Nobody wants to put their name on an order showing sympathy for George Ryan

RYAN: Still a Terre Haute "resident"

Perhaps it shouldn’t be the least bit surprising that a U.S. District Court judge on Tuesday rejected former Gov. George Ryan’s request to be released from prison while his appeal on grounds that some of his convictions were based on improper law.

That doesn’t mean Ryan won’t someday have a court rule that his various convictions were legal overkill. He may wind up finding a judge who decides that some of the charges should be dismissed, and that the remaining charges would add up to a prison term of about the amount of time he has already served – just over three years.

BUT HE IS going to have to sit in a cell, so to speak, down at the work camp that is part of the maximum-security federal correctional center located near Terre Haute, Ind., until such a ruling is made.

Basically, what Ryan had been claiming was that he ought to be released while this particular appeal runs through the courts, admitting that if it fails he would have to someday return to prison (an experience that I think would be more traumatic than him just spending the time there).

It didn’t work.

Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer issued her ruling that says Ryan must remain in prison (regardless of any health difficulties his wife, Lura Lynn, may be confronting). She also took her own cracks at Ryan’s argument that he was found guilty of legal standards (“honest services fraud”) that have since been discredited.

“THE COURT IS not persuaded that the prosecution’s case would have been ‘significantly less persuasive’ if this evidence were excluded,” Pallmeyer wrote of Ryan’s argument. “Nothing in the record of Ryan’s petition suggests this evidence constituted a significant or particularly persuasive part of the government’s case.”

So Ryan stays in prison. He doesn’t even get the option of having to post some sort of bail in exchange for his freedom while the legal issue is pondered in the courts. Although in all honestly, I can’t help but wonder what exactly the Ryans have left that could be valuable enough to cover the cost of bail?

Much has been made in recent weeks of one-time first lady Lura Lynn Ryan’s declining health. We’ve all seen the photographs of her wearing the tubes leading to her oxygen tanks. We’ve all heard the estimates that she will die sometime during 2011, while her husband is not scheduled for release until July 4, 2013.

Yet I have to confess that the “health” argument didn’t sway me much. I never expected it to be taken seriously by the judge, who after all is paid to be hard-nosed and ignore pleas to sympathy.

SURE ENOUGH, PALLMEYER did exactly that.

“The court has had the painful duty to take such action in circumstances more compelling than these,” the judge wrote. “Any sensitive judge realizes that a lengthy prison term effectively robs the convicted person of what we all value most, months and years with loved ones, some of whom will no longer be there when the sentence has been served.

“Mr. Ryan, like other convicted persons, undoubtedly wishes it were otherwise,” she wrote. “His conduct has exacted a stiff  penalty not only for himself, but also for his family.”

Now I’m not doubting the sincerity of Pallmeyer’s conduct, both during Ryan’s actual trial at the Dirksen Federal Building or since then. Her 58 pages written in response to Ryan’s latest legal motions show she has put some thought into the former governor’s arguments concerning “honest services,” the belief that people were convicted and imprisoned more for their incompetence than any sense that their behavior on the job sank to the level of criminality.

WHILE I SENSE that the same Supreme Court of the United States rulings that have limited the scope of past convictions of Enron executives could also limit the amount of actual wrong-doing by the former governor, I also have to admit to not being a legal scholar who does comprehend how subjective much legal interpretation truly is.

Rarely is the law written in such a hard-and-fast manner as some of us would like to believe.

I also realize that when it comes to George Ryan, his case brings out a visceral reaction in so many people. He may well be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

So is it possible that some appeals court judicial panel will ultimately decide that Ryan might be right, and that a reduction in his convictions would reduce his overall prison term to something in the line of 3-4 years (rather than the 6 ½ that he is now serving)?

IT MAY HAPPEN. But he’s still going to have to sit in a cell somewhere until the absolute last minute before anyone will be willing to let him think of getting out.

I suppose that even applies to the future funeral services of our state’s one-time first lady. How loud will the outcry be from certain people that George Ryan shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the event?

I always wonder if this type of reaction says more about us as a society, than it does anything about Ryan.

  -30-

EXTRA: Confirming incredibly obvious, Illinois not growing fast enough

A fact that has been known for nearly a decade became official on Tuesday – Illinois’ population is such that the state’s delegation in Congress is going to shrink by one person.

Growth in the Chicago area (mostly suburban) may have caused the state’s overall population to increase (3.3 percent) slightly. But those southwestern states have larger percentage population hikes. Since the number of members of Congress doesn’t change, it means that one of our representatives is now going to have to go to one of those states – perhaps Texas, which had enough growth to justify increasing its delegation by 4 members.

AT THIS RATE, if nothing else changes, those southwestern (and southern) states could catch Illinois in about a century.

Note the mocking tone. We in Illinois are still one of the largest population states in the United States. We will still have a significant Congressional delegation, which translates into a sizable group in the Electoral College. Illinois is still a political heavy-weight.

Nothing is going to radically change between yesterday and today, just because of the figures released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau that are based off the information provided by last spring’s official population count.

We won’t get the actual total of how many people lived in this municipality/state until some time in February. But those numbers gathered earlier this year are starting to pay off.

FOR THE RECORD, each of those members of Congress from Illinois for the upcoming decade will be representing districts of about 714,588 people – up significantly from 1910 when Illinois had 27 members of the House of Representatives, each of whom had an average of 208,837 people to represent.

I cite that year because it was the last time that Illinois had a population boost significant enough to warrant more members of Congress. Ever since, it has been a loss of a member or two each decade (with the exception of a couple of decades, such as the 1970s, when there was no gain or loss).

So like I already wrote, people have been expecting this one-member loss for years – even though our state’s population is at an all-time high of 12.83 million people (compared to 1910 when we had 5.64 million). Although there is some indication that had Illinois’ population grown by just another 76,000 people (about one more good-sized suburban town), it could have kept its 19^th member of the House of Representatives.

So now that we have this data, the political people who will wind up putting together the electoral maps that set legislative and congressional district boundaries can start to ponder which of them will soon be out of office on account of population shifts.

THEY WILL HAVE to wait a bit longer for the data concerning ethnic and racial trends that get used in putting together some of our state’s districts (the ones that ensure some sense of minority representation).

Then, we will be able to get into the serious rhetoric about which central Illinois Congressman of the GOP ilk is about to lose his seat, and which city-based official will lose out – if officials proceed (not a guaranteed action) with the likely demographics and try to bolster Latino congressional representation from Illinois.

But we are reaching the day of reckoning for the political map-makers, intense enough that Illinois Republican Party chairman Pat Brady is already making the pompous pronouncements that Democrats had better be fair in drawing Illinois’ political boundaries.

I say “pompous” because I know if Brady and his ideological ilk had a say in the map-making process, the last thing they’d be concerned about is how “heavy-handed” they were being toward their partisan opposition.

  -30-

Will a “vote” for Rahm count?

With all likelihood, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners is going to tell us Thursday whether or not they think any of the challenges filed against the mayoral candidacy of Rahm Emanuel have any legitimacy.

EMANUEL: Not close to over



Not that the date means all that much. It merely means that after this week, we will be able to see this issue shift to the court system and work its way up through the legal structure. This could get settled by the Illinois Supreme Court in Springfield.

YET WHAT I fully expect to happen is a situation by which someone decides that Emanuel ought to be included on the ballot with all the other mayoral candidates, and elections officials in the city use that as the basis for deciding that the ballots should be printed up with Rahm’s name included.

So no matter how the court battle turns out, I expect that when people walk into the voting booth on Feb. 22, they are going to see the name “Rahm Emanuel” listed with all the others who survive the challenges.

The trick will be whether or not “Emanuel” is a valid choice for voters. Will putting a mark next to Emanuel’s name be the equivalent of spoiling a ballot, or will it be counted as a legitimate vote?

Yes, there have been many elections in the past where someone’s name was listed on the ballot solely because the ruling knocking them off didn’t come until after it was too late to change the physical form.

WHICH MEANS THAT anyone who thinks these challenges have to wrap up soon because of ballot-printing deadlines is being naïve. This legal fight can literally stretch right up to the days before Election Day.

In fact, a part of me wonders if that is the real strategy by Emanuel opponents. Force Rahm to divert all his attention and campaign cash to paying for the attorneys engaged in the legal fight, and they can keep him from being a serious candidate who might be able to focus on issues relevant to voters.

It is all-too-real a scenario in this particular election cycle.

So for those of you who think that the report hearing officer Joe Morris will file on Tuesday making his recommendation about Emanuel’s fate is “the light” at the end of the tunnel, and that this particular fight is almost over, it’s not.

THE LIGHT” IS from a GOP-oriented freight train headed straight for us, prepared to barrel over anyone who dares to try to get in its way.

CHICO: Seeking attention

This ride (meant more to embarrass the candidate and soften him up for a challenge in an April 5 runoff election) is going to run its course. We’re likely to have to hear these same charges over and over throughout the court system, with the critics hoping that somewhere, a sympathetic judicial ear can be found who will take the charges seriously enough to rule in their favor against Emanuel.

This search for a sympathetic judge will also continue to dominate the campaign season. I’m sure his critics (who mostly are just critics of Democrats being involved in federal policy) are going to be disgusted to hear this idea, but their actions have had the result of turning the entire mayoral campaign into “All Rahm, All the Time.”

With the whole process deteriorating into a question over whether or not Emanuel belongs, other candidates are going to be extra-challenged to get any attention for themselves.

HENCE, FORMER CHICAGO board of education President Gery Chico was resorting to praising Congress for voting to repeal the laws that maintained restrictions against gay people serving in the military, all in hopes that someone might pay attention long enough to catch his name and remember it on Election Day.

It also is the big reason (I am convinced) that former Sen. Roland Burris decided NOT to run for Chicago mayor, after all.

BURRIS: Riding off into the sunset

His backers filed the nominating petitions to get him a slot on the ballot, only to have Roland himself announce late last week that he wasn’t going to proceed with an actual campaign.

It is too bad. Roland’s egomania always has a knack of making a political campaign for any public post more interesting. Burris’ presence in the mayoral election could have caused a moment or two of intrigue in what will otherwise be the Rahm Emanuel election cycle.

YET FOR BURRIS, I’m sure the fact that he would not be the focus of all campaign attention (not even in his own mind) was enough to make the mayoral campaign not worth his time.

It’s not like Roland had a huge stash of campaign cash that could have paid the cost of making him competitive. Those days are long gone (Roland hasn’t run a real campaign since his unsuccessful 1994 bid for the Democratic nomination for Illinois governor).

Burris will now be able to have his cemetery memorial amended to include the fact that he was a U.S. senator from Illinois, before he goes into retirement.

And when the day comes that Burris (now 73) departs this physical existence for whatever exists after life, perhaps the winner of the Feb. 22/April 5 elections will be among the people who show up among his mourners.

  -30-

EXTRA: I don’t “get” stadium problem

This is the not-so-primitive bowl where the Chicago Bears will play tonight. Illustration provided by University of Minnesota

The next time I hear fans of U.S.-style football talk about how “tough” and “manly” their sport is because they play in the heart of winter and are capable of handling anything (including snow and ice) that Mother Nature comes up with, I’m going to laugh in their face.

Because all of the rhetoric I have been reading and rants I have been hearing about the Chicago Bears’ visit Monday to Minneapolis to play the Minnesota Vikings makes me realize that professional football fans may be the biggest wimps imaginable.

THIS GAME IS the one affected by the fact that heavy snowfall caused the roof of the Metrodome to tear, leaving snow all over the field. So the game has been shifted to the TCF Bank Stadium (home of the Golden Gophers football program of the University of Minnesota).

For the past week, I have heard nothing but rants about how cold it will be and how there will be snow and how there may well be patches of ice packed into the turf of the playing field. It’s dangerous. It’s risky.

We’ve also heard rhetoric about the lack of beer taps in the stadium and how fans won’t even be able to bring their own alcohol into the game. That argument is just weak, coming from a third-rate drunk or two. If anything, the last thing I’d want to cope with is liquor at an outdoor winter game.

Liquor doesn’t warm people up. It only makes them numb to their surroundings, making it more likely they will do something stupid to expose themselves to the cold. All the liquor in the world isn’t going to protect a bare-chested clown with a giant “V” painted on his chest (or maybe the “N,” but, hopefully, no "B").

NOW I KNOW some people are trying to make an issue of the fact that National Football League stadiums have special features not often found in stadiums used by college programs, not even major school athletic programs.

Yet I can’t help but remember how the Bears themselves used Memorial Stadium in Champaign for an entire season when Soldier Field underwent its renovation to its current form. How can another Big 10 stadium be so inadequate for one game?

Particularly since TCF Bank Stadium is one of the newest college facilities (opening in 2009). This isn’t Memorial Stadium that literally dates back to the days of Red Grange.

About the only point I can sort of sympathize with is the fact that TCF Bank Stadium has a 13,000-seat smaller seating capacity than the Metrodome. Some people who paid perfectly good money for tickets are going to be excluded from entering, and there’s no way for them to know in advance who they will be.

YET I’D WONDER if those fans would feel any better if the game had been moved to another city entirely (which could have been a very real possibility)? TCF looks a lot better than Detroit.

So let’s see how Monday’s game winds up going, being played in a stadium whose corporate name promotes that chain of banks many of us see when we walk in our neighborhood Jewel-Osco?

That might be the only real reason to be upset. They’re playing in a stadium that sounds like it should be located just a few yards from the produce department.

  -30-

Hold off on accolades for U.S. Senate – the progressive ‘glass’ is half-empty

To listen to, and read through, much of the rhetoric that came from Capitol Hill this weekend, our government took some serious steps in the direction of decency when it did away with the inane policies concerning gay people serving in the military.

KIRK: "Nea," then "yea"



I’ll be the first to admit that having the Senate vote to do away with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that was former President Bill Clinton’s inane attempt to compromise away an issue where there really is no compromise was a positive.

THE SOONER WE come to realize that gay people exist in our society, including in our military, the quicker we will move along and advance.

Yet before we get all too worked up in patting ourselves on the back because our political people had a “job well done” on Saturday (and that President Barack Obama will finish off by signing the repeal into law some time this week), let’s keep in mind that the very same politicians also took steps backward on the decency scale when they failed to overcome the nativist hostility that wants to view the DREAM Act as an attempt to reward the children of criminals.

I consider those two acts linked together because of the way they got paired up – short debate on DREAM, then a vote for cloture, followed up by short debate on the military policy, followed by a vote for cloture – by the Senate.

First, failure, then success, all within an hour’s time span, setting the stage for the vote later in the day Saturday where the U.S. Senate decided that the policy of allowing gay people to serve in the military only if they went to extremes to keep quiet about their orientation.

THAT MIGHT BE a step better than what the conservative ideologues would prefer (a policy by which the military could openly seek out gay soldiers and sailors, then whack them with the “dishonorable” discharge). But accepting that the sexual orientation is most likely irrelevant is the real direction our military needs to go – and is the direction that Clinton should have sought back in the 1990s when he pushed for the policy that is now on the verge of becoming ancient history.

GUTIERREZ: Pulling a Vrdolyak over DREAM?



It may well be totally appropriate that DREAM and the abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” came on the same day. Because there are times I see a similarity in Clinton’s handling of gays in the military to the way Obama is trying to handle immigration reform – an issue needed just as crucially.

Clinton’s attempt to compromise into a policy “everybody” could accept created a nonsense policy that we now have to undo. Perhaps it is the same with Obama – who gives us the rhetoric about immigration policy that shows us he understands the issue’s significance.

But he seems unwilling to expend the political capital for “those foreigners” in the same way that Clinton wouldn’t do so for gay servicemen/women. His actions don’t match the talk.

COULD IT BE that we’re going to be stuck with a future president taking on the issue of immigration in a respectable manner, the same way that it appears Obama has to take on the military question because of Clinton’s shortcoming?

Despite that attack on the president, I’m not about to fall into the nonsense-rhetoric being spewed by the GOP Latino interests these days. I agree with them when they say the five Democratic members of the Senate who voted against DREAM are “shameful” and “should permanently be listed as anti-Hispanic” (although I’d use the label ‘anti-Latino’ instead).

But I think they’re behaving hysterically when they say our very own Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., should leave the Democratic Party in response to the Senate’s actions, and that the DREAM's failure is the fault solely of Democratic Party leadership.

These Latino Republicans (who at times come off sounding like they wish they were Anglo-, instead of Latin-, American) sound too much like apologists for their own party – which is the solid leader of the effort to kill off the DREAM, while also trying to maintain the status quo on gays in the military because they fear the future.

I’D TAKE THE Latino faction of the Republican Party (which does exist) a lot more seriously if they’d divert their future attention to trying to convince the majority of their own side about the legitimacy of immigration reform and the DREAM – whose purpose was to treat these young people who have lived here the bulk of their lives just like any other young person who lives here.

So what should we think of this weekend in the U.S. Senate – which I consider to be a draw for the forces of progressivism (which at times behave as though they’re two middle-aged stoners wasting away time in the basement)?

I couldn’t help but notice both Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., were among those who backed both issues, while rookie Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and veteran Richard Lugar, R-Ind., were split.

LUGAR: He was half-correct



Kirk did right by the military question, while Lugar behaved properly on the immigration-related issue. I didn’t expect Kirk to vote in favor of the DREAM, so his “nea” wasn’t shocking to me. I was more disappointed by the rhetoric of Lugar (one of the few GOPers who consistently acts properly on immigration) on gays in the military.

HE SAID IN his prepared statement that he questions making such a change at a time when U.S. military personnel are fighting both in Afghanistan and Iraq, falling into the line of illogic that this is merely the “wrong” time for the issue.

It sounds as absurd as those who argue that a time of tough economic times such as now is the wrong time to bring up immigration reform. Because the people who have the biggest hang-ups about these questions are going to keep them even when the war’s over, and the economy improves.

When we overcome all of these issues, then that is when we can legitimately pat ourselves on the back.

  -30-

We ought to be embarrassed, but we’re not. Election Bd hears nonsense galore

EMANUEL: Checking out his crawl space

Be honest. The last time a crawl space got this much attention on the Chicago news scene was some 30-plus years ago and bodies of young men and boys were being found underneath John Gacy’s house.

Nobody found nothing nearly as dramatic in the special crawl space that is part of the house that mayoral hopeful Rahm Emanuel hopes to move back into someday.

BUT IT WOUND up becoming part of the evidence offered up by people interested in showing that, yes, Emanuel did have some sentiment toward returning to Chicago and resuming his life here – he never even took several belongings with him to Washington.

He didn’t even get them off his property. They sat there locked away, although the couple that is renting the Emanuel residence and is supportive of the people who would like to bump Rahm from the ballot had tried arguing that they couldn’t find any Emanuel belongings in the basement.

I must admit to getting a kick out of the photograph the Chicago Sun-Times came up with of the crawl space – a whole lot of cardboard boxes and sealed plastic cases filled with various books and papers.

One item, in particular, caught my attention – a newsbox. Sure enough, Emanuel has a coin-operated box of the type that sits on many street corners and people dump a couple of quarters into in order to get a copy of the newspaper.

DOES THIS MEAN that Rahm secretly is one of these people who, when he appears on a newspaper’s front page in a prominent fashion, sticks a copy of that paper into the window of the newsbox so that he can “see” himself, looking all important/intelligent/sophisticated/etc.?

I’m going to remember that image the next time I hear Emanuel rant/rage/complain about the way he was covered by the news media on any particular issue.

It definitely goes further than those political people I have seen throughout the years who include in their offices the occasional newspaper front page in a mat and frame that gives big play to one of their Election Day victories, or some government achievement for which they can take significant credit.

So yes, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners is expected to issue some sort of ruling during the coming week, after having to sit through three days worth of questioning, much of which involved Emanuel himself having to dignify people whom I can envision him now plotting to crush – for the attempts at humiliation they tried to put him through.

IF ANYTHING, THE week went well for Emanuel because any serious legal points about the technicalities of residency that attorney Burton Odelson tried bringing up got lost in the mess from all the other objectors – including the people who tried to imply some sort of connection between Emanuel and the deaths of religious radicals at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas in 1993 (you remember, the ones that Timothy McVeigh claimed he was avenging when he blew up the federal government building in Oklahoma City two years later?).

The overall impression given by the week’s activity is that the objections to Emanuel’s ballot status are coming from people who have political axes to grind, may have personal biases, or may just be a little nuts.

I noted the moment when one of Emanuel’s opponents asked him if he were an Israeli citizen or had ever served in Israel’s military.

That question didn’t shock me because I remember the people who asked it back in 2002 when Emanuel first ran for Congress. Some of the Polish Catholic types who wanted their ethnic sister, Nancy Kaszak, to advance to Washington tried making that very same charge.

ALL IT MEANS is that we shouldn’t be surprised to see some streams of anti-Semitism work their way into this campaign too. I’m mostly glad that people are recognizing such rhetoric for the nonsense-talk that it is, and are disregarding it.

Personally, I found this week’s set of hearings embarrassing because they gave the crackpots of our society too much of a forum to rant. They got legitimized, and I couldn’t help but notice how eager Fox News Channel at times was to try to dignify these people as somehow having a clue as to what is going on in life, because it would have meant many more indirect shots at President Barack Obama.

Fox was definitely eager to believe the claims of the family renting out the Emanuel home (the one we learned would have been willing to move out had Rahm paid them off with $100,000) that there was no stash of boxes.

Of course, those boxes turned out to be exactly where Emanuel said they would be. It truly gives our city’s public image a jolt of “pride” to see much official investigatory time and effort put into finding a stash of boxes that wound up including, among other things, the wedding dress worn by Emanuel’s wife.

I’D LIKE TO think we can move on beyond this elections board hearing. After all, the final decision about whether Emanuel will be on the Feb. 22 ballot will be made by an appeals court panel – if not the Supreme Court of Illinois itself.

Then, we can move to the next “crucial” date – June 30, 2011. That is the date that Emanuel’s lease in Washington expires, and also that the couple he rented his Ravenswood neighborhood house to has to leave by.

I wonder if they’ll be good and leave quietly, or make a scene and try to leave some sort of reminder about the mess we all have become aware of this past week?

  -30-

EXTRA: Where’s my M Squad?

I guess if I have a Christmas holiday wish, it is for someone to get me a DVD set of all the episodes of “M Squad.”

That’s the late-1950s television drama starring the late Lee Marvin as a Chicago police detective with an elite unit whose members were capable of handling just about any kind of crime.

THAT SHOW HAD become a staple in recent months of the evening lineup on the MeTV channels in Chicago. But in recent days, I have noticed that the show has been removed. As I write this, I should be seeing yet another episode where Det. Frank Ballinger takes on some of the scummiest people of Chicago’s seedy underside (one of my personal favorites was one where Ballinger investigated a ring of people who were counterfeiting pop music records).

Instead, I’m seeing Jimmie Walker and the rest of the gang from “Good Times” (although not my favorite, John Amos’ portrayal of father "James Evans, Sr."). Which as far as I’m concerned is a let-down.

Now I understand these stations that rely on re-runs have to juggle their programming schedules about periodically to avoid becoming stale. I only wish that the “M Squad” broadcast (which some people claim was the original inspiration of Leslie Nielsen’s “Frank Drebin” in Police Squad! and the “The Naked Gun” films) could have somehow been retained – even in a crummier time slot.

The show had become one of my guilty pleasures, in part because I used to get a kick out of recognizing the parts of Chicago that were used in the television show. The Wrigley Building still retains its glamour.

BUT IT USED to amaze me when I’d see some locale as it existed some five decades ago, and compare it in my mind to how it exists today. Some places in Chicago have experienced radical change, while others might as well be the same.

There also were the “stars” who made their appearances on the television show that made a celebrity out of Marvin, building up the credits before they had their own hit roles.

Leonard Nimoy as a conniving arsonist whose truly heartless reaction to learning a security guard had burned to death in one of his incidents? Quite illogical. And I would expect the future Mr. Spock would treat him to that Vulcan grip, unlike the harsh beating that Marvin’s “Ballinger” ultimately gave him.

Angie Dickinson, Burt Reynolds and Don Rickles were just a few of the other guest stars to appear on the show throughout the years.

NOW I UNDERSTAND this particular show was a large part of the reason why the elder Mayor Daley (as in Richard J.) hated the entertainment industry. Marvin’s “Ballinger” in many ways was a thug with a badge.

One was never sure if the episode would end with Ballinger arresting the suspect, or killing him. 1880s-era Dodge City might as well have existed in 1950s Chicago, if “M Squad” was to be believed. Although sometimes I wonder if those “Untouchables” episodes from that same era (which theoretically have a basis in 1920s Chicago history) are even more ridiculous. Nobody ever claimed there was a real-life Frank Ballinger the way there really was once an Eliot Ness working in Chicago.

So now I’m going to have to go through withdrawal. I can’t count on seeing an episode every night. I won’t even be able to hear the theme music, written by Count Basie and played by his orchestra.

I’ll have to settle for 1970s-era echoes of “easy credit rip-offs,” at least until the next round of MeTV re-scheduling.

  -30-