Some people are strong proponents of expressing their right to be wrong

I have no problem with the concept of freedom of expression and the right of people to think or say whatever it is they believe – no matter how ridiculous or stupid it might well be.

Self-explanatory

But there are some individuals whom I suspect come up with views to express just for the purpose of – to put it bluntly – pissing people off! I can’t help but think those people give a bad name to the concept of free speech – which the rest of us are forced to defend no matter how trivial it becomes.

TAKE THE INSTANCE of a lawsuit now pending in U.S. District Court by a Chicago Bears season ticket holder. One of the perks for people who buy such a ticket plan is they get to spend time on the playing field during pre-game warmups.

This particular fan is upset because, as a Green Bay Packers fan, he wants to wear his green-and-gold jersey, along with all sorts of other items in Packers’ colors. Basically, he wants to make the presence of the Bears’ arch-rivals seen on the Bears’ own turf.

The Bears have denied this season ticket holder the ability to do that, and that is what has led to his legal action.

He thinks it’s his inalienable right to piddle all over the Bears’ party with his Packers’ jersey. He’s prepared to fight this out, and wants to make this an issue of great societal significance – a cause.

PERSONALLY, I THINK we ought to let the guy wear his replica jersey, and let him take all the abuse that Bears’ personnel invariably will dish out. Because, after all, free speech does not guarantee anyone the “last word” on an issue.

Either that, or require the goof to enter the stadium by walking through the Soldier Field parking lots while dressed in his Packers’ garb. Of course, he’d have to venture through the throngs of Bears fans who make a point of tailgating outside the stadium prior to the games.

It would be like a gridiron gauntlet. He’d have to take so much abuse, and I don’t doubt you’d probably get some drunken buffoon thinking he’s defending the honor of the orange and blue who would wind up kicking the snot out of this Packers’ fan.

Not 1st time Satanic Temple has expressed itself

Let’s see how much he’d desire to wear his Packers’ jersey at Soldier Field again!

THIS, OF COURSE, is far from the only incident of someone who feels compelled to piddle all over someone else’s party out of some belief they’re scoring ideological points for their “cause.”

Take the Illinois Statehouse, where the Christmas holidays has turned into a mass of public displays erected in the Capitol rotunda that were meant to pay tribute to the holidays of various religious faiths that are being celebrated in coming weeks (we’re currently in Day 4 of Hanukkah).

Now, it has evolved into a production of who can come up with the most ridiculous display. This year, it is one set up by the Satanic Temple chapter in Chicago, although its display (a sculpture of a woman’s hand tempting us with an apple) is far from the devil-worshipping images that I’m sure will come to minds of many.

The group says it is “a nontheistic organization that aims to encourage benevolence and empathy amongst all people.” Although I suspect its inclusion in the Capitol will peeve many more people than it will sway.

PERSONALLY, I’D BE inclined for dumping any holiday displays, even an overly decorated Christmas tree. The Capitol is supposed to be a place of business for our government – and not so much one of holiday partying.

Although the one that really manages to peeve my sensibilities is one that has been in place since 2008 – the “Festivus” pole. As in motivated by that old “Seinfeld” episode where we learn of the holiday celebrated by the Costanza family as an alternative to Christmas commercialism.

One TV gag continues to live on long after "Seinfield" cancellation

The actual point of the episode was to further show how much of a crank the character portrayed by actor Jerry Stiller was, but some people want to take it literally to create a holiday that worships a metal pole with no ornamentation or presents – and somehow devolves into a wrestling match meant to humiliate.

Maybe the appropriate response to all of this is to use the Festivus pole to club some sense into the heads of any of these people who think their actions are anything more than imposing their crackpot ways upon the rest of us.

  -30-

‘Politicking’ police officers? Or just self-expression in an era of confusion?

The Chicago Police Department claims its policy is that patrol officers aren’t supposed to make political statements or take such actions while in uniform – which theoretically prevents them from taking on viewpoints that could be misconstrued as the official stance of the city.

First came the "support"

Which is why three officers in two separate incidents are now facing discipline – reprimands and, for one officer, a reassignment to new duties – because of pictures of themselves showing them engaging in actions that express controversial stances.

OF COURSE, THESE officers manage to cancel each other’s views out, since all were getting involved in the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of professional athletes to use National Anthem rituals at the stadium to express their own views on social issues.

In one case, two officers appeared in a photograph on Instagram with clenched fists and down on a knee, along with an activist who was expressing the view that the athletes were taking a just cause – in support of those who are concerned about police abuse of people based on race.

The Chicago Sun-Times managed to dredge up that photograph, and wound up making it a full-color, front-page cover for the newspaper last week.

Then, came the opposition

Which got the police department upset to the point where they said the two officers would face official reprimands – the kind of thing that gets written up and put in their personnel files. Which means the incident could come up again and be used against the officers under certain circumstances.

ALTHOUGH ODDLY ENOUGH, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said he was not upset about the image of uniformed police officers, both of whom are black, showing support for the activists on this issue. The mayor went so far as to say he hopes the idea of police officers supporting the cause means something is shifting in Chicago’s mindset, something for the better.

EMANUEL: First officers a 'plus' for Chicago image?

But if that was the hope, another incident came forth when officials learned of another officer who had posted a picture of himself where his intent was to show opposition to these types of activists – and support for the efforts of President Donald J. Trump whose rancid rhetoric on this issue is what has triggered the whole debate to begin with.

That photograph shows the uniformed officer waving a U.S. flag while standing in front of his police-marked SUV, with a sign in front of him reading, “I stand for the anthem. I love the American flag. I support my president and the 2^nd Amendment.”

Which, by the way, is the one often interpreted by social conservatives as giving them the right to carry whatever types of firearms they desire.

ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTED that the officer in question, who is white, worked the past four years assigned to a high school, and also found students at that school who said the officer in question was a positive presence around the campus who often had helped avert trouble from occurring.

Which could mean he’s a good guy. Or maybe just that he’s in an environment where the masses are inclined to believe the protesters are the trouble-makers.

In short, where one comes down on these issues is going to depend on where one stands on many other social issues, particularly that of how concerned they are about the potential for police abuse of other individuals based on race.

I’m sure the Chicago Police Department would prefer it if none of this were to come up in public discussion. They’d rather not have an issue to deal with at all.

THE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL Affairs division is reviewing all the incidents, although there is a sense that the latter officer will get disciplined because of the need to create a perception that they’re not overly-harsh on the former officers.

TRUMP: All started with his trash talk

Which I’m sure there are others who will toss out the “politically correct” rant and claim that the latter officer is unfairly being tarred and feathered. Because they want to agree with him – no matter how much his stance (which was more reactionary and meant to hurt others) offends a segment of our society.

Much of the problem lies within the idea of a policy that our police are neutral. The reality is that it is near-impossible to stay out of issues – often, doing nothing winds up being an expression of content with the status quo.

And in a case where the status quo is questionable, perhaps the only just thing is to merely admit where you stand on the issue. Which is what these three officers managed to do; regardless of how some of us would rather not hear anything about it at all.

  -30-

EXTRA: In defense of Chicago. We told Trump where he could stuff it!

I’ve had a chance to sleep on it, so to speak, with regards to the behavior of those people who felt compelled to silence Donald Trump when he tried to speak Friday night at a campaign rally at the University of Illinois campus here.

Chicago's way of telling Trump, "You're Fired!"

Because as we all know by now, those people got so unruly that the Trump people wound up cancelling the event – offering up some vague talk about doing the event somewhere else at another time.

THAT HAS CAUSED an all-too-predictable outburst from people determined to think Trump was disrespected by Chicago. That somehow, we singled him out for undue abuse. Trump himself is going about using the word “thugs” to describe our city’s behavior.

I have an uncle in Minnesota who actually is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met, but who felt compelled to turn to Facebook to use the word “hypocritical” and say we had a “disgusting exhibition of stifling the ‘Democratic’ process.”

I realize my uncle has the same right to expression as anyone else. But my gut feeling in this case is to say to my Aunt Christy, “Tell Uncle Jim to lighten up a bit.”

Because after taking a few hours to mill over the events of Friday, I can’t help but think we in Chicago came up with the appropriate response to the nonsense talk that Trump has been spewing across the country and likely thought he could do once again in our fair city.

IF IT TURNS out that Chicago gets a reputation for being the place that stood up to Trump and told him to “stuff it,” then it makes me all the more pleased to be a Chicagoan.

Yes, I realize Trump can go ahead and act like a goof when he campaigns, deliberately making his political appeal to the share of our society that expresses intolerance for anyone or anything that isn’t exactly like themselves.

Of course, then they argue that those people not like themselves are obligated to show them the highest of respect. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy of those people who complain about “reverse racism” or “political correctness run amok.”

As it turns out, four men and a woman now face criminal charges for their behavior. Which in a group of that size, strikes me as being the proverbial needle in a haystack. A fairly insignificant number of people.

THIS WAS NOT some sort of massive riot in which people were killed or maimed – which is exactly the image I’m sure the Trump types will try to create in their own minds, then force into our thought process.

Which is part of why I can be sympathetic to those protesters who felt compelled to show up at the college campus Friday night.

But there’s also the fact that Trump’s campaign strategy likes to create the impression that there’s a hostile opposition, and many Trump rallies in other parts of the country usually have as their highlight the fact that security publicly removes people from the crowd.

In some cases, the Trump types have even taken punches at those people as they’re removed.

WHICH MEANS THE only real difference here is that Trump was denied the moment of picking out who got removed. That, and the fact that the Trump types didn’t get to hit anybody – because if they had, it’s likely the masses would have fought back and we’d have got the sight of Trump types having the caca kicked out of them!

As for Trump, it really is common sense that if you’re going to spew so much nonsense that targets so many people, that those people are going to want to retort in an equal fashion. Unless your idea of expression is that Trump gets to insult – and others just have to swallow it.

We got to see that the Trump types really are an overly-vocal minority. Consider the recent Chicago Tribune poll that showed Trump winning the Illinois Republican primary next week – but only having 32 percent support and some ridiculously-high disapproval ratings. In a one-on-one, he loses big time!

All I know is that if the Trump types ever do try to re-schedule the Chicago rally (as they hinted they might), it is likely to be an event so overly staged as to bear resemblance to a Nuremberg rally of old. Which some might think an overly-appropriate image to have?

  -30-

EXTRA: Cop quips – view really puts them in their own little world at times

I can claim a “credential” that a lot of city residents like to cite as evidence of their authenticity as native Chicagoans – I had two uncles (one retired, the other deceased) who were officers within the Chicago Police Department.

Yet I’m not about to claim to have any unique comprehension of what goes through the minds of those people who take the oath to “serve and protect” the people of their community, yet often have the knack of being out-of-touch with certain segments of society.

I DON’T DOUBT they’re in touch with the way certain people feel; and that those people LIKE the idea that the police are on their side protecting them from everybody else.

But it’s not exactly a universal concept that everybody feels safe when they see the flashing lights of a “Mars bar” atop a squad car.

So it shouldn’t be a shock that a pair of stories turned up Wednesday involving the Chicago police that would make it seem that certain officers do their jobs to reinforce their own racial hang-ups.

If anything, these stories become so prevalent that we almost become immune to them – as though we’re not sure we should have ever thought the police were protecting “us” on a daily basis.

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE reported that the police department’s Internal Affairs began an investigation into an officer who got caught on video making a disparaging remark about Michael Brown – remember him?

Supposedly, the officer made a traffic stop and wound up arguing with a man, who said he didn’t trust the police. That man then mentioned by name the individual who was killed by police last year in Ferguson, Mo.

To which the officer supposedly said, “he got what he had coming” and that Brown’s death was “deserved.”

Whether expressing that opinion violates the professional standards we expect of a law enforcement officer is what the department’s investigators will have to determine.

ALTHOUGH I ALREADY can envision the people who will come to the officer’s defense – he merely said something, He didn’t act in a harmful way.

For all I know, many of these people probably agree with a thought that people in confrontations with police are worthy of force – because they wouldn’t be in a confrontation if they weren’t doing something wrong!

We’ll have to see how harsh, if at all, the Chicago police wind up handling this incident. Let’s not forget that the officer who killed Brown was ultimately found by St. Louis-area prosecutors to have done nothing that would warrant criminal charges. This is much less.

This incident isn’t alone in the news on Wednesday. For the Chicago Sun-Times reported its own story about a police officer potentially being too open in expressing his thoughts.

IN THAT CASE, the officer supposedly threatened a colleague and made racial remarks. But as the newspaper reported, the Cook County state’s attorney’s office dropped the charges that officer faced.

It seems that a third officer to who the officer actually expressed the threats has died. There goes the witness whose credibility would have been put on the stand in any trial that might have someday taken place.

So now, there’s a police officer who has been cleared – although it seems he was on disability leave back in 2011 when the original “threat” was made.

Although the idea that an officer is off-the-hook for “racially derogatory” comments is bound to offend many of the same people who think that the other officer should be punished severely for opening up his mouth about Brown.

  -30-

There’s always a crackpot with cash

Perhaps I’m just cheap, although I’d like to think it is because I have a little too much sense. Or maybe cents?

But I don’t comprehend the notion of feeling the compulsion to send off some cash as a donation to back up every one of my ideological idiosyncrasies.

SO I CAN’T help but shake my head in disgust with the people who feel the need to make donations to uphold their hang-ups with regards to gay marriage.

What started this latest round of donations was the fact that a neighborhood pizza joint in a rural Indiana town got public attention when it became known that the owner said he thinks he has the right to refuse to provide catering services to a gay wedding – if they were to try to hire him.

Honestly, I think the best response to that concept is the gay activist who quipped that no self-respecting gay person would serve pizza at a wedding reception. And I don’t feel compelled to identify the restaurant; why give them free publicity?

But the hostile reaction – initially reported by South Bend television station WBND – that came forth caused the restaurant’s owner to close up shop indefinitely, with the telephone now ringing endlessly rather than anyone picking it up to check if you want sausage or pepperoni, or just vegetables, on your pizza pie.

THE FACT THAT the owners, who also said they wouldn’t deny service to a gay couple if they actually came into the restaurant, are likely to suffer some financial loss by being so public with their hang-ups is what is now motivating some people to feel the need to show their support for a business that wants to dump on gay people.

There’s a page on GoFundMe.com where people can give some money to help the company, and as of late afternoon Friday there was $798,687 that had been given to the owners. It’s probably significantly more by the time you read this!

That’s quite a financial haul – certainly better than they would have taken in had they just remained open and sold pizzas.

Could this vocal outburst against gay people wind up being a profitable move?

THAT THOUGHT HAD a Berwyn-based fast food joint upset, and they went ahead and created their own GoFundMe.com page.

The Pioneer Press newspapers reported that Big Guys Sausage Stand is asking for donations under the heading, “Non-bigoted restaurant wants cash.”

Not that the restaurant wants the money – they say if anyone feels compelled to make a donation, they will donate it all to a charitable cause yet to be determined.

But owner Brendan O’Connor told the suburban newspaper group how he felt compelled to take the stand, because he was amazed that so many people would feel the need to take a public stand in favor of Indiana’s new (and already revised because it was so offensive) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

PERSONALLY, IT DOESN’T surprise me that some people feel strongly in favor of measures that treat gay people like they are less than desirable in society. Some people will go out of their way to say stupid things – and that is their right in our society.

The United States of America gives people the right to be wrong. And it gives the rest of us the right to point out those errors – even though the “wrong” people often think that pointing out the triteness of their remarks is somehow an intrusion of their “free speech” rights.

Nonsense! Nobody gets the right to the “last word” on an issue – not even me. Since I’m sure at least one crackpot out there would feel the need to vociferously respond to this very commentary.

It’ just that when it comes to speaking with my wallet, I prefer to let my actual purchases (or refusal to buy from somewhere) speak louder than handing over my money to someone else.

  -30-

What people will post on Facebook, and the consequences of being blunt

The kind of trivia and nonsense people feel compelled to post on Facebook never fails to amaze me.

Personally, I only use it as a way to further distribute this weblog – making it possible for those people who are my Facebook “friends” to see this commentary without having to go searching for it (not that it’s hard to find).

AS I LOOK while writing this commentary, I see posts from a cousin informing the world she’s at a medical clinic waiting in line, pictures of people showing us all how their kids cried in Santa Claus’ lap and one individual asking if he should spend the afternoon watching “Game of Thrones” or “House of Cards” on television.

Then, there seem to be people like Aries Woodfin, who had to appear in court this weekend for a bond hearing following his arrest in suburban Ford Heights.

Prosecutors contend that Woodfin used Facebook to post ominous threats about law enforcement, and also said his contempt for police might cause him to commit acts of violence against “innocent white children.”

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, someone who saw the Facebook page contacted police in Alabama, who then contacted the Chicago Police Department – which conducted an investigation and found that the man lived in both the city and the south suburb.

WHEN POLICE SHOWED up at the suburban house Friday night, they found that he had set up a crude gun range for himself in the basement. They also found a .45 caliber pistol and spent shell casings all over the basement floor.

Which would appear to make it seem that Woodfin likes to practice with a pistol. But because he has a prior criminal conviction (for weapons-related offenses), he can’t get the Firearm Owners Identification card that would have made his possession of a weapon legal.

It is why he now is residing at the Cook County Jail, where a judge this weekend ordered that he be held without bond while charges of illegal firearms possession, assault, failure to have an FOID card and disorderly conduct.

Although it’s likely none of this would have come forth if the guy hadn’t felt compelled to use Facebook to be so open about his contempt for law enforcement.

YES, WOODFIN IS an African-American man who, according to the Sun-Times, told police he was a “warrior” and that the “streets would run red with blood” due to his upcoming actions.

We don’t really know if he had anything planned in the way of a violence spree. He might have been “all talk.”

But police are now crediting this as an example of how monitoring activity on Facebook can help prevent crime from occurring at all.

He’ll probably wind up with a lengthy prison term because of his rants, although I wonder if his legal defense will be something along the lines of “I didn’t really mean it.”

THIS IS LIKELY to be the norm for the near future, at least. On account of the slayings of two New York police officers who were sitting in their squad car in Brooklyn when a black man walked up and shot them both dead.

That man later shot himself – so we’re not going to get any lengthy legal proceedings or trial to assuage the desire of “law and order” types to have someone suffer for their “crime.”

Will Woodfin, who didn’t actually kill anyone, wind up having to stand in for those people who are eager to see a “cop killer” be prosecuted?

All because his real crime is being a nitwit who felt compelled to share his moronic rants publicly on Facebook.

  -30-

Can you libel North Korea? Is it all a film industry plot for attention?

It is one of the old gags of being a reporter-type person who covers a lot of crime activity – “You can’t libel the mob!”


No matter how critical one is in the details they write about organized crime, what are the gangsters going to do – file a lawsuit and testify under oath that you’re wrong?

I COULDN’T HELP but remember that thought when I read an Associated Press dispatch from Seoul, South Korea, about how the North Korea government late Sunday accused the United States of spreading “reckless” rumors about its alleged involvement in a hacking of Sony Pictures computers.

The wire service reported that a National Defense Commission statement said officials planned “our toughest counteraction” against the United States, which it said is a “cesspool of terrorism.”

It also said the North Korean government has proof that it had no connection to the computer invasion that wound up disclosing sensitive information about Sony and stirred up enough attention and fear about the upcoming film “The Interview” that Sony officials decided not to release it at all.

Now I’m not going to claim to have any specific detail about U.S. foreign policy or North Korean affairs. Although it wouldn’t shock me to learn that the people who actually did break into the Sony computers are not actual government officials, but sympathizers of the Communist regime that we technically have been at war with since 1950 (although no shooting has taken place since 1953).

ALTHOUGH I DON’T expect anyone to seriously offer proof of that. Because that would involve people, possibly even Kim Jong Un, to have to “take the stand,” so to speak, and tell the truth.

It’s easier for them to spew trash talk. Just like much of our own government’s rhetoric that has blown a potentially third-rate film up into an international incident. We’re talking about putting North Korea back on the list of nations that engage in “state-sponsored terrorism.” Considering that we’re going to have to remove Cuba from that list because of the plans to restore diplomatic relations, it means there’s a vacancy to be filled.

For those of you who have been hiding away in a cave (perhaps the one that Osama bin Laden once used to hide from the U.S. military), this is the film meant to be a comedy about two men hired to assassinate Kim.

But it is a comedy because the two would-be killers are portrayed as a pair of bunglers and the film tells the story about all the things that go wrong during their escapade.

IT MAKES “GET Smart” sound downright intellectual. It sounds like something that should have starred Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels (the crew from “Dumb and Dumber”).

It’s a stupid laugh, and if the North Korean government had any sense, they’d use the film against us as evidence of just how far our society has declined. Instead, they took it seriously and are reacting like nitwits, which had enough people connected to the film industry in this country concerned that the release of the film on Thursday was cancelled.

Which gave us that “Saturday Night Live” sketch this weekend where Michael Myers’ “Dr. Evil” character lambasted Kim as a buffoon and a disgrace to evil leaders the world over.

It also has Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., talking about trying to get a print of the film somehow (I’m not sure if he has that kind of connections) so he can show it during the fundraisers he will have to have in coming months if he is to have enough campaign cash to get re-elected in 2016.

HOW MANY PEOPLE are now going to pay $2,000 or so per ticket to watch an allegedly verboten film? How much unwarranted attention is “The Interview” going to get?

Then again, perhaps Myers’ involvement was appropriate. Because this whole saga has taken on the inane character of a storyline from one of the Austin Powers series of parodies about James Bond-type films.

Which actually makes the conspiracy-theory portion of my intellectual makeup wonder if Sony is eternally grateful for the attention that caused them to stop the film’s distribution.

When it does finally get out, people will think they’re making a political statement by going to see it. Instead of just watching what could have turned out to be a corny story that would have been out of the movie theaters shortly after the coming of the New Year.

  -30-

Free speech is a terrible thing to waste

I suppose I’m supposed to be up in arms and united behind a lawsuit filed by a Peoria man whose attempt at political parody managed to tick off the local mayor to the point where he sicc’ed his police department on the guy.

Yet there’s just something about this whole affair about a man who created an account on Twitter that purported to be the personal thoughts and expression thereof of Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis that would make me feel absurd to be in support of it.

FOR IT SEEMS that rather than offering any serious criticism of the policies of Ardis, or any attempt at humor related to those, this account usually portrayed the mayor as a drug-using buffoon who said things that were not so much outrageous, but stupid.

To my mindset, the account @peoriamayor was solely about defamation of character, and could have been the subject of a lawsuit by Hizzoner against Jon Daniel.

Instead, Ardis seems to think he is King Louis XVI (or at least Mel Brooks’ interpretation of him in “History of the World, Part I). “It’s good to be the mayor,” it would seem went through Ardis’ mind.

Because the end result was that municipal officials investigated and used subpoena power to force officials to disclose who was the source behind @peoriamayor.

THEN, THE POLICE went in. A raid, that wound up getting national attention a few months ago for its comical nature. The house was trashed. Police really didn’t find anything related to the Twitter account.

Daniel wasn’t even home at the time. He told the Chicago Tribune that he eventually went to the Police Department in Peoria, admitted the Twitter account was his, but wound up being charged with nothing.

After all, it’s not a crime to write nonsense and gibberish. I’m sure some clowns out there would argue I do it here every day.

The only person who wound up getting arrested from this police effort to be the mayor’s thugs was a Daniel friend who happened to be at the house at the time. And he only got arrested because police found marijuana in his possession.

PEORIA POLICE GO through all this trouble to investigate dissent and all they get out of it is a cheap drug bust!

Yes, Peoria city officials in this case are worthy of some embarrassment. And the lawsuit they’re now facing from Daniel may well be justified.

Yet that doesn’t mean I’m all that enthused about having to take up his cause and claim he’s some great defender of free speech – even though it seems that he regards himself as such.

When the gag that keeps getting repeated over-and-over in news accounts is the line from the Twitter account that had the Ardis character saying he was going to snort lines of cocaine while atop the Peoria Civic Center, it makes me wonder about the overall level of the site.

FART JOKES AND doody (or do you call it poo?) get old after one surpasses the age of six. Was this a site for people who mentally and emotionally can’t get over that hump? Freedom of speech really is just like the United Negro College Fund and the mind. It’s a terrible thing to waste!

For all the rhetoric we’re getting about how Daniel and his efforts were part of a great effort toward freedom of expression, I wonder about a site that tried to deceive people to think they were hearing from the actual mayor. I’d hope anyone with intelligence realized it wasn’t. But you never know with some individuals.

One final point – the ACLU attorneys who are representing Daniel in this case are comparing him to Thomas Nast and Jon Stewart and claiming that @peoriamayor was just another step in the great history of political parody.

Nast is long gone, and you can’t libel the dead. But if I were in Stewart’s position and had someone like this comparing this trivial work to that of The Daily Show, I’d give serious thought to filing a lawsuit claiming defamation of character!

  -30-

Will we get the finest governments our wealthiest choose to buy for us?

Leave it to the Supreme Court of the United States to give us a ruling that will make our electoral process even more intriguing.



Conservatives 'making' their mark?

And by intriguing, I mean annoying, chaotic and a total pain in the tushie!

HOW ELSE CAN anybody of sense interpret a ruling that lets the wealthiest amongst us use their money to give themselves an even bigger voice?

I know there are those who will claim this is a matter of “freedom of expression.” Which I just don’t buy. Writing out a check isn’t expression, it’s an action. There are many actions we can take that get regulated. This shouldn’t be any different.

There also are those who claim that this merely equals out the political playing field in that organized labor has assorted committees that produce significant funding for the Democratic Party interests they favor.

Why not let the Republicans have a good-sized wallet as well? It’s just that I’ve never really seen a starving GOP candidate’s campaign – unless it’s someone who’s such an ideological nitwit that he embarrasses the party operatives to the point where they are deliberately squeezing him dry.

THERE ARE ALREADY many business-oriented organizations that are more than capable of coming up with funds for the candidates of their preference. And we already have elections that skyrocket to record levels every election cycle.

Which funds the continued acts of trivial and hostile nonsense that takes over any serious comprehension of issues or what a candidate stands for.

Why would anyone think that throwing more gasoline/cash on the fire/campaign is an improvement?

Or are they bolstering 'free speech?'

 

But that is what the nation’s high court decided earlier this week when it eliminated the overall limit of money an individual can give in any particular cycle.

THE LIMITS ON donations to individual candidates remain. But now, people can give to as many candidates as they can afford. Before, they would hit the limit, and would have to pick and choose which people were worthy of their money.

It can be argued that the court decision came to us by a 5-4 vote, based on the ideological lines that divide the court. Which will have some arguing that it loses any legitimacy it might otherwise have.

Personally, I’m just dismayed that somebody wants to put more money into mindless campaign spending. Some people must think the most extremely wealthy deserve an even bigger voice because they most likely had an ancestor who was successful in business so they could get the inheritance.

And yes, this is a tiny group of people we’re talking about. The Center for Responsive Politics says that last year, only 591 people (out of the more than 300 million who live in the United States) made so many donations that they reached the now-defunct limit.

ANYBODY WHO THINKS I’m over-reacting ought merely to look at the election cycle we have now. It’s only early April, and we’ve already got an entire campaign’s worth of nonsense in the fight for governor.

We got a Republican primary where Bruce Rauner used his own significant wealth to fund his efforts, while also choking off any funding sources that his opponents might have tapped into.

Is this what more campaign cash gets us?

With seven months to go until the Nov. 4 elections, Rauner already is using financial resources to try to create the concept of Gov. Pat Quinn as an incumbent liar.

The only difference between the primary and now is that Quinn has his own ample funding to spew Rauner with months of dirt during the upcoming months.

ANYBODY WHO THINKS that the Supreme Court’s ruling will somehow give us more enlightened campaign rhetoric is seriously misguided.

For we in Illinois have seen how our governor’s campaign has devolved into the election between “Quinnochio” and “Mr. Burns.” Do we really need that, nationwide?

  -30-

Some need to read “1984” more closely

Before I start dumping all over the people who want to make an issue out of President Barack Obama’s intent to speak to this country’s schoolchildren next week via the Internet and television, let me state one point.

It is a cheap stunt.

OBAMA PLANS TO use the website www.whitehouse.gov, along with C-SPAN, to deliver a speech telling children about the significance of staying in school. He will be at a high school in the Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C., but all children in the United States who are in school on Tuesday will have the option of watching him.

It is a stunt meant to get the president into the news on an issue as innocuous as the need for an education. It will take place solely to give the president a few minutes of positive public relations value.

But it was no more of a stunt than the day when former President George W. Bush walked across an aircraft carrier with a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” in the background, trying to take credit for “winning” the war in the Middle East that he had managed to create.

Personally, I find Obama’s stunt to be a little bit less offensive than Bush’s now-famed stunt – which may well go into the history books as one of the all-timed tacky political stunts.

OF COURSE, POLITICAL stunts are not at all uncommon. Political officials by their very nature create stunts that are meant to put themselves in positive situations, especially if they can be staged in ways so that the only people who can get close enough to question the president will be someone harmless.

My guess is that Obama’s handlers think a group of Virginia high school students will not be able to come up with any questions or do anything else that will make the president look foolish.

And he will be able to claim he’s delivering an inspiring message to the nation’s youth, while also showing off the fact that he’s the first president who “gets” how to effectively use the Internet to deliver his message.

As though the ’08 presidential campaign wasn’t enough.

SO THE PEOPLE who are now getting worked up over this are right in thinking it is cheap public relations.

But since when has that ever been sufficient reason to dump on incumbent president, or any other political official?

I can’t help but be offended at the people who are now trying to turn this into some issue of a heinous official trying to poison the minds of the Youth of America with his own 21st Century vision of what this country is supposed to be about.

Could it be that these are people still stuck in the 20th Century (literally, I expect someone to bring up the novel “1984,” which included messages broadcast to the public in the workplaces and the schools – all as part of the effort to indoctrinate thought)?

IT TURNS OUT that some school districts in the Chicago area are giving parents the opportunity to keep their kids home from school on Tuesday, if they really, absolutely object to the idea of their young’uns sitting in a classroom and listening to the president for however long his stunt speech takes place.

They’re giving credence to people such as the man quoted in the Arlington Heights-based Daily Herald newspaper, who said Obama’s stunt, “makes me angry as an American.”

What makes me angry is that this person thinks silencing an incumbent leader is somehow the “American way” of thought.

My guess is that had these parents not decided to make an issue of this, most children would have sort of slumped through the speech paying half-attention to it, and most would have forgotten its message by day’s end.

NOW, IT IS being elevated to some sort of significant cause. People are going to be giving their kids the impression that skipping out on a political leader is somehow worthwhile.

It makes me wonder how many of these same parents were the ones who would always rant about Bush’s critics that they were being “disrespectful” to the office of President of the United States.

But now that the POTUS is someone of a different ideology, they think they ought to be able to dump on him at will?

Actually, they can. It is all part of that “freedom of expression” that is protected in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They have the right to disagree and make that disagreement known.

BUT JUST BECAUSE someone legally can say something does not always make it right. The lesson they are passing along to their kids about “respect” is questionable.

And anyway, there’s also the fact that that same “freedom of expression” gives me the right to respond. So here it goes.

There are some parents in the Chicago area who are mental halfwits if they think keeping their kids from listening to the president for a few minutes next week will somehow make the kids better human beings.

Those people probably need to do a re-read of “1984” if they think that limiting the exposure to alternate ideas somehow expands their own minds. Because ultimately, that was what the concept of “Big Brother” was about.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Some school districts are willing to let parents exempt their children from (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=318518) Barack Obama’s national attempt to talk to the school kids of America.