-story, when you think about it realistically.

So what happened when the case finally wrapped up and it went to a jury?

That jury deliberated for less than an hour on Friday, then quit for the day. They’re scheduled to resume deliberations on Monday.

Yet anytime I tried turning to the Headline News channel for a quickie summary of weekend news, all I stumbled across was “Jodi Arias Watch” – with endless, and breathless, commentary meant to pass the time until the moment we get the verdict.

WHICH MIGHT MAKE sense if the jury had been sequestered and was actually deliberating during the weekend hours. As if we might literally learn at any second what the verdict is.

But we’re not! Anyone with sense would use this weekend to take a break from the endless babble we’ve been subjected to about a “story” that really isn’t of any interest outside of the Phoenix area.

I know that goes contrary to the news judgment being espoused by these television programs that like to turn trivia into something pretending to be significance. That really is what is at work with this particular story – which I have gone out of my way to ignore because I just don’t see the point of it.

As a reporter-type person for the past quarter century, I have covered countless criminal cases. Trials of all sorts! Which means I understand that some cases get tremendous amounts of coverage, while others are lucky to get a three-paragraph brief written about them when the verdict is reached.

OR SOMETIMES, ONLY when the lengthy prison sentence is imposed.

I honestly believe this Arias case falls into the latter category. I certainly don’t see anything about it that makes it worth the blow-by-blow coverage that places like CNN or Inside Edition are giving it.

For those of you who don’t know, this case amounts to a domestic dispute that got out of hand.

Arias was dating a man named Travis Alexander, who ultimately decided he wanted out of the relationship. They broke up (it seems that he dumped her).

DEPENDING ON WHO one wants to believe, she killed him because she didn’t like being dumped. Although there are others who would say he was beating her, and that she finally got fed up and defended herself with a firearm.

Which must make this case confusing for the conservative ideologues. On the one hand, the “law and order” types probably like the idea of the death penalty being administered against Arias.

But then again, many of them are the types who also want to believe that more access to firearms means that people (particularly defenseless women) will be able to protect themselves.

As I see it, neither Arias nor the victim are any kind of celebrity (like Football Hall of Fame member O.J. Simpson), nor is there anything particularly unusual about the tactic used by Arias (she’s not Lorena Bobbitt, who cut off her husband’s penis when she got fed up with his abuse of her).

NOR COULD ONE make the juvenile determination that she’s some sort of babe who will provide a titillation factor that will attract viewers (which was supposedly the reason that the “Casey Anthony case” in Florida was a BIG story).

This is nothing more than a domestic dispute. Outside of the Phoenix area (where it can be argued that this is a local crime story), what possible reason could there be for paying attention to this case?

PACINO (as Corleone): Stuck like the rest of us

Yes, I am venting several months’ worth of contempt because the coverage I have stumbled across has never managed to give me any reason to pay attention to this case. Because I sense for the next few days, there are going to be significant sections of my cable television package that I’m going to have to avoid watching unless I want to be burdened even more with this trivial mass.

Which makes me feel like Al Pacino’s aging version of “Michael Corleone” from Godfather III; as in the one line that gets quoted as much as anything from the other two films – “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”

  -30-

EXTRA: Kirk to get character test in coming days on health issues

I must confess – I gained a significant amount of respect for soon-to-be former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., in recent days.

GIFFORDS: Soon-to-be former



The Congresswoman who was shot in an incident a year ago says she’s giving up her seat on Capitol Hill. She wants to focus her attention on long-term recovery from the gunshot wounds she suffered.

NOW IT’S NOT that I never had objections to Giffords. But it’s just that many political people I have encountered would have gone out of their way to hold onto their political position for as long as humanly possible.

Even if they weren’t capable of fulfilling the duties, they would have wanted to keep the post – which in Giffords’ case would have run through the end of this year and early into January of 2013.

Even if they decided not to run for re-election (which Giffords would have had to do in the Nov. 6 general elections), they wouldn’t have wanted to resign.

Yet that is what Giffords is doing. By the end of Monday, she is to have completed her last duties as a member of Congress from the Tuscon, Ariz., area. She is expected to submit her letter of resignation later this week to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (a Republican) and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

I’M SURE THERE are Democrats who would have wanted her to stay in office – even though she would be an absentee member – just to keep the congressional seat within the party – instead of boosting by one the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

It has me wondering how we, in Illinois, would handle the same situation. Which could very well happen if circumstances take a turn for the worse.

KIRK: On road to recovery

Yes, I’m referring to the situation involving Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who checked himself into suburban Lake Forest Hospital during the weekend and was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital – where on Monday he underwent surgery to relieve swelling around his brain.

He has been diagnosed as having suffered a stroke.

NOW I DON’T have any evidence that this is a life-threatening situation. For all I know, the statement from Kirk’s office that he is expected to recover in full is completely true.

A part of me certainly hopes that he’s being truthful, and can claim to being as noble as Giffords has been in recent days.

But if it turns out for the worst, I’d like to think that Kirk could contemplate making the same high-ground stance as Giffords did. Even if I can already hear the rantings of the Republicans about Pat Quinn “stealing” away a seat from them.

Avoiding that kind of rhetoric may well be the best reason to hope for a full Kirk recovery.

  -30-

Chicago’s views on immigration policy and its reform not at all surprising to me

I still remember my initial reaction when I left Chicago for a few years to work and live in Springfield, Ill. “All the white people have managed to forget what they really are.”

What I mean by that is that the phrase “white ethnic” that makes so much sense in Chicago seemed inappropriate for the masses of the capital city, and as it turns out much of rural Illinois.

IT IS THE very character of our home city that even the white people whose families have been in this country for generations still have a strong identity with their ethnic origins. None of this “I’m just an American,” which to my ears sounds like someone who doesn’t have a clue as to what they are. “American” is really the mixture of all the ethnicities into one brand.

That attitude hasn’t changed any in the past couple of decades since I made the move (and returned to Chicago some 10 years ago). Which is why I wasn’t at all surprised to see the Chicago Tribune, which on Monday published results of a poll it commissioned to find out what we think of what is happening in Arizona.

People were polled last month for the newspaper, and 57 percent of them said they do not like the idea of local police getting involved in the enforcement of federal immigration policies. Which means they don’t like the underlying premise of the law the Arizona Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer tried to pass – but has been stalled by a U.S. District judge while a lawsuit by the federal government is pending.

I don’t believe it is because Chicagoans have a stronger sense of the difference between local and federal law. It is that ethnic awareness, which means we realize that this is not just a “Latino” issue. It is one that can affect just about anybody who lives on our block.

PERSONALLY, THE FIRST individual I ever met whom I was consciously aware of as being “illegal” was someone who came across the Canadian border. In short, he wasn’t Latino (although he was living with a Latina in the suburbs of Detroit).

And whenever we get those marches on May 1 to show support for newcomers to this country (even those without a valid visa), it always amuses me to hear the people who speak with an Irish brogue or whose broken English is in some accent other than what could be considered Spanish.

What I also found interesting about the Chicago Tribune poll is that 87 percent of those surveyed have the sense to realize that most of the people currently in the country without a valid visa really have no legitimate reason for being denied residence in this country. They should be able to get a visa, except for the fact that current immigration policy is so convoluted and confusing.

That confusion is what needs to be reformed.

OF COURSE, THE poll also has people who want to believe that the Latino immigration (which in Chicago has been taking place since the years just after World War I) is somehow hurting the city. In some cases, there are people who say it is bad, yet not bad enough to justify the mass deportations that the nativist segment of our society seems to dream of.

Which strikes me more as people who want to talk trash, but in the end wind up doing the right thing. In the end, that may be the very character of what Chicago is all about.

So the poll results don’t shock me. What also doesn’t surprise me is the fact that Arizona and immigration has not become an issue in the elections being held this year in Illinois.

I have heard Gov. Pat Quinn say he would veto any attempt by the Illinois General Assembly to pass a law along the lines of what Arizona did – and what several other states (including Indiana) say they will try to do in coming months.

NOT THAT REPUBLICAN challenger William Brady has tried to make an issue of this. He has tossed out vague rhetoric that implies to Republicans that he wouldn’t oppose what has become the GOP line on the issue. He makes sure to mention "border security" whenever talking about the issue. But he hasn’t made any blunt statements that officials in other states have made – because he knows Quinn would be able to use them to bash him over the head with.

Which is why I found it ridiculous when Brady campaign aides recently tried bashing Quinn for not taking a firm stance on the issue. My guess is they want him to say something that can be used to demonize him among rural Illinois voters. Quinn won’t take the bait, similar to how Brady won’t say anything outrageous on the issue.

Because of the very fact that immigration isn’t just a “Latino” issue in the Chicago-area, which does account for two-thirds of the state’s population and a sizable amount of the voter turnout across Illinois.

Which is why the only political people in Illinois who are talking about bringing up this issue are legislators from rural areas, and legislators who have so little influence in the General Assembly that no one thinks they can push this issue through the legislative process.

THEY’RE NOT ABOUT to get help from the legislative leaders, who aren’t about to take on the very ethnic character of Chicago – where the Chicago Tribune poll found 90 percent of city residents surveyed favored what the nativists insist on labelling as “amnesty.”

Then again, support for letting people already here remain (provided no outstanding factors to justify removal can be found) seems to be spreading beyond the city limits. That same Tribune poll found 84 percent of suburban residents (who comprise nearly half of Illinois’ population) also favor letting people remain.

I know there will be those who will try to claim that this is evidence that Chicago specifically (or urban America, in general) is somehow “out of touch” with what they believe.

Yet considering how large and ethnically diverse the area has always been (the one-third Latino share of the population that the nation is expected to reach by 2050 likely will be reached in Chicago by 2020), it merely makes me wonder if it is the people who oppose change who are the ones who are truly “out of touch” with what our nation is becoming?

-30-

“Symbolic” boycotts, what’s the point?

It seems like our politicians these days want to take tough stances against Arizona state government for their decision earlier this year to have local police get involved in federal immigration enforcement. But they don’t seem to want to do anything about it that would show any true muscle.

The City Council on Wednesday became the latest government body to pass a measure that is billed as a stand against Arizona. Some even say it is a boycott.

YET THE MEASURE passed by our aldermen doesn’t impact current contracts, and includes so many loopholes that for all practical purposes it will do nothing to take any Chicago government business away from any company based in Arizona.

This measure may be even more lame than the Cook County Board, which a couple of weeks ago passed a measure restricting the county’s ability to do business with Arizona-based companies, only to later in that same meeting approve a new contract WITH an Arizona-based company.

Everybody wants to pontificate, but nobody wants to do anything that might impact their ability to take in the almight dollar.

“We are raising our voices,” Alderman Danny Solis of the 25th Ward said, while admitting the gesture is purely “symbolic,” which is the same word that was bantered about last month when suburban Calumet City became the first Chicago-area community to pass such a measure.

BUT SOLIS GOT to climb up on his pedestal during the City Council session and denounce Arizona as being “evil” and “monstrous” and even got to mention “Nazi Germany.” It may score political points for pompous rhetoric. But it is not going to do much. Arizona is going to have to lose financially to make their officials realize how stupid their gesture on immigration truly was.

If this is the approach that our government officials are going to take, I almost wish they would just not bother. What is the sake of passing Arizona boycotts that don’t effectively boycott a thing? Their “symbolic” gestures threaten to turn the concept into a joke.

For the record, two of the 50 aldermen voted against the measure. Brian Doherty of the 41st Ward (which has long been the one place in Chicago that is willing to be represented by Republican Party officials) and James Balcer of the 11th Ward were the two.

While I know a certain generation is not the least bit surprised that someone representing the people of the Bridgeport neighborhood would refuse to support even a symbolic gesture against a state that gives in to the share of its population that lets nativism overcome common sense, I have to wonder if this one can backfire.

MODERN-DAY BRIDGEPORT, AFTER all, is a neighborhood with a significant share of Mexican-Americans, and the Chinatown district to the north has long been overflowing to the point where many people who say they live “near” Chinatown are actually living “in” Bridgeport.

Balcer justified his vote, telling reporter-types at City Hall that he does not think the council should be doing anything to take a stand on what is (immigration) a federal issue. He’s right, but wrong too.

Immigration is a federal issue. But what a boycott, or any symbolic gesture, does is says that another local government is wrong for trying to interfere, and that such interference has the potential to make a mess of any federal attempt to enforce immigration laws.

We also got to learn that Mayor Richard M. Daley isn’t too thrilled about boycott talk, and he is correct when he says it is, “difficult to boycott businesses.” It takes a strong will to pull off, particularly since some people will look for any little tidbit of information to try to claim that the boycott itself is a failure.

BUT WHEN HIZZONER Jr. started talking about how an Arizona boycott would complicate life whenever the Arizona Diamondbacks came to Chicago to play the Cubs or (during inter-league play) the White Sox, it came off as sounding like the mayor was more concerned about who would criticize him if he refused to let the family season tickets to U.S. Cellular Field go to waste when the day comes (not this season) that Arizona travels to the South Side to play ball.

Then agani, maybe Daley is on to something by thinking about baseball.

Because no matter how much people rant and rage that the Diamondbacks should be penalized or next year’s Major League Baseball All-Star Game should be moved from Phoenix, the gesture that would really hurt the state would be if all those major league clubs (15) that hold spring training across Arizona were to cut back their spending in that state.

Rhetoric is easy to ignore. Hitting them in the wallet will catch their attention. And that is what “symbolic” resolutions fail to do.

-30-

Arizona “boycotts” in Cook Co. and elsewhere feel like South Africa encore

Anyone who has read my commentary either at this site or (more often) at the sister weblog The South Chicagoan knows that I think Arizona state officials made a serious gaffe when they felt the need to take it upon themselves to have their local police act on the federal issue of immigration.

So this commentary is not meant to be a plea to the Cook County Board to pass a resolution that condemns Arizona, or says that the county should not do business with Arizona-based companies. It is not even a hope that the county rejects a resolution that praises Arizona for meddling in the issue.

I DO HOPE they do both of those things when they meet Tuesday, since the county board is expected to consider dueling resolutions that have been introduced on the issue.

But what I find interesting about this issue is how it shows how little official government protest has changed throughout the decades. If I were to change a few names and dates, the kind of rhetoric we’re going to hear would be very reminiscent of what was a key issue back when I was in college a quarter of a century ago.

Back then, the abhorent place was South Africa, which was still under the control of the government meant to ensure that the white minority maintained a solid control – keeping the overwhelming black population in check through the system of laws and restrictions known as apartheid.

Nelson Mandela wasn’t a former national president and Nobel Prize winner – he was a convict and prison inmate. I am old enough to remember when it was still considered respectable to think of Mandela as a subversive – if not an outright communist.

WHEN THAT SENTIMENT started to change in the mid-1980s, it became trendy for universities, businesses and governments to try to make a symbolic statement by pushing for divestiture from South Africa. That meant cutting off business ties with entities that were based there, and refusing to invest in companies that were supportive of the South African establishment.

Politically, I can remember the more progressive elements of society pushing eagerly for this kind of rhetoric, while the more conservative elements would claim that opposing South Africa was “un-American,” sort of.

Other people tried to argue against divestiture by claiming that it was not the place of the United States to be meddling in the ways of South Africa – regardless of what one might think of the old apartheid restrictions that limited black people in terms of where they could exist, and what they could do in society.

Now that it is becoming popular for government entities to want to make a statement about Arizona, it seems like the same tone of debate is rising up again.

WHICH IS WHY I am not going so far as to say what I think the vote will be on Tuesday, but I can already envision the debate that will be spewed in the county board chambers.

Now Cook County is not the first government entity to take a stance against Arizona. South suburban Calumet City approved a resolution last month that says city government officials will not attend conferences held in Arizona, nor will they enter into contracts with companies based primarily in that state.

Supporters of that city’s move argued that the non-white majority population of that municipality means they should take a stance against a state whose actions threaten to be hostile to the growing Latino population of this nation.

Critics say it is none of our business how Arizona decides to conduct business. If we don’t like it, that makes it a good thing that we do not live there.

SO WHEN THE county board debates the resolution that trashes Arizona, we’re going to hear debate pro- and con- on the merits of the growing Latino population. We’re going to hear how it is a personal insult to the 1.5 million people of Mexican ethnic background who live in the Chicago area (and, according to the Mexican consulate in Chicago, spend about $20 billion annually) if our government officials do not take a stance opposing Arizona.

When the debate shifts to the resolution praising the state, we’re going to hear a lot of talk about minding our own business. We’ll probably even hear a lot of “trash talk” about how bad things have become during the years (ending in December) of county board President Todd Stroger. The implication being, where does the Government of Stroger get off saying anything bad about anybody!

Ultimately, the county is likely to pass the resolution by county board member (and former Illinois State Police trooper) Edwin Reyes – the one that says the county should not be doing the $6 million in business with Arizona companies that it already has.

This is, after all, the county that has followed the lead of Chicago in declaring itself to be a “sanctuary” for people with immigration issues – meaning that local police won’t bring the issue up because it really does fall outside of their areas of knowledge and concern.

-30-

Who has more Ariz. pull, Quinn or Cubs?

When it comes to all the elements that make our beloved Chicago so unique, who or what has more potential to actually influence all those people in Arizona who actually believe their state Legislature did the right thing in passing a nativist-inspired immigration measure into law?

Pat Quinn, or the Chicago Cubs?

THE SAD THING is that the latter probably would have more influence, although it is The Mighty Quinn who is most likely to open his mouth on the issue.

He did so on Friday, giving us a predictable statement saying he thinks Arizona goofed big time in passing the measure that now requires local cops to take actions in enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Quinn says he agrees with the critics who say that people whom some cop might think “look” Latino or have a Spanish-sounding surname are most likely to suffer harassment, which Quinn calls, “un-American.”

He also said that anybody in Illinois who thinks the Land of Lincoln should enact a similar measure can forget it. He would veto it, and he is among those who wants federal government officials to pass some sort of reform measure that makes it clear many of the people who will be singled out by Arizona’s laws DO belong here in this country.

NOW I PERSONALLY do not have a problem with anything that Quinn said. I like it that I’m not the only person using the phrase “un-American” to describe this measure. In fact, I’d go farther in saying that most of the rhetoric and actions that come from the opposition to immigration reform is “un-American.”

Could it be that these people see all these Latin American newcomers to our country and feel threatened because their work ethic makes it likely they will become more worthwhile assets to the United States than these people could ever hope to be?

That’s laying it on a little thick. I don’t expect anyone to seriously be swayed into a sensible position by it. Which is about how I expect Quinn’s rhetoric will come across. It will be ignored by Arizona nitwits who don’t want to hear anything coming from anyone outside of their home state.

As for people in Illinois, the ones most likely to sympathize with Quinn’s view are the people who already are most solidly in his camp come the Nov. 2 elections. The question I have is how far will Republican gubernatorial nominee William Brady go to avoid saying anything about this issue?

KEEP QUIET AND draw no attention to immigration, and perhaps he can pass unnoticed. Express any kind of view, and he goes further toward driving more nails in the campaign “coffin” that says he’s too much a product of the rural part of Illinois to govern a state where two-thirds of the population lives in the metropolitan Chicago area.

Keep quiet, and maybe he’ll be able to keep part of that 7-point lead that recent polls show he has. Open up, and he fizzles into a loser. I expect Brady to say nothing, so this will likely not amount to much of an issue in our local elections.

But like I said, the Chicago Cubs could be the ones who have a bigger effect on the matter – because they can hit Arizona in its wallet.

Remember that deal Arizona officials negotiated by which a special tax on all baseball spring training game tickets would be charged to raise money to help pay to build the Cubs the upgraded training complex they so desired?

THE CHICAGO WHITE Sox might be able to relax that their fans are going to have to help pay for it, because the same Arizona Legislature that approved the nativist law never did get around to passing the bill that would approve the tax.

So it’s not official yet, and there were clauses in the agreement that the Cubs signed with Arizona officials that allowed them to negotiate with other cities that might want to host Cubs spring training if the Legislature failed to keep its end of the bargain.

Well, the Legislature failed. Could we now get the officials of Naples, Fla., who previously wanted the Cubs to relocate to renew their offer? Could the combination of political ineptitude combined with political idiocy cause the Cubs to think that now might be a good time to leave Arizona?

No matter how many activists picket outside of Arizona Diamondbacks games in Chicago and other National League cities nor threats to pull the All-Star Game from Phoenix in 2011 are likely to sway people. Not even getting baseball officials to join the Major League Baseball Players Association (the ballplayers’ union) in issuing statements condemning Arizona for its actions will do much.

BASEBALL’S BIGGEST HAMMER is all those spring training camps that liven up the economy and bring national attention to the suburbs of Phoenix every March.

Let’s not forget that the Cubs are considered the jewel of the whole Cactus League scene, with their games in Mesa usually selling out and all those Chicago-area tourists deprived of bad baseball being willing to cram their way into other teams’ ballparks to gain a glimpse of their cutesy Cubbies.

I don’t know what, if anything, the Cubs are inclined to do about this situation. But I can’t help but think that our city’s biggest hammer on this issue might very well be the baby bears clad in blue. And if it meant that the team could take a meaningful action, then for once, I might just have to chant, “Go Cubs!”

-30-

Baseball is more than a game, even when it doesn’t want to be on certain issues

It was just over a week ago in the moments right after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put her state at the eye of the storm that is the immigration reform battle that I read a baseball-oriented website that suggested the Arizona Diamondbacks be kicked out of the National League.

The idea was that Arizona had shown itself to be too close-minded to be worthy of a major league baseball franchise, and that someone should move the Phoenix-based team to one of the other cities across this country that would like to have professional baseball at its highest level. Wrigley Field back in simpler times, before protesters ever thought it worth their time to gather at the ballpark to point out the fact that the visiting team comes from the "Show Me Your Papers" state.

NOT THAT ANYBODY within baseball (which has the ability to be 50 years behind the times at all the wrong moments) is taking seriously the concept of a franchise shift. Las Vegas, Portland, Montreal, Mexico City, Monterrey and northern New Jersey are not going to get a team anytime soon.

But there are fans who seem determined to ostracize the Diamondbacks (even though to the best of my knowledge, the only player on their roster who was born in Arizona was relief pitcher Bob Howry – who also has played for both the White Sox and the Cubs, along with the Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians and San Francisco Giants) this season.

Hence, we got the sight on Thursday of a few dozen people with picket signs outside of Wrigley Field, along with a nitwit counter-demonstrator who claimed that protesting against Arizona meant protesting against America.

It never fails to amaze me that the people of 50 to 100 years ago who truly believed that the “American Way” of life included segregation of the races have their equivalent in the 21st Century in thinking that this country’s ideals include exclusion.

STILL, MY GUT reaction is to wonder if the pickets outside of Wrigley Field will pick up during the remaining three games of the four-game series that runs through Sunday. Because I am sure there are some individuals who will hear that only about 40 people showed up at the humble abode of one Elwood J. Blues, compared to the thousands who were there to torture themselves with bad baseball being played, and figure that is evidence that they are somehow "morally correct" on this issue.

The USA Today newspaper managed to get one of these fans to say that people using a sporting event to protest a political issue is “silly.”

Then again, I’m sure he had his equivalents 70 years ago when some activists tried protesting the exclusion of black people from the ranks of professional ballplayers. There probably were those people who resented having that issue brought up when they were trying to escape reality for a few hours by watching a ballgame.

Now I will be the first to admit to understanding that latter sentiment. It is the reason I follow professional baseball.

BUT I ALSO have enough sense to realize that professional baseball operates within our society. It is not a world all to itself. It ought to reflect the realities of the world around it. So I’m not bothered at the thought that the Diamondbacks players are going to have to see this sight every day they are in Chicago, and probably every day they travel on the road.

I would expect that all of their road games for the rest of this year will result in local activists showing up outside the stadiums to remind people that their home teams are about to beat up on the boys from Phoenix. For all I know, that recent study about the least popular baseball teams (according to a new computer algorhythm that seems to make little sense) may wind up showing the Diamondbacks as the most despised team when it is recalculated – rather than the Cleveland Indians with their ridiculous “Chief Wahoo” logo on their caps.

Insofar as what Arizona fans will think of this attention being dumped on their team? I’m sure the ballclub itself will be only a small part of the derision that Arizona and its people are going to find themselves receiving.

Already, some business interests are getting concerned about the political situation – although that is mostly because businesses prefer for there to be no controversy whatsoever. Anything that draws attention is considered to be a negative.

SO HERE’S HOPING that the activist types this weekend can get a few hundred of their ranks to show up at the ballpark, even though the Saturday game will coincide with the Chicago protest march that will take a few tens of thousands of people on a walk from the Teamsters offices at Jackson Boulevard and Ashland Avenue to the shadows of the Picasso statue outside Daley Plaza.

Because activity like this will help draw some attention to the Arizona situation, although if Major League Baseball really wanted to get the attention of the Arizona political and business establishments, they’d threaten to pull all of their training camps out of the state and relocate entirely to Florida.

Somehow, I think we’d have an easier time convincing baseball officials to move the Diamondbacks to another city.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Probably the only way to sway Major League Baseball that Arizona’s situation impacts them is for some of their ballplayers to have to endure law enforcement harassment while visiting Phoenix.

I can’t help but wonder about Rodrigo Lòpez Muñoz, one of the Diamondbacks pitchers this season who comes from Tlalnepantla in central Mexico. Because he is desired by a professional sports team, his route to a visa is much simpler than most people (although his can, and will, be revoked the instant he is released by the Diamondbacks). What happens the day Lòpez is late for a “big game” because some cop didn’t want to believe that this particular “Mexican” could have legitimate papers?

Snow in Midwest in February. Oh My!

I’m not sure what to think of the possible 10 inches of snow that could start falling on the Chicago area some time later Monday.

Is it some sort of cosmic justice for those of us who snickered at the District of Columbia area residents who had such a bad time of things last week coping with a severe snowstorm? Or is this “the almighty’s” way of letting us know he’s bored with the story of Scott Lee Cohen (seriously, we’re now eagerly taking the word of an alleged prostitute as to who is qualified to be a public official?) and wants us to move on to something else?

WHATEVER THE SITUATION is, there’s a chance that we’re going to get the heaviest snowfall (thus far) of the 2009-10 winter season in Chicago. The couple of times it has snowed to date, the amounts weren’t all that bad and it was more the drop in temperatures that caused problems for many people.

Now, we have the potential for problems with people who just can’t get a grasp on the concept of slowing down their driving below the posted speed limit so that their cars don’t go spiraling out of control and crashing into something (or someone) else.

Of course, these kind of people will think it is someone else’s fault for being in the way of their car that was spiraling out of control.

My serious point is that the next couple of days will be interesting. They will be challenging. But they also are something that should fully be expected by those of us born and raised in the Midwestern United States.

IT’S WINTER. IT snows here. It gets cold. This is the real world, not that wimpy weather you left behind in Arizona or Georgia (although watching The Weather Channel on television in recent weeks, I have been surprised by the amount of snow that has fallen in parts of Dixie – not exactly what is expected). In fact, the one group of locals I will sympathize with are those who rely on public transportation and are trying to learn new routes to get to places, because the Chicago Transit Authority budget cuts imposed Sunday caused their old routes to be slashed.

As much as I don’t care for the slop caused by winter snowfall (the cold I can cope with, you just put on another layer of clothing), what really is going to tick me off is going to be the shock and awe expressed on various news reports from people who are going to want to react as though the fact that we get a few inches of accumulated snowfall in a few hours timespan is somehow historic in nature.

It happens every year.

We expect it. It is the reason why we look down on other parts of the country that let snowfall throw them so far out of whack.

SERIOUSLY, WATCHING THAT Weather Channel video of car after car after car sliding on the ice and careening into each other while the anchors/meteorologists act amazed is laughable. Hearing that government officials in other cities behave in ways that make you think a natural disaster has struck them makes me respect our borderline corrupt political people all the more.

At least they can cope with snow.

In fact, about the most sensible thing I heard out of the snowfall that hit Washington, D.C. last week was the reaction coming from the White House and adopted-Chicagoan Barack Obama. Two feet of snow accumulated in the nation’s capital, which caused first daughters Sasha and Malia to consider pulling out the sleds so they could go riding around the White House grounds.

Perhaps the reality of our situation is that we need some snowfall right about now. Too many of us, including probably many people who didn’t even bother to vote in last week’s primary elections, are now getting all bent out of shape.

THE AFOREMENTIONED COHEN (who was the Democratic Party’s nominee for lieutenant governor until he said Sunday he would give it up) is getting most of the attention, but many of the races ended up with absolutely nonsensical results. Illlinois has become a place where someone who can get roughly one out of five votes can actually win an election, because there were so many candidates seeking office and the reality is that NO ONE truly captured the public spirit.

Maybe we need a snowfall heavy enough that there is a school day, or perhaps someone has to take a day off of work because making the daily commute on Tuesday or Wednesday will be next to impossible.

In short, this snowfall could literally turn out to be what gives us all a breath of fresh air – along with slushy snowfall.

If some people take great joy in the concept of a “White Christmas,” perhaps what we need these days is a white Valentine’s Day (it’s Sunday) to help us relax. Clear our heads by shoveling our own sidewalks. Then perhaps we can stop reacting in such irrational ways.

-30-