Should Roland, Roland, Roland roll his way out of the Capitol Hill scene?

I’m reluctant to get too worked up over the Roland Burris saga these days because it seems that everybody who is willing to come out and demand a piece of Burris’ political scalp is doing so to promote his or her own self-interest.

The reporter-type person in me gets repulsed at being used to promote anyone’s personal agenda. It seems to me like saying “Roland Must Go!” would do little more than give someone a jolt of self-gratification as they use the predicament of the incumbent junior senator from Illinois to score political points for themselves.

SO WHILE I’LL be the first to admit that Burris didn’t tell “the whole truth” when he testified last month before an Illinois House panel that eventually recommended impeachment for now-former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, I still don’t believe he committed the offense of perjury.

He answered what he was asked, and too much of the rhetoric being spewed this week is coming from political types who want to obscure the fact that the Illinois House panel didn’t do as effective a job as it could have in grilling the one-time state attorney general for how much contact he had with Blagojevich and his aides before getting the Senate appointment.

That hasn’t stopped political people from trying to get attention for themselves by taking a potshot at Roland Burris.

Take Sara Feigenholtz, the state legislator from the Lakeview neighborhood who wants to replace Rahm Emanuel in Congress. I woke up Wednesday morning to an e-mail-ed press release telling me that even the “lady from Cook” wants Roland to go away.

THAT STATEMENT SEEMED to me to be little more than an attempt to distinguish herself from the couple dozen people running in the special election to replace Rahm as the Northwest Side’s member of Congress. Except that congressional opponent Mike Quigley made the same demand.

And when I learned that Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., also was calling for a Burris resignation from the Senate, I couldn’t help but remember that the Evanston resident was one of the people who once dreamed of getting an appointment to the Senate seat abandoned by Barack Obama when he won the 2008 presidential election.

Does Schakowsky think that she can persuade Gov. Pat Quinn to give her the appointment, should the Senate seat from Illinois manage to open up again with a Burris resignation?

It even came across as trite when William Daley, brother of the current mayor and son of the legendary one, said that Burris needs to do “serious reflection” about whether he truly wants to endure the ridicule to which he will be subjected for the next two years if he remains in the U.S. Senate.

DALEY HIMSELF HAS been the subject of speculation that he wants to have a political post that would make him something of an equivalent to his mayoral brother, Rich.

While most people usually mention Illinois governor as the post of choice for the one-time Commerce secretary (whose highlight of his stint was when he passed out from the hot lights used at his introductory press conference), perhaps Bill thinks “Sen. William Daley, D-Ill.,” would be an acceptable title for him to have.

In short, Democrats are showing that they are just as capable of using the Burris predicament to promote their own causes as are Republican political people.

These are the ones who are constantly throwing out the word “perjury” to make it appear that Roland Burris is just a few seconds away from being hauled off to the minimum-security prison camp at Oxford, Wis.

NOT THAT THEY really expect Burris to receive an “Oxford education” in his aging years. They just want an outraged electorate consisting of people who will vote for anyone except a Democrat come the 2010 statewide elections.

This idea of self-interest even extends to the newspaper editorials that are now starting to appear.

On Wednesday, the Chicago Tribune, the Times of Northwest Indiana and the State Journal-Register of Springfield, Ill., all ran editorials demanding that Burris step down from the Senate.

I don’t think those newspapers seriously expect Roland Burris’ ego to allow him to contemplate resignation. But those newspapers got significant attention outside of their circulation areas. The Tribune in particular got a free plug on just about every national newscast Wednesday as being the hometown paper that had the nerve to use the “r” word in connection with Burris.

ONE NEWSPAPER THAT did NOT call for resignation was the Chicago Sun-Times. As the newspaper wrote about its editorial board process earlier this week, “we knew it would be useless to call on Burris to resign – he won’t.”

Yet even they managed to turn a Burris editorial into a self-serving promotion for itself. They used an editorial to tout the fact that it was the Sun-Times that originally published stories that showed discrepancies between what Burris told the Illinois House impeachment panel and what he now concedes to be fact about the process by which he became a U.S. senator.

They turned it into an editorial explaining why newspapers continue to be relevant in our society, saying it was possible that we wouldn’t know anything about this situation if not for the one-time “Bright One.”

I don’t quite know if I believe that. That supplemental paperwork sent by Burris to Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, would have become public eventually.

BUT I WILL give the newspaper some credit in realizing that adding to the echoes caused by repeated pleas for resignation will do little good.

Anybody who doubts me ought to listen to Burris’ own words when he addressed the Chicago City Club on Wednesday.

Burris made it clear he believes he has done nothing wrong, saying, “if I had done the things I am accused of, I’d be embarrassed to stand up here because I consider you my friends.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Newspapers from both Chicagoland (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0218edit1feb18,0,6946762.story) and downstate (http://www.sj-r.com/editorials/x426330687/Our-Opinion-Absent-minded-Burris-should-step-aside) feel the need to speak out against Roland Burris in the U.S. Senate. Even a Hoosier-based newspaper, albeit one whose circulation area spills over into Illinois and Chicago, felt (http://nwi.com/articles/2009/02/18/opinion/times_editorials/doc0b86fe8eac4ea73a86257560007eb6ef.txt) a need to take an editorial stance.

Roland won’t resign, but aren’t newspapers (http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1434277,CST-EDT-edit17.article) wonderful?

Are the White Sox putting themselves on the verge of Obama overkill?

I’m curious to see what happens Wednesday in Glendale, Ariz.

This is the day at which the Chicago White Sox are hoping to have a “special guest” visit them at their new spring training facility in the suburbs of Phoenix. The team is trying to take advantage of the fact that all the political people of any significance in Chicago root for them (compared to the Cubs, whose biggest political fan is now-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich).

AMONG THOSE PEOPLE who root for the White Sox is the guy who lives in the White House.

Yes, Barack Obama is doing his tour of the U.S. to tout the benefits of the now-approved stimulus package that Republican politicos will be all too quick to demonize if it doesn’t work 100 percent perfectly.

And with that tour bringing him to the Southwestern U.S. on Wednesday, White Sox officials figured perhaps they could get the president to show up.

Considering that Obama these days is behaving as though he’s still on the campaign trail rather than serving as the Leader of the Free World, perhaps it would only be natural for him to show up at a ballpark and let himself be seen with the White Sox pitchers and catchers who are required to show up early.

THE BIG GUNS of the White Sox lineup (including Jim Thome, whose home-run in that tie-breaking end-of-season game last October gave the Sox the division title over the Minnesota Twins) won’t be on hand for another couple of weeks.

Yet I really want to believe that an executive of any type (except for the chairman of the White Sox, Jerry Reinsdorf) is too busy these days to be spending a leisurely day (or even just an hour or so) at the ballpark.

Not that this is the only opportunity Obama is being offered to help tout the ball club that represents Chicago’s South Side.

The White Sox also have offered to have him be present to do “first pitch” honors at their opening game of the 2009 season against the Kansas City Royals. Considering that the president usually gets the first pitch duties at the opening game of the entire season, it would serve to put the White Sox in a prominent point of the Major League Baseball schedule if it were to happen.

BUT SHOULD IT turn out to be impossible for Obama to be back in Chicago to attend a game at U.S. Cellular Field in early April, there’s also another chance for the president to do some sort of White Sox-related duty.

The Charlotte Knights, a professional baseball club in the International League, also wants Obama to do the “first pitch” honors at one of their games.

I have never heard of U.S. presidents doing first pitch duties at minor league ball games.

But the fact that the Charlotte team is the top-level minor league affiliate of the White Sox could give Obama a chance to show off that ratty old cap he persists in wearing. Perhaps he can even figure out a way to do some politicking in North Carolina in conjunction with the ball game.

MY POINT IN engaging in this diatribe is to wonder if the White Sox are getting a tad ridiculous in their promoting the fact that when Obama was a South Side resident, he was inclined to go along with his neighborhood ties and attend games at 35th Street and Bill Veeck Drive (a.k.a., Shields Avenue).

It borders on tacky behavior for the White Sox (who even have a portion of their team website devoted to the fact that Obama does not wear the baby-blue and red cap of the Chicago Cubs) to continually tout his presence.

It is more obnoxious than those television spots the team used a few years ago that gave us reasons why the White Sox were superior that included as their ultimate reason, “The Mayor Likes Us Better.”

True sports fandom is something that can’t be forced, although it can be cheapened with such repetitive (and ridiculous) stunts as constantly trying to remind us whose cap Obama chooses to wear when he goes jogging, or shopping, or engages in any casual activity.

IT MAY GET to the point where some people try to dump on the White Sox because Obama is aligned with them.

I couldn’t help but notice that Topps Chewing Gum (the people who for decades have done baseball cards) came out with a 90-card set that depicts the political life of Obama. One card uses the photograph of Obama in a jersey and cap throwing out the first pitch prior to one of the American League playoff games from 2005 (what a wonderful year).

But in that photo, the Old English Script “Sox” logo has been airbrushed off the jersey and cap. The end result looks generic, and some people might see the dark pinstripes on the jersey and presume he’s wearing a New York Yankees outfit.

I’m sure the very thought makes many a South Sider shudder almost as much as the sight of that Obama-themed White Sox cap that is now for sale.

BUT IF THE White Sox had much in the way of sense (I wonder at times), they’d ease up on trying to ram down our throats at every opportunity the fact that Obama is not among the people who dance with glee every time they get within a half-mile of Clark and Addison streets.

We’ve all seen him in the “Sox” cap. We get it. Quit behaving in ways that make being a “Sox” fan seem as tacky as the sight of Blagojevich in that Cubs jersey with his name sewn on his back shoulders.

-30-

Photograph provided by State of Illinois.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that Lipinski wouldn’t back Obama on stimulus

There are some political observers who will be amazed that a member of the Democratic congressional delegation from Chicago did not vote in support of the stimulus package touted by our hometown president, Barack Obama.

But I would have been surprised if Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., had not thrown up some sort of stink, or protest, or other comment of concern. For Lipinski truly takes after his father, former Chicago alderman and Rep. Bill Lipinski, D-Ill., when it comes to going along with the Democratic caucus on partisan issues.

THEY’RE BOTH THE kind of Democrats inclined to think it sad that the “liberals” have taken over the party. But both have too much sympathy to organized labor and people who have to do physical labor to earn a living to ever seriously entertain the notion of becoming a Republican.

Lipinski the elder was a Southwest Side guy, while his son has taken to living in the surrounding (Western Springs, to be exact) suburbs – even though he takes after his father politically. Somewhat conservative on social issues, he’s willing to fight for federal funding for mass transit programs.

Bill Lipinski considered mass transit to be his pet issue, and Dan Lipinski made it clear with his stimulus vote that he thinks of himself the same as his father did. Anybody who has ever heard Dan Lipinski speak about abortion would realize he is capable of voting differently than his Democratic Party colleagues in the House of Representatives. Photograph provided by Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill.

For the record, Lipinski the younger did not vote for the stimulus package. But he did not go along with Republicans in Congress who largely voted “no” on the matter.

LIPINSKI USED THAT old standby of voting “present.”

He was the lone “present” vote when the issue came up for its final bit of Congressional action. The measure now merely needs Obama’s signature of approval to take effect, and he is expected to do that on Tuesday.

For his part, Lipinski told Crain's Chicago Business he does not oppose the idea of a stimulus package. He’s not playing the ideological game that many Republican legislators are – refusing to participate, then hoping that the measure fails to accomplish much of anything so they can later tell the public, “I told you so.”

He’s upset with the last-minute cuts that were made to the package, of which he thinks too much was taken out of mass transit funding. Most of those projects were for repairs to existing bus and train lines, and to a few expansions that could have improved service.

THAT ULTIMATELY IS a key to mass transit – the more one cuts the service available, the less people will want to use it because it just doesn’t take them to the places they want/need to go to.

Mass transit programs are truly the perfect example of something where one needs to spend money in order to make money.

Lipinski was the guy who tried to get an additional $3 billion for mass transit programs added to the package (that’s for the entire country, not just for Chicago and the CTA). But all of the money he tried to add was ultimately whacked from the plan when Senate and House of Representatives negotiators reached the compromise plan that ultimately was approved by both legislative chambers.

In the end, the stimulus is expected to add roughly $8.4 billion for mass transit programs across the nation, along with the funding for highway and bridge repairs (for those areas that consider buses and subways to be unseemly), and other projects that are intended to create work and give the nation’s economy a jolt from its current recessionary status.

OF COURSE, ONE should keep in mind that the $789 billion spending plan finally agreed upon (earlier versions could have run as high as $835 billion) WILL provide additional federal funding for mass transit.

About $450 million of the total $8.4 billion will wind up coming to the Chicago area, with the Regional Transportation Authority getting that funding to split up amongst the Chicago Transit Authority, and in lesser amounts, to the Metra suburban commuter railroad and the Pace suburban bus system.

So what should we think of Lipinski’s “present” vote?

It is fitting of his political character that he’s not going to be the most reliable supporter of the president’s desires when it comes to the Democratic caucuses in Congress. Anybody who questions that statement should look at Lipinski’s voting record whenever the issue of abortion comes up.

BUT THIS WASN’T some ideological snit fit such as what the Republicans were playing, such as the “no” vote cast by freshman Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill. The kid Congressman from Peoria (he’s only 27) was the beneficiary of much Obama attention in recent days to try to get a few GOP supporters.

Schock stood in lock/step with the Republican caucus in refusing to consider a measure to give the economy a desperately needed jolt.

This was more about trying to get a little more to help upgrade our city’s (some estimate Lipinski’s preferred funding level nationally would have translated into an additional $200 million for Chicago) mass transit. It could have helped.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Most of the political people who opposed the stimulus package had a problem how much spending was included in the plan. But Dan Lipinski had a problem with not enough (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33017) being included for his top issue of concern.

After spending a weekend of relaxation in the Hyde Park neighborhood, Barack Obama plans to sign the (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16talkshows.html?hp) stimulus package into law during an appearance in Denver – the city where he officially got the Democratic nomination for president.

Lipinski is not alone in thinking that mass transit programs were not among the favored (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/14/ST2009021401730.html) programs when it comes to funding from the stimulus package.

Obama tried to appeal to Aaron Schock on grounds that the two Washington-based politicos (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/despite_obama_wooing_illinois.html) were veterans of the Illinois Statehouse Scene. It didn’t work.

Burris bashing is politically partisan

I have covered enough courtroom proceedings and government hearings where people were forced to testify as though they were in a courtroom to know that when someone is “under oath” on the witness stand, they have to answer the precise questions put to them.

They are not supposed to go off on tangents, nor are they allowed to elaborate by providing additional information that could give people a broader (some might say, more truthful) perspective about what truly happened.

IN FACT, THERE are cases where a person’s refusal to merely answer “yes” or “no” to a certain question can be seen as contempt of court. How dare the person on the witness stand think that he (or she) knows what is truly relevant for the public to know.

Those people are always instructed to just give the precise answer to the question put forth to them, and count on their attorney during cross-examination to ask the questions that allow for a more thorough perspective to come out.

I spew forth with that little ditty because I think it an interesting perspective to keep in mind when we hear Republican political people these days imply that Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., committed perjury of some type when he testified before the Illinois House panel that ultimately impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Burris in recent days has submitted an affidavit that includes details about the amount of contact he had with Blagojevich allies during the time period earlier this year when Blagojevich was considering his “drop dead” gesture to the world of appointing a U.S. senator, despite facing a criminal complaint and the perception of the world that he was a piece of political dog poo with a really bad hairdo.

THE AFFIDAVIT GIVES hints that Blagojevich allies (including his brother) hinted to Burris that some future assistance with political fundraising would be expected, although it does not seem to imply anything specific, or an agreement on Burris’ part to provide such aid.

Strictly speaking, that differs from the testimony that Burris gave to the Illinois House panel that impeached Blagojevich, when Burris said he talked to some people about his interest in becoming a U.S. senator at an age when most people (except Strom Thurmond) are retiring.

“I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes,” Burris said back then.

But is his lack of detail about who those friends were truly worthy of the offense of perjury – which in theory could put him in a legal jam and cause him to have to resign the seat on Capitol Hill because he himself would be facing criminal charges.

I’M SURE A part of Gov. Pat Quinn would love to have the authority to pick his own version of a junior senator from Illinois. And I’m really sure the Republican officials who dream of being able to put one of their own in the post when the next statewide election comes around in 2010 are wetting their pants with glee.

As state Rep. Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, told reporter-types in saying he wants Burris to resign the Senate seat immediately, “I can’t believe anything that’s coming from Mr. Burris, at this point.”

But who else benefits?

The problem with Durkin making such a claim is that it comes off as petty and absurd, in large part because Durkin was one of the people on that Illinois House impeachment panel.

HE WAS ONE of the people who questioned Burris. And it would appear that Burris did what a person is supposed to do when he is before a panel where he swears an oath to tell “the truth, so help him God.” He answered precisely what he was asked.

Quite frankly, the politically partisan accusations being made by Republican officials these days comes across more as petty whining that they didn’t think to ask the precise questions that would have generated this information at an earlier date.

Or, if it didn’t because Burris provided incorrect information, then it truly would be perjury. They’d have something legitimate against him. But they don’t.

One of the rules of being a prosecutor in a courtroom is that one does not ask a question if they don’t know the answer. In short, courtroom testimony is all about playing a game of “gotcha.” They didn’t “get” Burris back then, and now they’re upset enough to make these partisan charges.

OF COURSE, NO one really expects Burris to resign, or the Legislature to do anything to penalize him. I’m even skeptical that the Sangamon County State’s Attorney’s office (which historically has ignored state government activity, leaving it to federal prosecutors in Chicago to monitor) will do anything.

What all this rhetoric is truly about is trying to keep “the issue” of Blagojevich and the fact that he has a tie to Burris alive in the public mindset.

Most people don’t obsess over political minutia. There’s a good chance that if Blagojevich truly “went away” from public view that the bulk of people would forget about it. They’d probably keep some vague memory of a guy with a really funky hairdo who did something bad, but they wouldn’t care enough to keep the details in their memory.

That is exactly what the Republican Party in Illinois does not want to happen. Because the reality of the situation is that the likely Democratic candidates for Senate and Governor in the 2010 elections have the name recognition, political organization and finances to overcome whoever the Republicans put up in opposition.

THE GOP NEEDS to rely on the Illinois public being so worked up against the Democratic Party of this state that they’ll vote for anyone who chooses to align himself with the elephant logo.

So the answer is “yes,” Roland Burris did make a bit of a fool of himself on Sunday.

His press conference in Chicago where he made a statement, then tried to stand aside while attorneys provided non-denial denial-type answers to reporter-type questions made him look like he had something to hide.

It will make his cheap attempt at a sound bite (how else to describe the statement, “I conducted myself with honor”) sound less than honest.

BUT IF ILLINOIS is to truly advance beyond the Blagojevich era, it is going to have to get away from cheap allegations such as this one.

The Illinois Republican Party would best serve the people of this state by coming up with candidates who can give us solid reasons why they would better serve us. Relying on the partisan rhetoric about why “my opponent stinks” is just the type of nonsense that turns people off on Election Day.

-30-

Newspapers committing suicide if they think people will buy “shopper” papers

On the one hand, it was oddly relevant to look at the “front” page of the Chicago Tribune (I’m talking about the tabloid version that was purchased Friday at a drug store).

Half of the front cover was taken up by an advertisement – one for Darvin Furniture, which is having a sale on mattresses to get people to come in this weekend for President’s Day (and I don’t want to hear any bad jokes about Bill Clinton).

WE’RE NOT TALKING about those little one-line agate type “ads” that appear at the bottom of columns on Page One of the New York Times. We’re not even talking about the strips that take up the bottom inch or two of the front page of many newspapers these days, including the Chicago Sun-Times.

We’re talking about a full-fledged display advertisement telling us of “Super Values!” if we need to buy mattresses (which my mother does these days, that is what made it relevant).

The rest of that front cover literally seemed like an advertisement for the newspaper itself, showing us a miniature version of the “Front Page” and telling us that the “complete Tribune” was inside. The impact of this "dog bites man, and nobody cares" story was muted in the tabloid version of the Chicago Tribune by mattress sale advertisements.

Now that is how Tribune newspaper types are going to justify this blatant bit of commercialism on the front of a publication that likes to believe it is one of the elite newspapers of the world (it isn’t, but that’s a different story).

TECHNICALLY, THE “FRONT” cover was NOT the “front page.” The first two and last two “pages” of what was a thick newspaper on Friday were actually a Darvin advertisement, with that little touch of the front cover informing us that an actual newspaper lay inside the ad.

That bothers me.

It makes me feel like I read the Tribune shopper, rather than the publication put together by a newsgathering organization that used to bill itself as the “World’s Greatest Newspaper” and now brags that it has the “Largest Reporting Staff in the Midwest.”

I don’t care if what on the surface appears as Page Three is the real “Page One,” giving us the same graphic as appeared on the broadsheet paper about the teenager who was turned away from the University of Chicago hospitals even though he had been mauled by a dog.

TO THE PEOPLE who are making an impulse purchase of a paper, this is the publication whose BIG STORY on Friday was the “MATTRESS SALE” by Darvin. The kid and the dog, along with all the other news and features published in the paper, were just a sideline.

I guess that means the recent loss of a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and the closing of bureaus in Jerusalem and Rome earlier this week aren’t as important to the product as ensuring that people know where to get a good mattress – which means the “Hero of the Day” at Tribune Tower on Friday likely was the display advertising salesperson who snagged Darvin into buying such a prominent advertisement.

I guess I was always absurd in thinking that the purpose of selling advertisements in a newspaper is to raise the money needed to support the newsgathering operation, and that selling those advertising inserts that come with coupons is to further entice people to buy the paper so they can read all about the significant and interesting happenings of the world – as perceived from Chicago.

Now perhaps part of this is because the Chicago Tribune is, inherently, a broadsheet format newspaper (which is the version that all the subscribers still get).

THERE ARE PROBABLY people who think that the smaller page size gives them some license to do tackier things that they would never dream of doing on the full-sized (which themselves are smaller than they used to be) pages.

That Darvin ad spread out over a half-page of a broadsheet Tribune would be downright tacky – and we’d have the pundits and other pompous people pontificating about crass commercialism.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Take the Chicago Sun-Times, which on Friday was the publication that looked staid, serious and respectable by comparison.

THE SUN-TIMES GAVE us a newspaper with an advertising decal that peeled off – promoting the ongoing Chicago Auto Show ($5 off the regular admission price of $10 for adults).

That ad was unobtrusive, actually helps to provide a bit of information about a public event that has become a Chicago tradition, and ultimately was removable, thereby letting me see the graphics for the main story of the day – which was an attempt to dump on Chicago city officials for raising the fees for parking meters by showing us exactly how many quarters it would now take to “feed the meter.”

Now I know some people are going to want to dismiss this commentary as the rant of a crank. They’re going to say that newspapers need every bit of income they can get these days to support the ever-shrinking staffs to keep them from dwindling to even smaller numbers.

But there reaches a point when newspapers alter their product to the point where it becomes shallow. This kind of blatant commercialism in letting the ads take over to where they overwhelm the news product is close to that point. Why should I pay $0.75 for a “shopper” when I can pick one up for free in my neighborhood?

AS MY LITTLE act of protest, all I can say is that when my mother does go ahead and get herself a new mattress, I’m going to make sure she buys it from anywhere EXCEPT Darvin.

Besides, their prices don’t look all that “super.” I’ve seen a couple places advertise mattresses for less.

-30-

New Cook Co. road markers force people to change way they think of streets

Perhaps it is just evidence of the differing ways urban vs. rural residents perceive certain things. But the new road markers erected by Cook County to designate which streets it maintains strike me as something more befitting Tazewell County.

Not that I’m taking a dig at the central Illinois county whose major municipality is Pekin (not far from East Peoria, where President Barack Obama will visit the Caterpillar plant to tout the benefits of the potential stimulus package).

BUT THE SIGNS that I first noticed a couple of weeks ago (and which have certain people so worked up that they felt the need to call the Chicago Tribune to complain) seem like something that would fit perfectly in the downstate Illinois counties where there are strips of road that are not a part of any such municipality.

After all, in many of these rural-minded places, not every patch of asphalt upon which cars drive has some proper name. Not every place feels the need to dredge up the memory of even the most forgotten of its past political people by designating a street for them.

There are places in Illinois (even in the outer fringes of the Chicago area) where roads go merely by a set of numbers that only make sense if you look at the respective county as a whole.

So when I happened to be running an errand recently for my mother that took me to the part of the Chicago area where Tinley Park becomes Frankfort (and Cook County morphs into Will County), I first saw the blue with gold trim signs that tell you the road’s number and give you an indication of what direction (north/south or east/west) that road travels in.

I LITERALLY THOUGHT I had somehow lost track of where I was and had stumbled into Will County when I saw I was at W3207 and B6424, until I took a second look at saw that the signs were labeled “Cook County.” I was at 80th Avenue, near 183rd Street.

Now as reported by the Tribune, the signs have some people upset – largely because they don’t get the number/letter combinations that are the official labels for their local streets, rather than the (often) politically inspired names that many people commonly use.

“W43?”

That’s the official label by which county officials refer to Crawford Avenue (which those people who live in Chicago proper think of as Pulaski Road).

AS IT TURNS out, the letters “W” or “V” are used on roads that run north/south, while “A,” “B” or “C” are used on roads that run east/west. Each street then has its own number.

But these aren’t letter/number combinations that have ever been in common use by the general public. So they have some people freaked out, although I would guess that motorists who are used to driving on rural roads would see the signs, give them a quick glance, then promptly forget it.

The sight just wouldn’t be that unusual to them.

As county officials explain it, the Highway Department is erecting the signs to make people more aware of just which streets they maintain.

THEY SAY THAT in the event of an auto accident or other incident where someone is stranded, having the county road marker will make it easier for people to tell police or other authorities just where they are, since with the advent of so many street names (and some streets having multiple names), the street number designation might become the one county-wide constant.

In theory, that idea makes sense. Street numbers are easier to remember in an emergency rather than names. It's part of the reason I always thought there was a certain sense to the South Side's street labeling system, as opposed to having to memorize so many obscure names for the North Side.

But in daily use, it’s just so rural that people get irrationally worked up over it. It would require a significant mind shift to get people to quit trying to use the street names in their neighborhood that they have come to know as second nature.

There’s also the possibility that people in the Chicago area don’t particularly care who maintains which road.

FOR THE MAJOR streets in the metropolitan area are maintained by the Illinois Department of Transportation, while some are supported by federal authorities.

Those local side streets (the ones that are always the last to get plowed clear of snow during the winter storms) are maintained by Chicago or the relevant suburban municipality.

The county gets the more significant roads that aren’t quite significant enough to be included in the state portion of Chicago-area streets.

Yet this is all bureaucratic bunk to many Chicago-area people, who just want to think of their local road as a road, and don’t want to have to realize that it is very possible to have within a four-block radius of their home streets maintained by all four (city, county, state and federal) government entities.

I HAVE OFTEN seen people who show up at local government meetings to complain about potholes in the streets near their property, only to become frustrated at learning they’re complaining to the wrong entity. It helps enhance the conspiracy mentality that some people have of government engaging in some sort of double-talk. I’m sure some people view these new street signs with their “never heard of it” letter/number combinations for their streets.

Excuse me if I think this is a silly issue for people to get worked up over. But it appears some have, and they’re even managing to persuade the Cook County Board to rethink the 1,300 signs erected at a cost of $120,000.

This is one of those “issues” that will go away, once people become used to the signs on the landscape. They may even help some police agency more easily find an accident by avoiding confusion over some obscure politician’s name and where his street is located.

At the very least, why waste even more money by feeling the need to remove these signs – which already are paid for? Do we really need them gathering dust in some county warehouse?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Were the new road markers erected around Cook County some sort of (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/transportation/chi-cook-route-signs-12-feb12,0,6103114.story) plot to slip some wasteful spending into the county budget?

Cook County’s highway department has jurisdiction over 1,474 miles of lane pavement (http://www.co.cook.il.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=294&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=3&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true) throughout the county, and these maps can help decipher which streets are which road numbers.

Lincoln birth Bicentennial is low-key

Perhaps we political observers are fortunate that no one in the Illinois Legislature thought about Abraham Lincoln when they were putting together the list of charges upon which former Gov. Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office.

If they had, it is likely that Blagojevich would have had added to the list of allegations against him that he was disrespecting the memory of the most Illinois-affiliated president in U.S. history (although Barack Obama could equal him in due time).

AFTER ALL, THE past year was supposed to be a series of local celebrations allowing communities to tout their connections to the 16th U.S. president, leading up to the big day on Thursday – the Bicentennial of Lincoln’s birthday in 1809.

But Blagojevich, among his many actions as governor, tried to keep the government budget under control by slashing away at the funding the state should have provided to support festivities paying tribute to Lincoln.

Just over $5 million was what Blagojevich took from the Lincoln Bicentennial festivities. That might not sound like much in the overall scheme of the state budget (which can exceed $50 billion).

But it could have helped create a bigger perception that people in Illinois remember the memory of Lincoln. There literally were moments when it seemed like the historic preservation officials in Kentucky (where Lincoln was born) and Indiana (where he lived much of his childhood) cared more about Thursday than anyone in Illinois did.

NOW THOSE OF us who pay attention to political minutia have heard the stories about how Blagojevich was jealous about Barack Obama, what with all the attention his national campaign for president got him during 2008.

With everybody thinking that Obama was the model for the ideal Illinois politico, Blagojevich became an afterthought.

We literally get the impression that Obama (who went out of his way to create Lincoln allusions during his presidential campaign whenever appropriate) cared more about the memory of Honest Abe than Blagojevich ever did.

Which is why it likely is appropriate that Obama is making his first Illinois appearance since taking the oath of office as president in Springfield, Lincoln’s hometown and the place where his remains are buried at the city’s Oak Ridge Cemetery.

SPRINGFIELD HAS ITS annual Lincoln’s Birthday ritual at the tomb, but this Bicentennial year will be the one that sees a president show up to partake in the event.

For those who happen to be anywhere near the Illinois capital city on Thursday, there’s another unique event.

The Old State Capitol (the building that Lincoln would have known as the Statehouse – the current one dates to 1877) will host a naturalization ceremony, allowing central Illinois residents who have become U.S. citizens to take the oath of office in the same building where Lincoln once delivered his “House Divided” speech (although a younger generation is bound to think of it primarily as the place where Obama kicked off his presidential campaign).

What would be truly nice is if this Lincoln Bicentennial were to create a dialogue as to what Lincoln and his presidency truly was about.

TOO MANY PEOPLE want to twist the Lincoln legacy to fit their ideological perspective about life.

Too many hardcore GOP people (which used to boast that it was the “Party of Lincoln”) want to believe that Lincoln was some sort of hypocritical racist, while too many Democrats want to believe he’d be one of them – if he were alive today.

I can’t help but think that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

What intrigues me the most about the Lincoln legacy is that he is the government official who got stuck having to cope with the basic ideological split that appears to define the United States, and he came along at the moment when the split became so intense that we began shooting at each other.

BE REAL. NO matter how much modern day politics seem to have reached a new low when it comes to partisan hostility, I always put it into perspective by noting that no one is talking about secession, or taking up arms against their neighbor.

Instead, too many people who bother to partake in Lincoln events on Thursday will get hung up on the image of log cabins or stove pipe hats for one day. Then, they’ll move on to something else.

That’s a shame.

It is the reason why I am inclined to take advantage of the Chicago History Museum’s Lincoln Bicentennial offer. Instead of the usual $14 admission fee – all it will cost to get into the facility at the south end of Lincoln Park will be $0.01.

THE MUSEUM THAT likes to say it has Lincoln’s death bed in its collection of Chicago and Midwestern U.S. artifacts plans to kick off a special Lincoln exhibit to run for the next year.

Think about it. Not only will you get a chance to overdose on Lincoln memorabilia (and some other cool stuff related to Chicago), all it will cost you is one of those “Lincoln head” pennies that take up too much space among your pocket change. What else is a penny worth these days?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Illinois ought to be the focal point of all the Abraham Lincoln festivities (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29074111/) taking place across the nation.

It could (http://www.lincoln200.net/) have been bigger and better. Thanks Rod.

Will there be some people to whom the extent of their Lincoln festivities on Thursday (http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2009/02/07/news/doc498dfc8dd6efe935445868.txt) will be to watch the PBS special about his life? Probably.

The 1865 railroad tour that took Abraham Lincoln's remains from Washington to Springfield, Ill., included this stop in Chicago at what was then City Hall. Lincoln posed for the above photograph just prior to getting the 1860 nomination for president at the Republican National Convention in Chicago. Both illustrations provided by the Library of Congress collection.