Do we need a lecture on the concept of what constitutes freedom of expression?

Let’s hear it for Facebook. And Instagram.

I guess I won't be seeing any more Alex Jones or Louis Farrakhan on Facebook any longer. Not that I would have paid attention to either if they had crept their way onto my page.

The pre-eminent sites that fall under the label of “social media” that this week decided there are a few people who are using them for the purpose of disseminating their own trash thoughts.

WHICH, OF COURSE, has those individuals’ backers convinced that their thoughts are being censored. Violations of freedom of speech are taking place. Social media is behaving in an un-American manner.

Or so the ideologues would have us believe.

Personally, I’m not all that bothered that someone decided to cut off the Facebook (and Instagram) access to people like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and Louis Farrakhan.

The latter is a black nationalist type and long-time leader of the Nation of Islam – an organization that manages to offend many non-black people for taking the stance that black people ought to be allowed to stand up for themselves against the Anglo majority.

THE OTHERS ARE right-wing pundits who like to use the mini-blurbs that Facebook encourages to disseminate their thoughts – most of which are along the lines of they’re absolutely RIGHT and it’s the rest of us who have to pipe down and learn to do what we’re told to.

Personally, I’ll defend the right of any of these individuals to think whatever nonsense they want to. If they’re really stupid enough to believe the trash they spew, it’s their loss. It ultimately will wind up being the reason they fall behind in our society and wind up as life’s losers.

But the problem is that too many of these ideologues try to tout the notion that everybody else is required to go along with their trash-talk. They think that on the issues, they’re entitled to have the ‘last’ word – on everything.

Farrakhan has his own newspaper to publish his thoughts. He doesn't need Facebook

When in reality, it is those individuals who are forcing Facebook and Instagram to publish the messages of nonsense that they spew – along with whatever form of photographs they take that further spew their idiocy.

THE VERY CONCEPT of freedom of expression is that the operators of Facebook and Instagram (along with any other entity) have the right to decide what it is they wish to publish. No one has a right to dictate their content to them.

And if someone is making a conscious decision that Farrakhan – or any of the other ding-dongs who have been cut off – is too absurd to want to give a platform to, we ought to be praising those people.

It’s the American Way truly at work. No one has a right to force them to do anything against their interest. And if it truly turns out that someone is making a bad call that does not go along with the majority interests, then things will work out. Facebook fanatics and Instagram geeks will take out their support for these people by cutting back their own use.

Which eventually would harm those entities. Dealing with the dissemination of information carries that dual-edged sword – get tyrannical with the way you control the flow of fact and opinion, and people will eventually decide you’re not worthy of being taken seriously. They’ll cut you off. You'll become irrelevant.

BUT I THINK we’re going to find out that the majority won’t have any real objections. If anything, they’ll probably find a Facebook with a little bit less nonsense being spewed. Perhaps even something that might well be worthy of being taken seriously.

Does broadcaster Jones really require a Facebook platform to express himself?

Now if Farrakhan and his ilk want to start up their own platform for disseminating their thoughts, that is their right. If anything, using Facebook is little more than a cheap way of spewing one’s nonsense – which they’d be best off keeping to themselves.

Just as I have my own Facebook page that offers up links to the very same commentaries I publish here. It’s an inexpensive way of getting more people to read this stuff -- nothing more!

Facebook could, I suppose, decide to cut me off. Whining about it, if they did, would strike me as being as pathetic as Jones or Farrakhan thinking they’re being victimized. Although I suspect the two of them are most offended by the fact that someone lumped the two of them together into a single class of ideological knuckleheads.

  -30-

EXTRA: ‘Not Guilty?’ It’s just a plea

I can already hear the rants and rages coming from people in response to the fact that four young people facing criminal charges for the beating of a teenager with mental disabilities entered pleas of “not guilty” on Friday.
 

HOOKS: Here comes da judge!

“How dare those f---ers (or whatever racial slur they prefer to use) plead NOT guilty” to the crime that we all got to see committed because someone pulled out their phone, video-recorded the beating, then put it on Facebook for the world to see.

YET BEFORE WE get worked up about Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill, both 18, and sisters Tanisha and Brittany Covington (24 and 19, respectively), keep in mind that the purpose of the hearing Friday in Cook County Criminal Court was for their criminal case to be assigned to the judge who eventually will oversee their trial – or take their “guilty” plea if they choose to make one.

Cooper

All of them have been held without bond at the Cook County Jail since their arrest last month. They’re not going anywhere. This was just the start of the process that can easily take a couple of years before the criminal case is resolved.

For those people who want to think criminals should just plead their guilt and take whatever punishment is handed down to them, it doesn’t work that way.

Covington, T.

In fact, the four people facing assorted criminal charges, including aggravated kidnapping and hate crimes, could not have entered a “guilty” plea on Friday even if they wanted to. They plead “not guilty,” get assigned to a trial judge, then at some future date attorneys for the prosecution and defense negotiate the actual outcome.

Covington, B.

THE NEWS FROM the courthouse on Friday was that it will be Judge William H. Hooks who will preside over the trial of the four. He’ll be the one who winds up getting his moment of international glory, because the Facebook aspect of this case ensures the “world will be watching” to see what becomes of the young people who allegedly beat up a white boy as a way of venting their anger at the election of Donald Trump.

Hill

Although personally, I think it’s possible to make too much of that angle. It really doesn’t matter what convoluted reasoning they had for the attack – it was the suffering that the 18-year-old victim who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder endured during the beating.

There is no real reason anyone should ever have to go through such an ordeal.

And I’m sure by the time this case is resolved (it often takes two years or so to get through a criminal case in Cook County), Judge Hooks will feel similarly spent.

  -30-

How free are we to say on social media how absurd we think we all are?

It seems that President-elect Donald J. Trump, who has made heavy use of a personal Twitter account to spread word of his thoughts (which I doubt consist of anything more than 140 characters at a time), is selective of who is permitted to read him.

Recent news reports tell of people who cannot read anything posted by the account of @realDonaldTrump because he has chosen to ban then.

THIS DOES NOT seem to be an uncommon notion. I have a Facebook friend who likes to use his account to post political missives (usually along the lines of how misunderstood Trump is) who recently declared that people can’t comment on his page unless they “friend” him and how he reserves the right to delete anything he considers irrelevant to his issues.

Personally, I think that amounts to people putting way too much time and effort into their social media accounts. Or perhaps they really believe they should be taken all that seriously. Although I also understand that my friend probably has many idiots who have nothing better to do than post obscenity-laced diatribes on his site telling him how wrong he is!

I have always had a rather loose attitude toward people responding to me when I write something – largely because I have always realized that people have the right to be wrong.

I feel pity for those who don’t realize the innate sensibilities of the stances I take when I write various commentaries. Either that, or I figure I already had my say on an issue by writing the initial commentary.

WHEN IT COMES to responses published on this site, the only things I delete are those from people who insist on using profanity. I can handle the fact that 100 percent of the populace does not agree with me. I just don’t need to contribute to the spread of obscene language.

Which means I kind of feel sorry for those people who feel a need to control the level of debate they are subjected to while taking actions that are meant to provoke a reaction. What’s the fun in writing thoughtful commentary if all you’re seeking is people who agree with you?

If anything, I’m curious to see what becomes of the Twitter missives sent out by Trump – which, by the way, was the focus of a Saturday Night Live sketch this past weekend – once he gets access to the presidential account.

As in the one now used by Barack Obama and his aides to send out messages to his supporters. Will knowing that his thoughts will now be archived for posterity cause Trump to tone down his level of nastiness?

OR IS HE going to resist using the official presidential Twitter account and try to use his own personal one; on the grounds that he wants more control over the process.

Which would be very similar to the line of logic that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state in insisting on having a personal Internet server to handle the e-mail messages she sent instead of merely using the official federal government amenities.

Ironic if Trump wound insist on committing an act very similar in intent to the one that he repeatedly claimed during the campaign that she deserved incarceration for.

In my own case, I have Facebook (www.facebook.com/gregory.tejeda) and Twitter (@tejeda_gregory) accounts – although I don’t really do as much as many people do with either. I see them as serving a self-promotional purpose – usually to make people aware of the thoughts that are being published at this weblog. Which is why I let people say what they want – I’m amazed they bothered to post at all.

IN FACT, THE Twitter account has only been in existence for not quite two months, and I have fewer than 20 people “following” me. Largely because I see the medium as so limiting that it’s not worth much of my time.

Which makes me wonder about what kind of public official have we, the people, truly elected. A twit who Tweets? And one who thinks he can restrict with the whim of a couple of computer keystrokes who is allowed to read his thoughts. Most of which are insipid enough that I haven’t bothered to want to be among the “millions” of people who follow his account.

I’d like to think I have better things to do with my time and read him. I wish more people felt the same way, and not just about Trump.

“Social” media, by-and-large, is for use by people whose social skills are so lacking that I doubt we’d ever want to encounter them in person.

  -30-

Facebook for fluff, not the news?

One of the things I did awhile back was set up this weblog so that every single commentary I post here winds up on my Facebook page.

I suspect that for many of the people who have bothered to “friend” me on Facebook, it has nothing to do with them thinking of me as a real human being. It is more that a piece of copy I wrote caught their eye – and friend-ing me is an easy way to see if I come up with something else they consider relevant or interesting, or perhaps just downright silly and stupid!

WHICH IS WHAT I have always considered Facebook to be about – allowing people to indulge themselves in the trivialities of life.

Is Rocco cute enuogh to top Selena Gomez?

Particularly those that can be passed about from "friend" to "friend." I'm pretty sure a thoughtful commentary on my part about the politically partisan nonsense being spewed by public officials in Springfield, Ill., on Wednesday will be less regarded than if I were to post a picture of the dog my father and step-mother now care for.

The story of Rocco, I’m sure, would be more interesting to the Facebook kind of people than anything more legitimate.

It is why I’m not terribly shocked by the announcement Facebook officials made on Wednesday to say they’re making changes in the programs that determine what exactly makes it into the “News Feeds” that wind up on peoples’ personal pages.

THE EMPHASIS IS going to be placed on stuff that people choose to share with each other. The stuff that larger companies, including many newsgathering organizations that think the key to readership is Facebook, will be downplayed.

On a certain level, I get it.

 

Selena tops Rauner/Madigan ...

Facebook was originally created by college students as a social network one step up from the idea of passing messages along to each other via a particular computer’s network.

It wasn’t really meant for larger companies to use as a way of distributing their messages – or in the case of newsgathering organizations as an alternative way of disseminating their product.

I DON’T DOUBT that the most hard-core of Facebook users (the kind of people who are miserable if they’re not on some sort of device that gives them their access) are probably cheering at the thought that all the “boring” stuff will get less priority.

 

... any day of the week!

More cute, fuzzy pictures of kittens or pictures of our stupid cousin Johnny and the time he was foolish enough to stick a pickle up his nose – only to find that it got stuck (and that’s just a hypothetical, my cousin Johnny never actually did that – although he has his own share of silly moments he’d rather not share).

I know in my case, one of the most popular things I posted recently on Facebook was timed for Father’s Day; as in a decades-old photograph of my father with my brother and I.

Which actually fit in with all the other paternal pictures that people felt compelled to pass about a week ago – and will probably stash away for another year until Father’s Day returns.

STASHED AWAY BECAUSE they’re now rendered obsolete by the stories about singer Selena Gomez wearing a denim bikini in pictures on her Instagram account. There’s a reason they call these things “social media;” they’re not about anything significant – just titillating!

So I can’t quite get all worked up like some people are about how Facebook is supposedly undermining the free flow of information that people might need in order to live better-informed lives. That was never their purpose.

Just like anybody who seriously watches “The Daily Show” for news and information is worthy of any ridicule we throw their way – that program is about entertainment and generating a laugh at the expense of those in public life.

And perhaps at anybody who seriously thinks they can rely on their Facebook “News Feed” to give them the “News!”

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: How many people got their snoozefest, so to speak, at the reports about how newspapers across Illinois ran editorials Wednesday lambasting all state government officials for the fact that we’re about to begin Fiscal Year Two without a balanced budget for the state? Yeah, Selena’s gams were much more intriguing.

Will Facebook outlive us all?

I woke up Thursday morning to the sight and sound of a CNN-like news anchor type saying she thought it was bizarre that Facebook would feel the need to create an option by which people can easily turn over control of their pages after they are deceased.

I might have been inclined to agree; personally I don’t see a need to care about what becomes of the odd smatterings that appear on my own Facebook page once I am gone. But I have the experience of my aunt Charlene – who managed to figure out a way to do what Facebook says it will now allow many others to do.

IN THE CASE of mi tia loca (she would have laughed at my sarcastic description), she died about a year-and-a-half ago. But her brother also had access to her account, which means he has taken to making postings on her behalf.

I literally recall the day she died because I learned about it on Facebook. I happened to stumble on her page on a Sunday morning, only to see that a posting was made an hour earlier that read simply, “I’m in Heaven.”

Her brother later that day posted some details about her passing, all written in a first-person voice as though it were my aunt writing. Later, some video shot during her wake was posted on the page.

Since then, her brother has taken to posting various old photographs of my aunt, along with notices about the project that had become the focus of my aunt’s life in her retiring years (she had a career teaching in the Chicago Public Schools) – her “traveling Mexican museum” as she called it.

IT REALLY WAS a collection of the various artifacts and knickknacks she had compiled during her life’s various trips to Mexico; which she would periodically put on public display.

As a tribute to my aunt, her brother has kept the collection and occasionally sets it up (the one time I saw it, it took an entire banquet hall in Chicago to contain it) – using Facebook to let people know when those occasions will occur.

It sounds more bizarre than it is. It actually comes across as an interesting way of remembering my aunt – particularly when my own Facebook page gets an update from her page and I can have a quick, but pleasant, memory of her.

Somehow, I doubt my aunt is alone in having something interesting to say even after they’re gone. Let’s only hope that the people who get picked to carry on someone’s Facebook legacy have enough tact not to try to settle old grudges with someone once they’re no longer capable of defending themselves.

CONSIDERING HOW MUCH the rest of Facebook and the Internet is capable of being taken over by people with no sense of personal decorum, it is always a very serious threat.

Reading trashy updates about the dead is about as boorish of behavior that one could engage in. Let’s hope that this trend of Facebook pages outliving the people whose lives they were a part of is not something that has to be stifled because of those of us who can’t control the worst tendencies of our natures!

It should be said that I have no intention of delegating anybody to carry on my own Facebook page (which consists largely of posts from this weblog to expand the number of people who are capable of reading it). I don’t plan to try to figure out a way of filing copy from the great beyond.

As far as my own page is concerned, I’m inclined to agree with the musings of a few reporter-type people I know who said (on Facebook, if you must know) that a final posting of a simple “-30-” (the old typesetting symbol for ‘end of story’) is the best way to go.

  -30-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  -30-

Happy holidaze! Now log off and do something real to celebrate

This weblog has been in existence for just over seven years (Saturday was the anniversary date), and I’m going to use this post to deliver my usual holiday message – one I seriously believe.

If you’re actually reading this on Thursday, something is wrong. You need to log off your computer or smart phone or whatever device you’re using to access the Internet and find something in the real world to do.

THERE ARE TIMES I think our lives have become overtaken by these devices. There’s nothing you’d read on the Internet or on Facebook or Twitter on Christmas Day that couldn’t wait until Friday.

That is when serious commentary about the “great issues” of the day will return here. You all should find something joyous with which to occupy your time.

Even if Christmas is irrelevant to you. For those who finished celebrating Hanukkah two days ago, I hope you had a wonderful experience.

And for those of you who want to literally be the personification of Ebenezer Scrooge, go “Bah, Humbug!” to yourself before trying to find some pleasure on this one holiday that ought to be an excuse to find relief from the problems and pressures of our lives!

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: For those of us of a certain age, watching the Ray Rayner Show around Christmas time meant catching these old holiday videos of “Suzy Snowflake,” “Frosty the Snowman” and “Hardrock, Coco and Joe.” Although my holiday gift to you is “Merry Christmas, Baby” by Otis Redding. I’ll acknowledge Chuck Berry also did a nice take on this song. But if you’d rather hear Elvis or Christina Aguilera, all I have to say is you’re lacking in holiday taste.

Have gift cards replaced turkeys as 21st Century preference for buying a vote?

It’s one of the oldest tactics for political people representing less-than-middle-class voters to try to get their electoral support – an aldermanic “gift” whose appreciation is expected to be repaid in the future with a “vote.”

Oftentimes, that gift was a turkey or something else that could be the main course for an upcoming holiday meal. To this day, there are political people who make a point of getting turkeys they can give away to their constituents – in hopes that they get the public recognition of their “generosity.”

SO HAVE ALL those political people been behaving in a criminal manner?

Perhaps, if we’re to take the outrage being expressed against 5^th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston these days, it is.

For Hairston is the alderman who WFLD-TV reports tried encouraging people to show up to vote for the upcoming Election Day by offering up raffle tickets – the prizes for which included gift cards to area businesses.

For all we know, some of those tickets could have been used at area grocery stores to buy items for the holiday meal (Thanksgiving isn’t that far off in the future).

ALTHOUGH THE RAFFLE is on hold, and probably now won’t happen because of the negative publicity Hairston would get – the exact opposite of her intentions.

She tried using a Facebook page promoting herself to tell people how she’d give them a raffle ticket if they showed up at the polling place. WIN A PRIZE FOR YOUR VOTE!!!!! was the theme she was trying to push.

She seems to have thought it would be perceived as Hairston trying to encourage people to do their civic duty and vote on Election Day.

Instead, it seems that people of a certain mindset took it as something amounting to a bribe – as if the raffle ticket was a bribe (or is that BRIBE!!!?!) in exchange for a vote.

ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD be noted that nowhere in the raffle announcement on Facebook were people being told exactly how they should vote. I’m presuming that Hairston figured people living in the South Side’s fifth ward would have enough sense to disregard any consideration for candidates who have an “R” associated with their names.

But the fact that she didn’t try to specifically sway someone to vote for a particular candidate may be the reason she evades some sort of criminal prosecution – although the Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday that the Cook County state’s attorney’s office is looking into the whole matter.

The state election code is going to be up for interpretation in coming weeks.

Personally, I’m not bothered as much by her raffle tickets to encourage voting as I am by her attitude since then. When the matter became public, Hairston took the raffle ticket offer off her Facebook page.

IT SEEMS TO be invalid now. And Hairston is telling reporter-type people that she doesn’t want to talk about the issue any more. As though she can make it go away just because she stopped doing it before any serious damage may, or may not, have been done.

Even though I’m fairly sure that law enforcement types aren’t going to be too concerned about the after-effect. It’s the initial act itself that will get them all worked up.

So we’ll have to see in coming months if the state’s attorney winds up concluding that this matter is worth the time, effort and cost it would take to prosecute someone for the act.

Although I’d wonder if the real “offense” is that an alderman thought she could “buy off” votes for the cost of a Walgreen’s gift card. Which shows as little respect for the voter (how cheaply they can be bought) as the turkey-bearing politicos of old.

  -30-

Getting fined for posts on Facebook? Could be the wave of the future

A woman living in suburban Bolingbrook could be the first of many who will face fines because they couldn’t control what they decided to post about themselves on Facebook.

Actually, in this instance, the woman won’t face a fine because officials with the Will County Forest Preserve District decided to rescind the ticket they initially issued her – one that called for a $50 fine.

BUT THE FACT that someone reading a Facebook page who was in a position of authority decided that something posted there could be worthy of some form of discipline could be something we see more of.

And it’s likely that in the future, some official won’t back down from insisting on collecting a fine. Some municipality is bound to think they need the money badly enough to want to have someone scour through Facebook in search of something that could hint at a violation.

One that needs to be punished!

“Big Brother” really is watching you! Even all the stupid, trivial things you elect to post on your Facebook account page.

PERSONALLY, I ONLY use Facebook to promote this weblog and its sister site. Anybody reading my page is only going to get tidbits about what is published here. Along with the occasional comment my aunts in the greater Minneapolis, Minn., area decide to post.

Although I suppose someone offended by my opinion could try to harass me in the same way. Not that I’m overly concerned about what some anonymous crank thinks of what I choose to write.

But the larger lesson is that Facebook does put our comments out there to a wide audience – many of whom are people we don’t know. That’s kind of the whole point of the concept – which is why I don’t post much personal material beyond what I write here.

It’s kind of like asking the local police to prod in your life, which is what happened to the Bolingbrook woman.

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE reported Thursday now the woman got a $50 ticket on May 20 because of a comment she posted on a page related to the Whalon Lake Dog Park in Bolingbrook.

There have been problems at the dog park related to “kennel cough” being passed around area dogs. The woman, according to the Tribune, posted a comment saying she hadn’t bought a permit to use the dog park this year, but wrote it in a vague way that could be interpreted to say she had used the park.

One forest preserve district read the comment, passed it along to a superior, and then the ticket was issued.

It seems the woman hasn’t been at the dog park this year, so the ticket for using the dog park without a permit turned out to be premature.

THE DISTRICT’S POLICE department said it is reviewing its policies, while saying it does not plan to routinely monitor social media accounts. They also say there are no plans to discipline the officer who issued the citation, or any others involved, because they tell the Tribune there were “good intentions” involved.

But what happens when we get a governmental entity that isn’t quite so understanding about the concept of social media and a person’s desire to express themselves?

Will we someday get overzealous officials who view social media comments the same way they now view traffic violations – as something to be routed out in great numbers so that citations can be issued and fines can be collected.

People should keep this in mind, and perhaps learn to be overly precise in what they write. Because even though they think they’re writing for a select audience of like-minded people, other people are reading. And reacting.

  -30-

Chicago Yankees? Not as ridiculous as you might want to think it sounds!

I rooted for the New York Yankees when I was a kid (back in the era of Billy Martin vs. Reggie Jackson vs. Thurman Munson, all up against George Steinbrenner), and even today can’t count myself amongst the types of fans who claim “Yankee Hatred.”

Back when Bucky wore 'red' socks

I just don't see the point. Apparently, I’m not alone. Not even in Chicago.

THE NEW YORK Times last week gave us a graphic based off a Facebook study that determined how big each major league baseball club’s fan base was geographically.

It’s not the most scientific of methods – people who indicated they “liked” the Facebook page of a particular ball club were counted as “fans.” It's about as scientific as an Internet poll asking people if they're a "Brittney" or a "Christina." But the graphic literally makes it possible to see – by zip code – which team dominates the local baseball fans.

Guess what?

The White Sox dominate on Chicago’s South Side and surrounding suburbs going down to Kankakee County, while the Cubs rule/drool in the northern part of the metro area. And yes, the Cubs have a regional fan base that extends into the rural Midwest, while the White Sox are purely an urban phenomenon.

LOOK AT A national map, and you see a swath of baby blue across northern Illinois, eastern Iowa and northern Indiana. With a big black blotch right in the middle – that blotch being the White Sox fandom that screws up the Cubbie perception that they prevail over all in their path.

'Joey Pep' in baby blue

None of this should be a surprise. It fits in with the commonly-accepted, and century-old, idea of the South Side/North Side split between the ball clubs.

But what caught my attention while going through the zip-code through zip-code breakdown of Chicago was that there were also stray out-of-town teams that get some fandom here.

And in most cases, it really is the hated Yankees.

Half a season in 'other' pinstripes

RIGHT IN THE zip code where U.S. Cellular Field is located, 5 percent of the locals are Yankees fans. Just as in Beverly and in 60601 – the heart of downtown Chicago.

In Hyde Park, that figure of Yankees fans boosts to 8 percent. Although it should be noted that that one South Side neighborhood was the lone Cubs outpost to the south of Roosevelt Road – albeit by only 35 percent for the Cubs and 34 percent for the White Sox.

A native Chicagoan Yankee

Of course, this shouldn’t be a complete shock. Anybody who ever attends a ballgame when the Yankees make their annual trip to Chicago knows there is a contingent of fans root, root, rooting against the home team.

It’s like the Yankees have become the default favorite team – a trend that makes sense in parts of the country that have no other ball club locally to root for.

ALTHOUGH THERE IS one other thing I noticed – it seems to be limited to the South Side, where the Yankees are “Team Number Three” across the region. But to the north, it seems fans who don’t want to root for either black and silver or baby blue root for the Detroit Tigers or the Boston Red Sox.

It ended for Sparky at Comiskey

Go to Lincoln Park or Old Town, and it’s the Red Sox who are the next favorite team – 4 percent. Which might be all the more reason for a Sout’ Side Yankees fan to look down on the tawny set who reside there. While those living around Wrigley Field consider the Tigers their next ball club (4 percent) to root for.

For what it's worth, my favorite ballplayer as a kid was Yankees outfielder Lou Piniella -- even with that notorious temper. But my adult self always thought that his temper and Yankee ways just contradicted that Cubby blue.

NY "Louuuuuus" were Chi "boooos"

With all the on-field gaffes he had to cope with, it's a wonder he survived the experience to go back to New York as a part-time baseball broadcaster.
 

FOR THE RECORD, Cook County as a whole roots 40 percent for the Cubs, 38 percent for the White Sox and 4 percent for the Yankees, as opposed to 47 percent of Will County residents rooting for the White Sox, 37 percent for the Cubs and 3 percent for the Yankees.

Sound pretty contrarian? Perhaps it is. Although there was another figure I noticed that showed me the real malcontents of Chicago baseball fans. It’s 28 percent.

It is both the number of Wrigley Field-area residents who root for the White Sox AND people surrounding U.S. Cellular Field who root for the Cubs. Talk about people whose houses likely get egged every Halloween.

And those who spark a civil war each summer that only ends when the Chicago Bears pull their annual sports uniting act of the city each autumn.

  -30-

EDITOR'S NOTE: My own Facebook page doesn't indicate my "liking" of any particular major league ball club. But if anyone ever does a study of defunct professional sports teams, I'll turn up as a fan of the Chicago Sting.

EXTRA: The long wait begins

This is one American League baseball fan who isn’t all that appalled that the Detroit Tigers managed to get so thoroughly whipped in the World Series this year – making it the third straight season that the National League champion  gets the ultimate bragging rights.

Ugh!

AFTER ALL, THE current setup for playoffs baseball to qualify for the World Series meant that the American League allowed its seventh best ballclub to become its league champion for 2012.

I’m sure the New York Yankees, Oakland Athletics, Texas Rangers and Baltimore Orioles all would have done better against the Giants than a four-game sweep. Heck, I’m sure the Tampa Bay Rays and Los Angeles Angels also would have managed to win a series game – even though they didn’t qualify for the playoffs. As would have the 85-win Chicago White Sox!

But now the series is over, and baseball fans will either have to start following the activity of the Dominican, Puerto Rican or Venezuelan leagues, or the Pacific League in Mexico, or else wait until late February for the arrival of spring training.

It also didn’t surprise me to learn that the Facebook Talk Meter says that the World Series this year is being out-played by all the interest in Hurricane Sandy (which threatens to make Hurricane Katrina of ’05 look like a baby’s bath by comparison).

SANDY REGISTERED A 7.12 on the Talk Meter, while the World Series was at 6.71.

And for what it’s worth, President Barack Obama (3.86) and Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney (3.5) are lagging significantly behind the series. They’re probably wishing the World Series had gone the full seven games so that they could make an appearance at a ballgame to get some public attention.



Sandy, as she appeared on Saturday. Image provided by NOAA



Now, they’re probably going to have to give the appearance of helping out the hurricane relief – if they want to be noticed in this final week prior to Election Day.

So at least in some sense, people have their priorities straight.

  -30-

When is a recording an intrusion?

I’m not sure what to think of all these devices people carry that are more than capable of recording those innocent and trivial moments that, if excepted in a certain way, can come across as incriminating – or embarrassing.

I was pleased to learn that a jury in Cook County on Wednesday rejected the idea that a woman who recorded the activity of police officers trying to intimidate her was the one who actually committed a crime – one that could have gotten her up to a 15-year prison sentence.

BUT THERE’S ALSO this commercial that is popping up on television a lot these days – for the HTC Status phone. That’s the device that comes with special buttons and functions that make it easy for people to take pictures with their mobile phone, then instantly post them to their Facebook accounts more easily than they already can do with their current portable phones.

In my mind, I have dubbed this device the “phone for idiots” and would definitely not want to buy one – because the commercial shows a couple of snickering morons who seem to have nothing better to do than to take pictures of their so-called friend while he sleeps; then post them onto Facebook for public consumption so they can embarrass him.

Somewhere along the line, we’re going to have to figure out some sort of legal standard for what is appropriate behavior for those people who feel compelled to whip out their phone and make recordings of what everybody around them is doing.

What’s the matter? Aren’t these people the least bit interesting, in and of themselves?

APPARENTLY NOT!

But then we run into the other extreme, which is what came up in that case against Tiawanda Moore. She’s the Indiana resident who thought that a Chicago police officer treated her in a way that constituted sexual harassment.

She did what any person is supposed to do if they believe that a police officer in Chicago has misbehaved professionally – she took it to Internal Affairs, the division that investigates such complaints and decides if the bad conduct rises to the level of criminal charges, or just professional punishment.

Of course, Internal Affairs has developed a reputation (not always justified) for being more interested in covering up complaints, rather than finding police wrong-doing. In Moore’s case, she believes the two officers were more interested in intimidating her into dropping her complaint.

THAT IS WHEN she grabbed her BlackBerry, pushed the buttons that allow for audio recording, and managed to capture a few minutes of their questioning of her for posterity.

That is what got her in legal trouble, since Illinois law not only makes it wrong for people to record the words of others without their knowledge, it makes it a  criminal act to record the police.

Law enforcement officials say their concern is that people will record the police either on audio or in moving pictures, then will selectively edit the audio and/or video in ways that would support whatever complaints they would want to file against the Police Department.

Which probably does fit into the mentality of those people who believe that the real “crime” when it comes to Rodney King being beaten by the Los Angeles police back in the early 1990s was that someone who lived nearby pulled out his video camera and recorded the beating without the police knowledge.

GROUPS SUCH AS the American Civil Liberties Union say they think the law is meant to cover up anyone who might catch the police behaving improperly, and they have a lawsuit pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago to challenge it.

Meanwhile, an attorney for another defendant facing charges similar to Moore told the Chicago Tribune that laws restricting personal video or audio recordings are “antiquated” in an age when so many people carry miniature devices that are capable of making such recordings.

Which is a statement that I have some personal qualms about.

I’d hate to think that the idea of respecting someone’s privacy is “antiquated.” Then again, I’d hate to think that the police-desired standard is truly acceptable.

WHICH IS WHY I was pleased to learn that it took a jury just about one hour to make their ruling in favor of Moore, with one juror telling the Chicago Tribune that they listened to the audio and actually agreed with Moore’s perception that the Internal Affairs investigators were “intimidating and insensitive” and that charges against Moore were, “a waste of time.”

Of course, I’m sure those people who support such a law think that the jury overstepped their boundaries in making  such a judgment call – and should have accepted the existence of a four-minute audio snippet of police officers without their knowledge as being improper, in-and-of itself.

But the fact that some people would try to defend this law with a “Letter of the Law” defense instead of claiming that the merits of the law are proper ought to be evidence enough that we in Illinois have a flawed law in need of revamping.

Because somehow, we in Illinois need to find that middle ground between thinking that some people being recorded is a felony offense and thinking that everybody being recorded (with silly pictures all over Facebook) is somehow proper.

  -30-