Mixed message on urban violence

Call it the advantage of multiple news organizations reporting happenings – we get a more-thorough picture of reality.

Or perhaps it is the concept of dueling news organizations – with the various sides unable to agree on what they want the message to be. Which still results in a greater picture of what is occurring within our society.

THOUGHTS THAT RUN through my mind as I peruse reports by the Chicago Sun-Times and WBBM-TV – both of which purport to be about the levels of violent crime and murder that are occurring in Chicago.

With some individuals of a certain ideological leaning eager to want to believe that the city of Chicago is amongst the grubbiest, grossest, most violent places that exist within the United States – if not anywhere on Planet Earth.

Which is a gross exaggeration, although there are certain neighborhoods where the levels of violence seem so intense that we have to wonder how we as a people could ever have let conditions get so out of hand in those places. Although many of us choose to cope with such conditions by ignoring such places altogether.

The Sun-Times took the angle in a story published Monday that this very weekend that marks the half-way point through 2019 is yet another of a bloody morass that is modern-day Chicago.

THE HEADLINE ALONE says it all – 56 shot – 4 fatally – in Chicago over weekend.

With a subhead pointing out one incident alone on Saturday where five people were shot on the Near West Side, although in that incident, it should be noted that all five individuals were able to get themselves to area hospitals where they were ‘treated and released’ for their wounds.

Bloodshed galore. It’s a wonder we don’t have Donald Trump engaging in yet another Twitter-motivated rant about how gory Chicago has become.

But then, there was the CBS-operated station in Chicago, which came out with a story the same morning indicating the number of shootings in Chicago are down for 2019 – compared to the past.

ALTHOUGH WBBM-TV INDICATED that this was a particularly harsh weekend of violence in Chicago, overall, it seems there are signs of improvement.

Some 1,229 shootings in Chicago through Sunday – about 100 less than the first half of 2018 and lower than any year since 2015.

Also, we have 236 murders in Chicago thus far this year – which the TV reports indicate is 21 less than the fist half of last year.

And certainly might put Chicago at about 260 or so slayings for this year – if things continue at this rate. Far less than the recent years when the homicide totals reached 700 or more (or the late 1980s when Chicago would easily come close to 1,000 murders annually.

SO WAS THIS Chicago Police Department spin control in trying to give us a bigger picture about the amount of violence and crime occurring in Chicago? Or is it ideological prattle to come up with tales of how bloody and out-of-control the city was on this past weekend?

Or is it really evidence that “facts” can be found to justify any point of view one wants to take on just about any issue.

Personally, I’m inclined to think that some people use the story of urban violence in such ways as to confirm whatever ideological hang-ups they have about life and our society – wanting to further lambast whomever or whatever they have contempt for.

Then again, to those four people who were killed this weekend prior to Independence Day in Chicago this year, it WAS a most-tragic period of time – a moment that their families will forevermore mourn for its great loss!

  -30-

‘white’ Sox the ones willing to meet with Donald Trump at White House

I’ll have to confess to experiencing a second or two of confusion when I learned of the blurb circulating on Twitter about how it was the white Sox who were willing to meet later this week with President Donald Trump.

Red Sox shortstop-turned-manager won't go

Actually, it is the Boston Red Sox who are making the trip to the White House on Thursday to fulfill the sporting tradition that a championship sports team gets to meet the president, shake hands and experience some of the aura of being at the presidential mansion.

IT’S SORT OF like the athletes who joke about “going to Disney World” to celebrate their sporting success.

But in the case of the Red Sox, it seems like it’s going to be a split squad of ballplayers who actually make the trip to the District of Columbia – which was timed to coincide with the Red Sox’ trip to nearby Baltimore to play the Orioles,

News reports out of Boston indicate that all of the Red Sox players who are black or of Latin American origins (with the exception of J.D. Martinez, who is of Cuban ethnicity) are the ones making a point of skipping a trip to see Trump, and his orange dye job that we’re supposed to pretend is a natural tanned complexion. Team manager Alex Cora, who is Puerto Rican, also is not participating, because he thinks Trump has been disrespectful to the Caribbean island commonwealth.

Whereas the white players, who probably think they’re being all-American, are the ones who will show up and allow themselves to be used by the president to build up political good will.

Ortiz wouldn't go, if he were still playing

OR WILL IT be the partial ballclub that is using the presidency to try to throw some sense of legitimacy to themselves? As though their World Series championship of 2018 isn’t enough praise in and of itself.

Personally, I always thought that sport teams visiting with politicians was just a bit phony. Since when it comes to professional athletes, we’re usually talking about the kinds of guys who could care less about politics.

They probably figure the politicos were the kinds of people who couldn’t hit a curve ball, so why should they care.

While some political people wind up going so overboard with their fandom and drooling for a taste of athletic glamour that they tend to embarrass themselves in the presence of ballplayers.

Bryant WAS willing to go, back in 2017

OF COURSE, THERE was the happening when the 2016 champion Chicago Cubs team managed to gain dual White House appearances. Outgoing President Barack Obama made a point of squeezing in a ball club visit in the final weeks before he departed the White House.

Then, Trump would not be deprived, He offered up a second visit – which saw a partial Cubs squad consisting mostly of the white players (Anthony Rizzo, Kris Bryant and Jon Lester were among those who attended) participate in the presence of Donald Trump.

Now, it seems that the national sense of hostility that is characteristic of this Age of Trump is making this the trend of all such athletic visits.

Although I also suspect many of the Trump supporters who are sports fans don’t object in the least – they probably see the Red Sox visit as consisting of the “real” American players, and probably fantasize about having the “foreigners” up for deportation the moment the lose a mile or two on the speed of their fast balls.

Would Abreu be welcomed at future visit?

WHICH REALLY IS a shame, in that professional athletics once was thought to be a place within our society where we could put aside the ideological nonsense of partisan politics.

Instead, it allows politics to stage a hostile takeover, of sorts, of sports.

There is one semi-humorous aspect of the pun that the white Sox are visiting the White House. For anybody who’s paid any attention knows the Chicago White Sox are still quite a ways away from the championship that we’re being told will result of the ballclub’s rebuild and would warrant a White House invitation.

Trump can only dream

But with the degree to which this team is counting on Latin American talent to bolster itself (Jose Abreu, Yoan Moncada and promising minor league star Luis Robert are all Cuban-born, just to name a few), would that create a future White Sox championship team entirely unwilling to be seen in the company of The Donald? Or would Trump snub the ball club altogether?

  -30-

Is the presence of Democratic Socialists in City Council really much change?

The concession by Deb Mell of her defeat for re-election to her City Council seat (the one held previously by her father since 1975) has some speculating about the significant change our aldermen will undergo.

RAMIREZ-ROSA: Head of new 'caucus?'

Particularly with the fact that this means there will now be six (out of 50) of the city’s aldermen choosing to use the political label of “Democratic Socialists” to identify themselves – rather than straightforward Democrats.

YET I CAN’T really see significant change in the ways of the City Council. Other than that there may be a few more loudmouths willing to refuse to speak in lock-step with the desires of the mayor.

Then again, with this new mayor who will take over May 20, these not-quite Democrats may well wind up being Lori Lightfoot’s biggest allies. Unless they decide they just want to be outspoken opponents of anybody who happens to be mayor.

Much of my own feeling about the idea of Democratic Socialists in the City Council is based on the fact that most of these so-called radicals (five of the six) are going to be members of the Latino caucus.

Jeannette Taylor, the new alderman of the city’s 20^th Ward on the South Side, is an African-American woman. She’s the lone exception.

OTHERWISE, THIS DEMOCRATIC Socialist movement appears to be something that is a part of the Latino segment of Chicago. It could mean that paying attention to the Latino caucus will be the thing to do for individuals who want to see government officials who can’t get along.

GARCIA: If they challenge Chuy, that's radical

Yet that isn’t a radical idea.

If anything, the idea that Latino politicos aren’t a single, unified voice is nothing new at all. It is the reason why Latino political power and influence isn’t anywhere near as strong in Chicago as it should be.

The city’s Latino political people have always been something to be split into two groups – known informally as the Daley-type aldermen and the activist-type aldermen.

BASICALLY, THERE WERE those people of Latino ethnic origins who made the effort to become a part of the city’s government establishment – figuring that to become part of the system would ensure that the Spanish-speaking enclaves those officials represent would get their fair share of the municipal pie.

MELL: No more!

They were the ones who would ally themselves with the former Mayors Daley and be supportive – figuring that they weren’t a strong-enough entity on their own to be able to resist.

Then there were the activist types – the ones who figured that being too close to the Daley or their backers would merely prevent them from trying to advance their own goals for their communities.

If anything, watching the Latino caucus throughout the years has always been an adventure in political infighting, and seeing how the two groups would try to undermine each other’s efforts. Come Elections Day, they’d each be endorsing opponents to the other side – with hopes they could knock off some incumbents and shift the balance to their side.

NOW, IT WOULD seem that some people who would have been outspoken proponents of this latter-type group are giving themselves the formal label of Democratic Socialists – which, simply put, believes in the social freedoms of Democracy while thinking that the business principles of capitalism undermines any effort to achieve a Democratic society

Although there are times I wonder if the people who spew such rhetoric have merely spent too much time in their youths wearing those t-shirts with pictures of Che Guevara on them – without truly comprehending who Che was or what he meant.

I also think that those people who focus too intently on the “socialist” part of the label are missing the point – as I suspect the real Communists of the world would view the Democratic Socialists as the ultimate hostile enemy.

So is Socialism spreading to City Hall? Most likely, not really!

IT’S MORE LIKE the outspoken portion of the Latino caucus has given itself a new label, and has one ally amongst the council’s Black caucus. As far as the partisan split of the technically non-partisan aldermen, it is one Republican (Anthony Napolitano) along with the six (incumbent Carlos Ramirez Rosa, 35^th Ward, Daniel La Spata, 1^st Ward, Byron Sigcho-Lopez, 25^th Ward, 33^rd Ward, who beat Mell, Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, Andre Vasquez, 40^th Ward, and Taylor) Democratic Socialists.

Still likely to be the same nonsense at City Hall

Which means that 43 of the aldermen still identify themselves as standard-issue Democrats. Most of whom can’t “play nice” with each other – meaning the City Council still has potential for political chaos, just like usual.

  -30-

EXTRA: 5-4; How predictable!

I wish I could say I was shocked and appalled Wednesday morning, but I’m really not.

KAGAN: Former U of C prof wrote dissent

Shocked, at least.

FOR THE SUPREME Court of the United States issued the ruling that had been feared by anybody with a sense of fairness toward people who work for a living.

In Janus vs. AFSCME Council 31 (which represents state government workers right here in Illinois), the high court ruled that those employees were having their right to free expression infringed upon by having union dues deducted from their paychecks.

The effect of the ruling is that labor unions are getting harassed in ways meant to undermine their influence and ability to protect the interests of their members – the people who do the work.

That is the intent. The people who favor this ruling are the ones who want to undermine organized labor, and they’re hoping that by making it more difficult for unions to collect the dues upon which they rely for their operating funds, they can undermine their ability to serve their role.

BASICALLY, IT’S THE ruling for those people who are upset that Illinois has never shown any inclination to become a “right to work” state – a place where union membership cannot be required to have a job and where companies are given free reign to do whatever they can in order to discourage their workers from even wanting to have union representation.

RAUNER: He's happy, but not for long?

This ruling actually was anticipated. It was figured by many that the growing ideological margin among the high court’s composition would result in an anti-labor ruling.

Sure enough, the 5-4 vote was purely partisan – with Justice Elena Kagan (a one-time University of Chicago Law School professor) writing the dissent and Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing an additional legal opinion in support of her.

About the only person I can think of who is truly pleased is Gov. Bruce Rauner, since such a ruling fits in completely with his vision that government needs to completely undermine organized labor influence – a view that is the reason many believe he’s likely to get tossed out of office on his keister come the Nov. 6 elections.

  -30-

Is it finally Danny Boy’s time to leave Congress, or will he gain another term?

Dan Lipinski has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 14 years, and by all rights ought to have all the political benefits of incumbency when it comes to getting re-elected.

Does Dan Lipinski wish he could be ...

Yet the realities of partisan politics may have changed enough that Lipinski is now at risk of losing the Congressional seat he inherited when his father, William, retired following a political career that saw him rise from the ranks of a South Side alderman to a member of Congress.

OR MAYBE HE isn’t going to lose. That is the big unanswered questions on the Chicago political scene this election cycle.

Every cycle, Lipinski has to answer allegations that he’s too conservative to be a Chicago-area congressman, and in fact has so many ideological leanings to the right that he has no business identifying himself as a Democrat.

Not that it has worked in the past. There are many people who  have tried challenging Dan Lipinski since he gave up a university teaching position in Tennessee in 2004 to return to the Chicago area and replace his father on Capitol Hill.

None of them put up a serious challenge. To the point where I understand why Lipinski, the younger, would go into this election cycle feeling confident that he could beat off yet another “misguided liberal-type” of political dreamer.

BUT THIS ELECTION cycle is turning out to be the one in which a liberal-type might actually win the primary election to be held Tuesday. Which, of course, would result in a Nov. 6 general election victory, since even the Republican Party is openly appalled at the thought that they’re likely to nominate Art Jones, a white supremacist, to run for them.

So will Marie Newman, a small businesswoman, manage to elevate herself to Congress by the benefit of running at the right time? Or will Lipinski manage to gain himself yet another two-year term representing Chicago’s Southwest Side neighborhoods and surrounding suburbs?

... same old-school Dem as his father, Bill?

Is Lipinski, a Democrat with a significant voting record in line with Republican partisan interests, truly out of line with his constituents?

That is a question I have been pondering for several months now.

BECAUSE THE DISTRICT is one that is pretty much the remnants of the old South Side of Chicago – one that was ‘white ethnic’ in composition and one that most definitely didn’t think of itself as sympathetic to the interests of African-Americans.

A part of me jokes that the people who support Lipinski in Congress are the children and grand-children of the same Chicago residents who, back in 1968, cheered for the Chicago police officers who beat up the ‘hippie freaks’ who protested in Grant Park during the Democratic National Convention and who were offended when the resulting investigation classified the incident as a “police riot.”

As though the rest of the world was out of whack with their sense of morals. Just as I’m sure Lipinski-backers feel about Newman and her supporters.

Personally, I’ve always understood Lipinski’s Democratic Party identity is tied to his support for issues related to organized labor and unions. I have no doubt that someone like Gov. Bruce Rauner, with all his ideological rhetoric on such issues that he tries to bill as “reform” probably thinks of Lipinski as being just as much a part of the “problem” as Michael Madigan.

TO THE POINT where I don’t expect the hard-core Republicans think much of him just because on abortion or many other social issues, he sympathizes with their political party’s platform. There are those who have no problem thinking of Dan Lipinski as a Democrat. They're the ones who are the target for a Twitter campaign trying to portray Newman as anti-Catholic -- so Vote for Dan!

NEWMAN: Will she bring Ill. 3rd into 21st Century?

Newman is trying to inspire the people whose political leanings are influenced primarily by those very social issues to rise up and vote for her. Dump Dan Lipinski, is their battle cry. Many Democratic-leaning national organizations are offering up support to her.

But will it work. Is the motivation amongst many progressive-minded voters to dump anyone perceived as not openly hostile to Donald Trump capable of providing enough voter support to enable Newman to beat Lipinski?

Or is there still enough of the old spirit of the Sout’ Side remaining to send Dan back to Capitol Hill? We’ll know better come Tuesday night.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: I happened to read through some of the old copy published at this weblog when I found this Feb. 3, 2008 commentary about Lipinski being challenged by Mark Pera (remember him, I don’t). It amazes me about how some realities of Chicago and its political scene haven’t changed one bit during the past decade.

Baseball taught me about differences between people’s skills, character

We’re at the point now where it seems we get nearly a daily addition to the list of people in prominent posts who think that women are supposed to swoon over the very thought of their sexuality.

Ultimate gap between skills, character?

Personally, I’ve lost track of who’s actually on the list – and tend to notice many people go out of their way to highlight those individuals whose politically partisan leanings are counter to their own.

AS THOUGH PEOPLE who agree with them on other issues can get caught up in what some have dubbed “perv-gate” and be forgiven.

But for those whom their real hang-up is something unrelated – a professional death to them, and perhaps a fantasy vision of castration as well.

We’re at the point where I’m giving up on trying to keep track as to who got a little too handsy with a female colleague, or who felt it absolutely essential to expose their genitalia out of some delusion that the lady would think of the sight as the highlight of her life.

And, in fact, I’m starting to think that it’s a good thing I’m a big fan of professional baseball.

BECAUSE IT HAS exposed me to the reality that these ballplayers who use their physical skills to play a boy’s game often have mental hang-ups that make it seem as though their emotional development was arrested at about age 13.

Still some humor in old Franken bits

I remember the way I behaved back when I was that age, and in retrospect I wonder how those fellow-13-year-old females managed to put up with us overly-horny (but mostly incapable of doing anything about it) slobs.

Although it’s not necessarily limited to sexual thought.

My point is that I realized a long time ago that the guys who were more than capable of making a diving stop of a hard-hit ground ball to prevent it from getting through the infield for a base hit often were equally unskilled at the subtleties of life itself.

PERHAPS THE ULTIMATE example of this is Pete Rose, the one-time Cincinnati Reds star from their championship days of the 1970s who was an addicted gambler and whose habit got to the point where he was taking in so much money; while not reporting the extent of his winnings to the Internal Revenue Service.

Perhaps a Curry/Lauer confrontation justified?

He’s a convicted tax cheat, so to speak, who did a few months in prison. He continues to be denied admission to Baseball’s Hall of Fame – usually the ultimate recognition of athletic greatness. And for that matter, I remember the stories from when he was a ballplayer about the adulterous behavior on his part.

Then again, a lot of ballplayers I have heard of play around on “the road.” As in they’re young men traveling about from city to city, and fill the void of loneliness with whichever young lady happens to be available (and often willing).

The ability to hit .333 or smack 40 or so home runs on a regular basis doesn’t automatically make one a quality human being. Keep that in mind, and it makes it possible to keep following baseball.

IT MAKES ME wonder if a similar attitude ought to be applied to other people. Comedian-turned-Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has his humorous moments (although I’ll admit to always finding his “Stuart Smiley” character annoying). I can’t really think less of his performing because he gets handsy with women.

Judicial robes add layer of creepiness to Moore instances

I actually think it is an issue where the women who were offended by someone else’s character toward them ought to deal with the issue themselves. I semi-seriously say they would have been justified in administering a knee-to-the-groin at the time of the incident.

I’d say that also applies to the work of now-former Today Show host Matt Lauer, or even that of Lake Wobegon creator Garrison Keillor. Why should we have ever thought of them as superior at anything – other than their work? And as for our president’s boorish behavior with women throughout the years, we all know he’s deficient as a human being. It didn’t stop him from winning an election!

We’ve all got our strengths and all got our flaws. Unless we cross over the line into criminality (which is potentially what U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore of Alabama did with those underage girls all those decades ago). But that’s a different issue.

  -30-

News media too trivial to be liberal; the reminisces of a reporter-type person

I get noble ideas occasionally about how being a reporter-type person is my contribution to society, but some of the modern-day world realities make me contemplate that what I do is spread triviality instead.

I still own one, although I can't recall last time I used it

I can’t help but reflect upon what has become of the newsgathering business – and not just because some dink voters these days enjoy the idea their newly-elected congressman committed assault on a British newspaperman.

TOO MANY NEWS people spend too much of their time trying to recycle the stories they’ve already reported into so many venues so as to draw attention to our original published reports. It takes time away from finding new news stories.

Yet I suspect that too many of the people who think they’re being informed by what appears on their social media accounts never bother to go beyond the dinky 140-character blurbs (if they use Twitter) or pithy single-sentence (if on Facebook) accounts to see the real story. It’s no wonder the masses are clueless.

It can be a humbling experience to think that the 1,100-word story I wrote recently out of Gary, Ind., for the Post-Tribune will only capture the public attention for about 20 words – and no more.

It causes a trivialization of the information we gather, which is what leads me to say that the concept of a “liberal” media really is a myth. We have a “trivial” media, with too much space taken up by fluff that fills column inches.

WHICH MAY BE why readership is down, publications shrink to offer less space and the quality of the product declines even further. An endless cycle – even though the ideologues amongst us want to believe it’s because we don’t pander to their narrow thought.

Yet still, I have to confess to feeling the urge to be a reporter-type person. In some ways, the desire to be the eyes and ears of the community is all the more important now in this hyper-partisan era than it was that day some three decades ago that I walked across a stage and was handed a college diploma.

My strongest memory from that day (aside from thinking that our commencement speaker was deadly dull and that it rained during part of the outdoor ceremony) was that I felt pleased in knowing that I had a job interview scheduled for later that week.

Still a comforting sensation

As things turned out, that newspaper in suburban Chicago Heights didn’t think I was totally useless and wound up putting me to work beginning Monday.

THE 30-YEAR ANNIVERSARY of which occurred this week. My first news assignment was covering a plan commission hearing in Orland Park held entirely in executive session (meaning I sat outside while officials met privately) and I had to try to decipher what was taking place inside.

Since then, I’ve had my share of interesting (and historically-significant) moments. But much has changed since the days when Ronald Reagan and Harold Washington were actual living beings, rather than pseudo-iconic figures to differing segments of our society (including the ones most upset we don’t cater exclusively to their ideological beliefs).

For one thing, that Chicago Heights newspaper is no more. Neither is the old City News Bureau for whom I once toiled. United Press International for whom a part of me will always think myself tied still exists in some form, but the old bureaus in Chicago and Springfield, Ill., where I worked are no more.

In fact, I was the one who had to pack up the belongings of that latter bureau when it closed. It’s enough to make me feel like a professional “kiss of death” to news organizations. Perhaps I should keep quiet about it, lest my current employer get paranoid about my potential influence and give me yet another job layoff.

A long-lost image we'd like to keep of ourselves

ALTHOUGH IF I think of the equipment I have used throughout the years, it seems like a collection of antique junk – although I must confess to still owning a Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 100 computer. The famed “Trash 80” that a generation of reporters relied upon to file copy – which can’t do anywhere near what my laptop can these days.

I recall when a “fax” machine was a newsroom novelty and it was considered a revolutionary act that organizations could instantly send us statements or other detailed information. Honestly, I can’t even remember the last time I got a fax. And I’m sure that when I did, it was for something stupid and trivial.

I also recall the habit of always scanning a room for the nearest payphone in case I had to make a quickie call. Actually, I still do that, even though more and more there are no payphones anywhere to be used.

But the ultimate change may be that I actually wrote my first stories on typewriters, whereas one of my contemporary (and about two-decades younger) news colleagues admitted recently to never having touched a typewriter in her life.

IT’S ENOUGH TO make me feel antique. Particularly since some people think these changing tools ARE the significance of the news business, instead of merely new toys to “play” with on the job. As though I endured all that prep time early in life just so I could talk to anonymous schmoes what they think of the latest mindless ramblings of our political geeks.

Even more so than the fact I remember who were Carmen Fanzone and Harry Chappas, while most people merely draw a blank in their eyes at the mention of the one-time infielders who bobbled many a ball on both sides of Chicago but were entertaining in their own unique ways.

  -30-

Trump picks a side he wants to be on ideologically. Hillary will have to do the same soon if she wants to win

It has become a common rant by more liberal-minded groups trying to stir up opposition to Donald Trump’s presidential dreams – he’ll appoint a whole slew of justices to the Supreme Court of the United States who will undo everything we have done.

Of course, there are conservative ideologues who don’t trust Trump – they think he’s just a little too big-city Manhattan-oriented to truly represent the concerns of the political party that likes to believe that big cities represent everything that’s wrong with this country.

SOME OF THEM even think Trump can’t be trusted to pick the kind of high court justices they want – the kind who can be counted on to rig the legal system to benefit their partisan political beliefs.

So it wasn’t a surprise that Trump this week made public a list of 11 judges whom he said would be his picks for the Supreme Court – should he get elected in the November general elections.

All 11 are judges who typically come up on the list of conservative political operatives when they dream about having courts that would view liberalism as some sort of crime.

It would seem that the list is part of a tactic by Trump to gain, if not the love, at least the tolerance, of the conservative ideologues whose preferred presidential candidates all were defeated by Donald back during the primary season.

IT IS A tactic to appease the people who might seriously give thought to backing a third-party presidential candidate or, worse yet, not even bother to vote at all.

Which actually is the strategy of the campaign of Hillary Clinton for president. Hope that the American people are so repulsed at Trump’s garishness that they don’t bother to vote – which could make their faction just large enough to win the general election.

I really don’t know how the election cycle will shake out by autumn, although I don’t think there is anyone who is really enthused about picking from either Trump or Clinton.

Then again, maybe I wasn’t alone in thinking that there wasn’t anyone in the running for president during any primary season who was worth my vote. It really was quite the collection of mediocrities that led us to this point of deciding to vote for the candidate less likely to make us spew chunks!

AS FOR TRUMP’S list of judges, it is predictable – a collection of names that only legal geeks would recognize. We’re going to have to take the word of political observers that the legal minds assembled here are truly ideologically hard-core enough to appease the kind of people who want rigid adherence to a law that favors them, and only them.

I don’t think the list means much, in and of itself.

But it is a gesture of the type that could get more people interested in bothering to cast a ballot for Trump. Get enough supporters, and Donald wins the right to live and work in the Oval Office for a four-year period.

Or perhaps it will be Clinton who will wind up having to make more gestures to try to appease enough would-be backers to bother to turn out to vote.

SOMEONE IS GOING to have to give the American people something in the way of a reason for people to bother to turn out to vote.

Because despite all those silly hats about “making America great again,” this is not an election cycle that will get the public all worked up.

This is one where I suspect many people are going to hold their noses pinched shut while casting their ballots, and others will spend their lives living down the shame over just how they will cast their ballot just over six months from now.

  -30-

A political cockfight?!?

It almost feels like we’re in some dingy, hidden-away structure where a batch of grungy men are gathered around, ready to plunk down their cash as bets on which of two wild roosters are about to win the fight they’re being thrown into.

The mood is gloomy once again at the Illinois Statehouse

The cocks themselves are snarling and squawking, readying themselves for the attack – which is about to occur any second.

NOW IF OUR cocks were named “Bruce Rauner” and “Michael Madigan,” we’d have a sense of what we’re about to experience in coming weeks – if not months.

It’s going to be a partisan political battle to the death, so to speak. And the people of Illinois are the ones who will inadvertently be thrown into the middle because there’s always the chance that the political battle will draw the state into the shutdown status IF they can’t agree on a budget for the upcoming fiscal year by July 1.

We’re at the point now where we’re one week away from the end of the 2015 spring legislative session. In typical years, there might still be some significant disagreements about what the state budget should be.

But there ought to be hope, and even some signs, that the sides will come together and hammer out some sort of agreement.

NOT THIS YEAR!

Rauner is making it clear he has his ideological agenda in mind, and he’s not about to take any guff from legislators who want to oppose him. Likewise, legislators want to make it clear they’re not about to let the new governor who got elected because of his anti-organized labor leanings just ram his desires down their throats.

RAUNER: The new guy?!?

And Illinois House Speaker Madigan wants it to be known that HE is the long-time, almighty boss of state government, not Rauner.

That sentiment is what has been behind the various bills the Legislature has rejected in recent days that theoretically advance the Rauner agenda – Madigan is letting it be known that a majority of legislators don’t approve of the “right to work” rhetoric that Rauner is fond of spewing.

RAUNER’S DESIRE TO fight back is what was behind his own statement, which his aides likely wrote for him and was published Thursday in the State Journal-Register newspaper of Springfield.

After ranting that political interests at the Statehouse are more entrenched than he ever envisioned during the 2014 campaign cycle, he made it clear he’s not about to compromise anything.

MADIGAN: The ol' pro!?!

“I might be new around here, but I understand what I was sent to do,” he said, adding that legislators ought to, “expect a very long extra session.” His aides were so eager to make sure I saw this statement that they e-mailed me a message Thursday morning to point it out.

So will our state’s General Assembly finish up its business by the end of next week, thereby sparing us a mass of political drama during the summer months?

FAT CHANCE. WE’D have a better chance of expecting the Chicago White Sox to rise from fourth place to first by season’s end.

All of this is so reminiscent of the 1991 legislative session – which was the first one in which Jim Edgar was governor. He wanted to run a sparse government in hopes of building up reserves for the future, while Madigan had his own vision.

The legislative session, which back then ran through the end of June, ended without a budget, and we reached a point where some government agencies had to shut down until a budget was in place. It became an Edgar/Madigan stalemate; where Edgar prevailed in the short-term by showing he wouldn't meekly back down.

 

EDGAR: Could he advise Rauner?

I still remember the matter not being resolved until the early hours of July 19 – which was a record back then. Although there have been other stalemates since then, including some of the ones brought about by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s desire to show Madigan who was boss.

ONE CAN ARGUE that Madigan is the ultimate winner; Edgar is long retired and Blagojevich remains incarcerated. Now, it seems that Rauner will be the latest person who works his way onto the list.

It seems that Rauner has the will for such a political battle. Madigan has long shown us his ability to be pig-headed and stubborn for political reasons. I don’t know who will win.

But I’m pretty sure that such a battle will catch all of us in the middle, and make us the ultimate losers!

  -30-