The anger overflows, and someday it could be all who hate Trump

I don't doubt that people are pissed about the outcome of Election '16.

Someone graffiti'd this house. Will others follow? Photographs by Gregory Tejeda

It seems that in several cities across our nation, including Chicago, protesters marched to let their outrage be known that the rubes of our citizenry banded together to pick as big a buffoon as Donald J. Trump to be president.

IT MADE A mess out of traffic on Lake Shore Drive, amongst other places. I don’t doubt that the contempt will linger on for quite some time.

Although let’s be honest about one thing – I have no doubt that these people are behaving much more civilly than the ones who have spent the past eight years acting as obstructionists of the presidency of Barack Obama.

I also don’t doubt that the people now upset ultimately will show more respect for Trump than the Obama critics ever did for the soon-to-be former president.

Whom I now fully expect will be the target of efforts to try to do a “Soviet-style” attempt at a rewrite of history. As in people will try to erase any trace that the Obama years ever took place.

WHO KNOWS, THEY may full well be capable of coming up with a scenario by which our country went straight from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump! Or maybe they’ll permit us to remember the existence of Bill Clinton; just so they can highlight the fact of his impeachment for kinds of behavior that they won’t want to admit our new president-elect has oft engaged in himself.

I’ll be the first to admit that much of the knuckleheaded rhetoric of the Trump presidential campaign is going to fall short of being fulfilled. Although people who felt we could put up with a Trump presidency because it’s all nothing but hot air ought to be wary.

Because the hard-core element of our society that DID vote for Trump fully expects to get the guy who bellows out “You’re Fired!” at everybody he doesn’t like and wants that nonsensical hard line on Mexico and on Arabs (it won’t matter if they’re not Muslim) and anybody else not like themselves.

I wonder what this Trump-liking truck driver thinks of his counterpart delivering tortillas

If Trump tries to suddenly become Mr. Rationality, his voters will be repulsed and will turn on him so viciously. Likely harder than any of the protesters who spoke out against him this week!

AS FOR THOSE who would be inclined to cry out “I told you so!” when it happens, keep in mind that we all lose if our government winds up delving into levels of nonsensical behavior.

Personally, I expect Trump himself will provide us with loads of trivial behavior similar to all the antics he engaged in that have generated New York Post news copy throughout the decades – possibly antics that decades from now we will be able to laugh at and wonder how we could ever have treated such a man so legitimately. Particularly since when you seriously try to analyze what he says, you can’t because he speaks in vagaries.

I doubt he knows really what he hopes to accomplish as president – other than getting use of Camp David; while probably griping privately about how it’s not up to the luxury standards of his own Mar-A-Lago mansion in Florida.

We ought to be paying more attention to the kinds of people a “President Trump” will put into key positions. Such as one-time House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – both of whom would have been regarded as has-beens prior to this week.

NOW WE KNOW why they aligned with Trump and put up with his nonsense and all the ridicule they received. They’re going to get jobs that could define their legacy (just as how Joe Biden will now be remembered as a Vice President, instead of a goof of a Senator from Delaware).

 

Hillary sticker will wear away!

Considering the leanings of those kind of people, that may well be enough for people to be wary of a Trump presidency. Although we should keep in mind that it can’t last forever. The era will come to an end.

There’s also just way too much that can go wrong for Donald J. Trump, who a year from now is probably going to wish he had never been so egotistical as to think of running for president.

I doubt that a ride on Air Force One will be worth that much to him!

  -30-

Law enforcement living in warped past when dealing with protesters?

It's not the least bit surprising to me (although I wish it were) to learn that undercover police officers are posing as protesters, hoping to get close enough to people trying to express their opinions (not an illegal activity, by the way) so as to identify them as potential "suspects."

Some people are willing to give their law enforcement such overwhelming authority because they're convinced it will only be used against other people.

I'D WONDER HOW those people who are now defending the police at the University of Chicago if they found out that the police were hanging out amongst themselves -- trying to drag out details that could be twisted agaisnt them.

That is the scandal of choice these days at the Hyde Park neighborhood-based college. Protesters have been complaining about the hospital on campus, trying to get its use as a trauma center expanded for more people.

At a protest on that issue held last month, one of the "activists" turned out to be an officer with the university police department, according to the Chicago Maroon student newspaper.

The publication published photographs of the officer at the protest, showing him carrying picket signs and sending text messages.

IT'S ONE THING for police to be on hand at a protest or picket to watch over the crowd, ensure that it does not get out of hand in expressing its opinions, and also protecting them in the event that counter-demonstrators (or just troublemakers bored and looking for some mischief to cause) try to disrupt things.

During my time as a reporter-type person, I have seen various police responses. I have seen cases where protesters were thankful to have the police on hand because they felt it kept them safe to speak out from others who might have thought to use some sort of force to try to silence them.

So I don't wnat to hear that those other people are merely expressing their own opinion, and that we're all supposed to think it equal in value to that of protesters.

Other times, I have seen police at a protest who appeared bored and seemed to wish that everybody would just pipe down and go home so they could either go off to some other duty -- or perhaps finish their shift and go home themselves!

BUT THE ACTIVITY alleged by the university police? It borders on infiltration. It stinks. It really comes across as someone thinking that expression of opinions need to be silenced.

Perhaps somebody still thinks this is the 1960s, and identifies a little too closely with those who wanted to view all forms of protest as somehow subversive.

That is a scary concept, particularly since I can't envision the protester-types at the University of Chicago these days as being the type who want to overthrow anything.

They're more likely to be in training to BE a part of the establishment, than to want to take it down by force.

ALTHOUGH IT IS commendable that university officials told the Chicago Tribune this week that they will investigate the matter, although those same officials are saying they had no advance knowledge of the alleged police tactics.

We'll have to wait and see whether the university actually investigates, or is more concerned with bringing an end to any public disclosure of what happened at the hospital?

-30-

Downtown immigration protest message meant for Obama 1,000 miles away

In President Barack Obama’s adopted home town of Chicago, activists made a point Wednesday of expressing their outrage with the president’s willingness to give in to the conservative ideologues.

Those activists gathered outside of a downtown building where the Secure Communities Task Force was supposed to have a hearing. They tied up traffic by blocking the streets with their bodies and managing to draw attention to the opposition felt to what that task force is trying to do.

NOW IT WAS not likely a message that Obama would have seen personally. He was in Illinois for much of the day, finishing up the tail end of his three-day U.S. Midwest bus tour in the rural Illinois towns of Atkinson and Alpha.

But by the time this evening rush hour protest march took place, Obama was long gone from the state, headed back to Washington for the night. He’ll probably “read all about it” in whatever generic wire service news account he stumbles across on the Internet.

But Obama was the target of this event (How else to interpret the protester chants of “Yes, You Can,” a play on his campaign slogan from ’08 that implies he could do the right thing and stop the politically motivated deportations if he wanted to), which involved having protesters try to set up chains from post to post to disrupt people and automobile traffic flow. Then some insisted on sitting in the streets.

All of which resulted in Chicago police making about 40 arrests and getting involved in a scrap with one man – whom both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times report was being punched by the police officers.

NOW THE ISSUE at stake here is nothing new. Activists and others with an interest in the growing Latino population believe that Obama is so eager to try to gain some favor with the conservative ideologues (who are never going to warm up to him, no matter what he gives them) that he has allowed the number of deportations to escalate to record highs.

Those come about despite various directives that indicate that federal immigration officials are supposed to focus their attention on deporting only those people without a valid visa who have developed serious criminal records in this country.

OBAMA: Message meant for his ears



But some immigration officials seem to be eager to bolster the deportation rate rather than worrying about finding people who pose a threat to this nation (and only the most nit-witted of ideologues seriously believes that ALL of these people are a threat).

Which is why the activists chose to protest outside of this hearing of the task force, which was to hear evidence about how well federal initiatives are working in the Chicago area.

NOW, THEY HAVE forced some focus on their argument, which also gained some attention in recent weeks when Illinois state officials tried to drop state out of the Secure Communities program on the grounds that it was not providing the proper balance between immigration and any relevant national security issues.

Gov. Pat Quinn went so far as to issue a public statement saying that officials in his state would not cooperate with the federal officials in this program. A noble statement, to say the least. But federal officials took Quinn’s tough talk about as seriously as his so-called Democratic allies in the General Assembly.

Quinn’s talk is what led the federal officials to say that the previous agreement the state had with the U.S. government concerning the Secure Communities program was expired, and that they did not need the state’s permission to continue their efforts in Illinois – or any other state – as they decide to expand its initiatives.

Now I’m sure some people are going to try to dismiss Wednesday’s activity as irrelevant, or some sort of thuggish behavior – although I’d argue I have heard more hateful rhetoric come from Tea Party-type rallies I have attended throughout the past couple of years.

IN FACT, THIS gathering had several clergy members taking part – and it was those “men of God” who were among the people telling the newspapers how police were beating up on at least one person at the rally. It’s your call if you want to call a priest a liar!

But this was a rally meant less to sway the masses than to try to influence one man – the guy in the Oval Office who is taking his family on Thursday away from the District of Columbia for an extended weekend vacation to Martha’s Vineyard.

I wonder if Obama will give this activity any thought while enjoying one last chance to do something with his daughters this summer before they start another school year.

  -30-

“United” county board a nice gesture, but it comes down to political rhetoric

After spending the summer months watching the Cook County Board engage in purely political actions against each other, it was nice to read about how the county board was united Tuesday – even though their ultimate motivation is the same, hoping to score points on some future Election Day.

The issue of concern this time was video poker – those machines that until earlier this year were illegal and were often the focus of raids by county sheriffs across the state – eager to show they were doing something to get tough on crime.

AS PART OF its grand solution to resolve the state government’s financial problems, the General Assembly and Gov. Pat Quinn approved a new law making them legal, and imposing a series of taxes on the money made off the machines.

The only problem is that the very concept of legalizing video poker machines in all those taverns and private clubs across the state so offends so many locals that they’re going through the motions of banning the devices within their jurisdictions.

For the record, state officials say the machines will be legal in enough places (ones without pseudo-moralistic hang-ups) that there will still be significant tax revenue.

But Cook County government these days is not one of those places. That is what led the county board on Tuesday to pass a measure that specifies the devices remain illegal in the county – regardless of what the state law says.

NOW AS I have written before, this move isn’t going to make a great difference – because it only allows the county sheriff to take action in those portions of the county that do not fall under anyone else’s law enforcement jurisdiction.

In short, the unincorporated areas.

Since by the very definition of urban the bulk of the 5 million-plus people who live in Cook County live in actual cities, towns or villages, it is a small percentage of the county’s residents who will have to deal with the new ban.

To seriously impact the state’s ability to make video poker legal in Cook County, people who want it to remain outlawed would have to go around to all 129 municipalities in Cook County.

THAT MEANS CHICAGO and the 128 suburban towns based within the county.

That’s a lot of work, and one might very well find out that there are many local government officials who are not going to get bent out of shape over this issue. They’d just as soon not be bothered with it, perhaps because the realities of their local political organizations means that they have no significant competition come the next Election Day – or any future Election Day, for that matter.

Saying that Cook County is reaffirming its ban on video poker sounds much more impressive, even though that ban will impact very few of its residents.

That, very likely, was the reason that proponents of video poker took seriously the Cook County action.

THE ILLLINOIS COIN Machine Operators’ Association organized a throng of t-shirt-wearing protesters, all of whom tried to cram their way into the county board room to express their opposition to the county’s proposed action.

The Chicago Tribune reports that some of those protesters were turned away due to fire codes that limit how many people can be in the board room at once. Considering how small that facility truly is, it doesn’t surprise me in the least to learn that even the slightest crowd can push the county board to the limit.

Of course, none of these people was openly saying that they want more opportunities to gamble. That would be gauche. They tried to spin the issue as one of job creation, which in today’s times of economic struggle has the potential to catch the attention of political people who have a desire to get re-elected.

Do they really want to be the subject material of a campaign advertisement a few months from now funded by the association that says county board members voted to do away with jobs at a time when so many people were out of work.

YES, THAT LINE is ridiculous. It’s absurd. Yet it is exactly the kind of rhetoric that often gets used in campaign ads. The next time you hear a hard-hitting ad against a candidate, you might want to remember this moment and consider that maybe what you’re hearing is a tad bit exaggerated (if not outright falsified).

Instead, we have the county board banding together (after months of splitting apart over the sales tax issue) in a show of moralistic outrage that the state would even think of bringing down the flaws of video poker and gambling upon us, just to make a few extra bucks.

That line is equally as absurd as the claim that the county board is doing away with jobs.

But if there is one thing I have picked up on during my time as a reporter-type person, it’s that I often can watch a government official take some sort of innocuous action and try to figure out how it can be distorted into something that sounds like it borders upon a criminal act.

BEING ABLE TO do that makes it possible for me to figure out very quickly when the negative campaign ads start (probably sometime in January, for the Feb. 2 primary elections) how many of them are just ridiculous, and ought to be disregarded.

It also means I can appreciate that this vote on Tuesday wasn’t so much about impacting video poker (like I said, it would take the actual municipalities to do that) as much as it was about creating a moment that could be used by county board members to inspire a positive campaign ad about how wonderful our sitting county board members were.

Either way, it ought to be a lesson. Political rhetoric is often like junk food – fatty, starchy, filling in a bloated (rather than nutritional) way and ultimately best consumed in moderation.

-30-

EDITOR'S NOTE: Now if more towns would follow the lead of Naperville (out in the Land of DuPage), then there might (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/naperville-prohibits-video-gaming.html) be some impact in terms of eliminating video poker.

Wrigley, the protesters and Al Franken

It is hard for me to decide what the most ridiculous spectacle was on Tuesday in the wide world of electoral politics in the United States.

I’m inclined to go with the Chicago City Council, which is preparing to take on an issue of monumental proportions – one where they will confront a force that threatens society as we know it today.

I AM SPEAKING, of course, of all those trashy vendors who try to earn a living by congregating around Wrigley Field and selling you overpriced goods (although not quite as overpriced as the ones sold inside the stadium proper) as you venture your way into the building to watch the women in tube tops who attend Chicago Cubs games.

Alderman Tom Tunney claims his concern is about public safety. He told the Chicago Tribune, “you can’t walk to the park.”

And I will be the first to admit there are instances where vendors get overly pushy in trying to peddle their extra-large bags of peanuts or cheaply-printed scorecards or whatever other item they have concocted to try to make some money.

But then again, I expect there to be something of a crowd around a sports stadium. Isn’t that part of the point of attending an athletic event – to be a part of the spectacle that cheers on the home team (and razzes them beyond belief when they play like trash)?

THAT IS WHY city ordinances have long prevented the unaffiliated street vendors from setting foot on the actual block that Wrigley Field occupies (Clark Street to Addison Street to Sheffield Street to Waveland Avenue back to Clark).

But under the Tunney proposal, which will now be debated with all the seriousness that officials are putting into trying to concoct a state government budget, now vendors would be banned from working within two blocks of the ballpark.

Not that this would affect the people who operate storefronts within a block of the ballpark to sell sports-related stuff. They aren’t affected.

Which makes me wonder if this great public safety concern has a touch of protecting the business interests of the vendors who work inside the stadium and in the storefronts directly across the street.

IF SO, THEN trying to bill it as a public safety concern is a bit of a stretch – even if it also served a local political purpose as well. I couldn’t help but notice that the measure came up the same day the City Council approved a measure requiring city employees to take 15 days off without pay before the end of 2009.

I suppose that’s better than requiring people to work those 15 days without pay. But most people I know with jobs need every penny they can get. Losing three weeks of work isn’t going to help. Better we pay attention to the public safety concern surrounding Wrigley Field.

Or perhaps the City Hall crowd would rather we watch the Statehouse Scene, where officials on Tuesday were treated to the sight of protesters being arrested.

Now keep in mind that protests at a government building, particularly the Statehouse in Springfield, are routine. There’s always somebody who stages a rally of sorts to try to gain attention for their cause.

BUT WHEN WAS the last time you saw protesters chanting, “raise taxes now,” while being carted off by the police?

These particular protesters were organized by the Service Employees International Union, and by their own admission were trying to get arrested to make a point. The union wants Gov. Pat Quinn to get the income tax hike he is calling for to balance the state budget for the fiscal year that begins Wednesday.

Usually, protesters protest against higher taxes. But that is how bizarre the political scene has been twisted due to the budget mess – which shows no sign of ending soon.

If either of those spectacles aren’t bizarre enough for you, how about this? Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.

THE STATE SUPREME Court in Minnesota issued a ruling Tuesday that, for all practical purposes, ends the legal battle over who won that state’s 2008 election. The one-time comedy writer for Saturday Night Live will soon be able to join his colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and will give the Democratic caucus 60 members, which in theory will allow them to run roughshod over the GOP opposition without having to worry about filibusters.

What I find bizarre is the whole idea that Franken is political. He strikes me more as a comedian going for the cheap laugh, and he is willing to use current events as subject material for his humor.

Does anyone really believe that his 1996 book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (and other observations)” was a serious political tome that will influence the thoughts and perceptions of government for generations to come? Or was it just a quickie laugh that some people were foolish enough to pay $21.95 (plus tax) for ($29.95 if purchased with Canadian dollars)?

At the very least, Roland Burris will now no longer be the only comic in the Senate, even if Roland, Roland, Roland’s humorous moments will be purely unintentional.

-30-

Peterson, Keyes comprise a pair

Alan Keyes was the conservative pundit who tried to give his political aspirations a jolt at the expense of Illinois, while Drew Peterson is the guy who thinks the fact he was once a cop makes him superior to the rest of us minions – instead of just a pinhead.

If it sounds like I don’t think much of either man, you’d be right. But on Friday, it was a real fight for which one was the bigger goof in the news.

BOTH MEN HAD to deal with the criminal justice system Friday following their arrest, although admittedly Keyes’ criminal case is way less severe than the one confronting Peterson.

The bail amounts both face ought to tell the story. Keyes was one of 22 protesters at Notre Dame University who were arrested on a trespass charge, and he had to come up with $250 in order to avoid having to spend time in jail awaiting trial.

By comparison, Peterson had his bail set Friday at $20 million – a figure that no one expects him to come up with. The point of having such a high bond set in Will County Circuit Court is that the judge was trying to ensure he spends time in jail while he awaits trial on criminal charges that he killed his third wife (never mind what he may have done with wife number four).

Both of these men have been the butt of jokes in recent years. Keyes is the clown who got killed politically when he temporarily became a Calumet City resident so he could run for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.

REMEMBER HE LOST by a 7-3 ratio to Barack Obama.

Peterson is that breed of cop who’s basically a clown but thinks his badge gives him some sense of moral superiority. So I’m sure in his mind, he thinks he’s the one rational human being surrounded by a batch of degenerates and nitwits.

I’m not saying that all police officers are like that. But there are some who fall into that category. They’re the ones who become overbearing to deal with because they can use their law enforcement power in improper ways.

So perhaps the biggest question concerning the Peterson saga is, “Why did it take 18 months to come up with an indictment?” Either Peterson’s law enforcement connections were willing to look the other way out of a sense of protecting the image of their “profession” or the criminal case we’re likely to hear in coming months isn’t all that strong.

I DON’T REALLY know what to think of the whole Peterson affair. It isn’t a case that I have enjoyed reading about, and it intrigues me to think that so many people in the public think this is an interesting story.

If it were up to me, Peterson’s indictment and arrest earlier this week would have warranted a one-graf news brief, rather than a sense of major news breaking that literally caused WBBM-TV to point out how close they came to having pictures of the actual moment of Peterson’s arrest – as though it would have been a significant scoop.

As much as it is criminal that Kathleen Savio died apparently due to deliberate human activity and that Stacy Peterson remains missing (and so many people believe she too is dead), I can’t say that I find their stories all that sad.

Pathetic, maybe. But not sad.

THEY DID WILLINGLY subject themselves to Drew. The fact is that he has some sense of personality that draws a certain type of person. If someone chooses to associate with Peterson, can we really be expected to feel all that sympathetic if something bad happens to them?

So now, Peterson gets to sit in a jail cell in the facility located on the southern edge of downtown Joliet (although he jokes about getting “spiffy” outfits to wear and “three squares” to eat). And we’re bound to hear much more about him in coming months, even though his saga is one that I desperately want to wither away.

Yet despite all this, I can’t help but think that Keyes is the more ridiculous character on Friday.

He was at the Catholic university near South Bend, Ind., along with other anti-abortion protesters. They are upset about the fact that Notre Dame is dignifying Obama by allowing him to be a part of the commencement program this year.

THEY CLAIM THEY are merely being good Catholics in line with the portion of church teachings (which aren’t even believed by all Catholics) that abortion is never permissible. What it really amounts to is a group of people with a narrow viewpoint that they’re trying to push off on the general public.

In the case of Keyes, I can’t help but wonder if he’s trying to do anything he can now to attach his name to Obama.

Right now, Alan Keyes’ claim to fame is being the guy who once got annihilated politically by Obama. But I’m sure he’d love it if he could become Obama’s permanent opposition.

Think about it. Anytime Obama says or does something, Keyes will be on hand to speak against it. Keep it up enough times, and people will start to think of Keyes as being the equivalent of the president.

PERSONALLY, I THINK it would make Keyes the equivalent of the Washington Generals to Obama’s Harlem Globetrotters.

But Keyes these days is so desperate for attention that he’s willing to engage in stupid stunts such as the one that got him arrested this week in Indiana (trespassing on private property while pushing a baby carriage with a bloodied doll inside).

Somehow, I think even Drew Peterson would look down on that type of behavior.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Drew Peterson will get another chance on May 18 to convince a judge (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/petersons-attorney-goes-on-new-media-blitz.html) that his bond should be set at an amount that he can realistically afford.
Alan Keyes would have to enroll at Notre Dame in order to legally be allowed to protest (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/alan-keyes-among-21-arrested-at-notre-dame-in-obama-protest.html) on campus.

What's wrong with minding one's own business, rather than somebody else's?

So on a day when students at high schools across the United States tried to show their support for gay people being treated like everybody else by staying silent, one student in the outermost Chicago suburbs was happy that he got to speak out against them.

That was the case at Neuqua Valley High School, where the federal appeals court for the Chicago area ruled earlier this week that Alex Nuxoll could wear his t-shirt to school – the one that reads, “Be Happy, Not Gay.”

NUXOLL, WHOSE PARENTS and other ideological supporters filed a lawsuit on his behalf after school officials banned the t-shirt on the grounds it was “derogatory” and “demeaning,” does not care for the fact that his high school is one of about 7,400 schools across the country partaking in the Day of Silence – an event that is supposed to promote the concept that gay people in our society are forced to keep their perspectives to themselves in order to avoid harassment.

Students in theory go through an entire day without saying a word, and some will go so far as to hand out pre-printed cards that detail harassment against gay people.

So Nuxoll wanted to wear his t-shirt on Friday, and again on Monday, when a ‘Day of Truth’ is scheduled, according to the Daily Herald newspaper of Arlington Heights.

Students partaking in the Day of Silence handed out cards such as these to explain their lack of speech. Illustration provided by Day of Silence Project.

The appeals court’s order is valid until larger issues in the lawsuit are resolved, which could be later this year. Their lawsuit has the support (emotional and financial) from the Memphis, Tenn.-based Alliance Defense Fund, which means this fight will go the full 15 rounds – so to speak.

ATTORNEYS FOR THE alliance say they are pleased with this week’s ruling, seeing it as a sign they may prevail in their larger goal – which is to give legitimacy to someone who wants to dump on gay people.

This case isn’t just about a kid wanting to wear a t-shirt. Anybody who tries to portray it as such is trying to dodge the real issue – which is whether people have a right to pick on others because of sexual orientation.

I have always been of the belief that I have enough problems with my own (admittedly miniscule, these days) sex life, without having to worry about anyone else’s. I can’t help but see anyone trying to speak out against such gay rights measures as being someone who wants to butt into someone else’s business.

Or how does that old saying go – “He doesn’t have any business of his own to mind, so he has to mind everybody else’s.”

OF COURSE, THE court ruling this week has the social conservatives all excited that someone is finally willing to let one of their own “speak his mind,” even though from my perspective, we hear all too much of their viewpoint.

These people want to argue that a victory for free speech was won this week when a student was allowed to wear his t-shirt. After all, their viewpoint must be heard too, and any attempt to point out errors in their way of thinking amounts to censorship.

Sorry, but I don’t buy that theory.

What an event like a ‘Day of Silence’ is about is a symbolic gesture against harassment of people. It’s a bit simplistic to say that anyone speaking out against such an event is for harassment.

BUT IT’S NOT totally erroneous either.

Whenever people complain about measures meant to protect gay people by claiming they are being given special privileges, it comes off too much like they believe gay people are entitled to be harassed.

Either that, or their own lives are so wretched they are looking for someone they can place beneath themselves on the societal pecking order so they can harass someone too.

That is the message that comes from someone who wants to wear a t-shirt reading, “Be Happy, Not Gay.”

IF ANYTHING, THE student wearing such a shirt is trying to disrupt an event promoting equality, which is why I find it ridiculous that Illinois Family Institute officials (in a statement denouncing the very concept of a ‘Day of Silence’) claimed the event would disrupt the school day.

Personally, the thought of students keeping quiet for just a day sounds like every teacher’s fantasy work day come true. Students engaged in personal reflection on a societal issue, rather than babbling on about the latest teenage trivia, has the potential to be an educational experience.

Now this may be a free country where people are allowed to think what they want. I will concede your legal right to wear such a slogan on your t-shirt. But one needs to consider that what is legally permissible is not always the smartest thing to do. In this case, wearing such a t-shirt on a day of contemplation of gay rights is little more than rude.

Also, this being the United States of America – the land of the free and home of the brave and such a wonderful country – I have the equal right to think you are a nitwit for wearing such a shirt and thinking such a thought.

FREE SPEECH IS for everybody, and students who partook in Friday’s ‘Day of Silence’ events were merely presenting a thought – even though it is the ultimate in irony to present their viewpoint by saying nothing all day.

If by chance, you try to retort that such a thought ought not to be expressed (which is the tone I detect in the Illinois Family Institute statement and in comments from similar groups), then all I have to say is that your attempt to restrict a thought is just wrong.

Dare I say, it’s un-American.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Students across the United States said nothing to show their support for equal treatment for all (http://www.dayofsilence.org/), putting a special emphasis this year on a Feb. 12 incident in California where a teenager were brutally beaten for his sexual orientation.

Opposing groups are trying to coordinate their own ‘Day of Truth’ for Monday so as to counter (http://www.dayoftruth.org/main/default.aspx) Friday’s activity.

Such dueling statements may very well be a part of The American Way, but some Australians (http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/2081/Day-Of-Silence-Vs-Day-Of-Truth.htm) think we’re a batch of nitwits for getting into these dueling days over the issue.

Alex Nuxoll got to wear (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=179036&src=2) his t-shirt to school, after all. I can remember when the most controversial t-shirt to be seen in a school was one with that ‘never classic’ saying, “If I said you had a nice body, would you hold it against me?”

Obama should not be trashed for associating with a 'Weatherman'

If a certain segment of society in this country gets its way, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama will be tainted by the fact he lives in the same South Side neighborhood as Bill Ayers.

To listen to the questioning that came up during this week’s presidential debate in Philadelphia, it becomes obvious that some people paid no attention during history class and have little to no clue as to what the social turmoil of the 1960s was all about.

TOO MANY PEOPLE seem to want to put that era into some sort of 1980s context by which the spirit of Ronald Reagan would have us believe that any association with the less conservative elements of our society during that era taints one for life.

Even when one takes into account that Obama was only a child at the time (he turned 10 in 1971), some people would have us believe the fact that he knows people who were not “hawks” when it came to the Vietnam War is enough reason to hold him suspect.

Obama got hit with questions about his support for Ayers, even though as best as I can tell, they have only met because they literally both live in the Hyde Park neighborhood, just a few blocks from each other.

Of course, nearly 30,000 people live in that neighborhood on the Lake Michigan shorefront. Do we hold them all suspect?

Barack Obama was all of 7 years old when Bill Ayers was posed by the Chicago Police Department for this "mug shot" in 1968.

NOW FOR THE bulk of his adult life, Ayers has devoted himself to academia. He currently is on the education faculty (a “distinguished professor of education” is his exact title) at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

But Ayers suffers from Jane Fonda Syndrome.

The social conservative elements of this country do not want us to forget the fact that Ayers (along with his partner Bernardine Dohrn) were a part of The Weatherman – that ‘60s collective of largely privileged white youths who believed they were waging war against the corrupt establishment that had the United States in a war in Vietnam.

Now admittedly, the Weatherman (named for a line in the old Bob Dylan song, “Subterranean Homesick Blues”), were considered by many people to be a bit extreme – even for those who fondly remember their liberal activities of that era. That’s what messing around with explosives will get for you – a reputation as a kook.

CONSERVATIVES ALSO TAKE into account the fact that Ayers, on many occasions, has said he is not apologetic for his belief that the United States should never have got involved in a war in Vietnam.

To listen to questions concerning Ayers during the debate (and the way Hillary Clinton piled on during her responses to Obama’s answers), Obama is friends with a man who is the moral equivalent of the people in the Middle East who commit acts of violence in the name of Allah.

They would have you believe that Obama is friends with a man who attacked the Pentagon and other public facilities and who also planted bombs that killed people. They also would want you to think this is the man who, on Sept. 11, 2001, while airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, told the New York Times “I don’t regret setting bombs,” and “I feel we didn’t do enough” to undermine the U.S. military.

By Clinton’s logic, the Weatherman attack on the Pentagon was identical in stature to the airplane three decades later that religious extremists piloted directly into the same building.

HERE’S A DOSE of “fact,” as it relates to those Weatherman bombs. The only people they ever managed to kill were themselves.

Property damage was what they were after, such as the “Days of Rage” protests of 1969 where members ran through the Rush Street nightclub district and shattered store windows and parked cars in a lame attempt to simulate the disruptiveness of war to the people of Chicago.

Explosives are tricky, particularly if one doesn't really know what they are doing. That's what caused a March 6, 1970 explosion at a Greenwich Village townhouse where Weatherman members were holed up. This “terrorist” group (as some on the far right are determined to label them, even though they’d dispute the same label being applied to the Ku Klux Klan) only managed to kill themselves off – no one else.

Another fact – the Weatherman attack on the Pentagon may very well be one of the most pathetic attempts by anyone to attack a military installation.

AS I UNDERSTAND it, the group placed an explosive in a men’s rest room at the Pentagon. When it went off, it caused some pipe damage and serious water overflow in part of the building. That water resulted in damage to computers that were processing information related to the Vietnam war effort.

The spin by Weatherman members was that the disrupted the Vietnam War – bringing it to a half for a couple of hours. Reality says they were more an annoyance than a threat, behaving in a manner like the kid in high school who thinks he’s cute because he lights a cherry bomb and drops it down the toilet.

Looking at it factually, it makes Clinton look ridiculous for comparing the Weatherman to Islamic radicals.

I can't help but wonder if she now seriously believes that the Pentagon was levitated (remember when Abbie Hoffman and his Yippie allies protested outside the building, then later told people they caused the building to float in the air as a sign of protest against the war?)

AND AS FAR as Ayers being the guy who badmouthed the United States on the day of the New York and Pentagon attacks? He had just published a book (semi-autobiographical, with some details changed to protect others) and was trying to promote it. The fact that a Times feature appeared on the same day, hours before the attacks, is coincidental.

His belief that he wanted to do more to oppose the military was NOT a response to the activity of Sept. 11, which is how Clinton tried to spin it during the debate.

Now for those who are going to accuse me of being an Ayers apologist, I’m not. I’ve never met the man, although I’m sure that if I were older (I was only 4 at the time of the Days of Rage), I would not have had the nerve to mess with explosives, no matter how negatively I might have perceived Vietnam (I have two uncles who served in the military – army and marine corps – and saw combat in that war. This is something we disagree on).

But I believe we need to quit thinking about the 1960s as some sort of litmus test by which everyone who opposed U.S. involvement in Vietnam or looks down on J. Edgar Hoover’s use of the FBI to harass civil rights dissidents is somehow tainted for life.

NOW IT IS true that some of The Weatherman people went on to commit crimes of violence separate from their activist protests. They have either done their prison time, or may be serving time still.

But Obama’s ties are only that he knows Ayers, who doesn’t have any criminal convictions of his own (in part because the FBI’s investigations into “radical” activity were so overzealous that all their evidence against him was ruled inadmissible in court).

Trying to tar Obama because Ayers wasn’t a “hawk” during the Vietnam War is absurd.

THIS RIDICULOUS MENTALITY belongs to the people who were behind much of the right’s disgust with the presidency of Bill Clinton (and for that matter, Hillary herself). The only people who are going to accept such a premise are the ones who would never vote for Clinton to begin with.

In short, it plays right into reinforcing the campaign of Republican opponent John McCain. It makes me wonder if those Democrats who suspect Hillary would secretly be comfortable with a McCain victory in 2008 (so she could try again in ’12) are not just being paranoid.

Actually, all she’s doing is taking down the reputation of the Clinton years among Democratic activists and ensuring that she herself could never get the party’s nomination to serve in the Oval Office.

If that’s the case, we might have to wait for Chelsea to become “of age” before we see another Clinton in the White House.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Bill Ayers’ website (http://www.billayers.org/) is devoted to his educational credentials, but does not shy away from his activist days.

Rick Ayers is disgusted with Hillary Clinton’s comments about his brother, Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/clintons-mccarthyism-and_b_97220.html), seeing them as evidence that Hillary will say anything to try to chip away at Barack Obama’s lead.

The Weather Underground’s “declaration of war” on Amerika (http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/weather-undergrounds-1970-declaration.html) can be found here.

Was President Bill Clinton wrong to give pardons to people with ties to the Weather Underground (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/17/clinton-campaign-gets-weather-underground-questions/) movement of the 1960s?

"Reverend" brings ghoulish, foolish funeral protest act to Chicago's southern suburbs

If past protests are any indication, there will be picket signs similar to these outside two funeral homes in the Chicago suburbs. And the people wielding them won't be the least bit bashful. Photograph provided by Westboro Baptist Church.

I want to start off by wishing my condolences to the families and other loved ones of Connie Woolfork and Sarah Szafranski.

Not only did each family lose a beloved relative in a gruesome, nationally publicized quintuple murder at a suburban Chicago shopping center, but on Saturday they are going to have to endure a ridiculously public ordeal that will cause them additional grief and shame.

Specifically, funeral services are being held today for both women, and the Rev. Fred Phelps is bringing his batch of Kansas goofballs affiliated with his Westboro Baptist Church to the Chicago suburbs to conduct their demented protest activities.

PHELPS IS ONE of those types of people who really are what is wrong with the United States of America these days – he thinks religion condones bigotry, and he has been put in a position of authority that gives him a reason to think he is morally superior and has the “God-given right” to treat others like dirt.

That is why in recent years he has gone out of his way to organize pickets at the funeral services of people who died in publicly prominent ways. Most of the picketed events are the funerals of soldiers killed in combat in Iraq. But now, Phelps will use the Woolfork and Szafranski services to try to gain more attention for his “holy war.”

Not that Phelps has given up on picketing deceased U.S. soldiers. He plans to protest at the Monday funeral service in Blue Island of Lt. David Schultz, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division who died last week in Iraq. Only then will Phelps and his followers leave the Chicago area.

What is his cause?

PHELPS WANTS TO believe the reason that people are dying is some sort of cosmic punishment. God does not like a multi-cultural society of tolerance that he sees as sympathetic to people he wants to demonize. So he’s allowing “Americans” to be killed as the country’s punishment

Phelps is the perfect example of a person who complains about “political correctness” because he can’t use words like “f----t” without appearing to be a bigot. He wants to go back to the days when a “f----t” was a “f----t” and those people just needed to take the abuse.

The reverend thinks that he is arousing the anger of people against gays. Actually, he’s just arousing the family members who will have their sad moment turned into a public spectacle by a publicity-seeking buffoon who is trying to cloak his bigotry in holy robes.

I don’t hesitate to call Phelps a bigot because a check of his primary web-site that lambastes homosexuality also has “sister” sites that tell us God also hates Canada, Ireland, Mexico and Sweden, in addition to Catholics.

IT IS GOOD that Illinois lawmakers a few years ago, largely in response to Phelps’ protests across the nation, imposed laws requiring protesters to keep their activities a set distance from the actual event.

They cannot legally interfere with the funeral services or peoples’ ability to get into and out of the event. Perhaps if they are lucky, the Woolfork and Szafranski families will be able to get through their funeral services without having to pay much attention to the Rev. Fred.

At the time the law was enacted, Phelps backers complained their right to express their views (no matter how ridiculous) were being interfered with. Actually, all that is being interfered with is Phelps’ ability to stop other people from saying how ridiculous a figure he truly is.

Phelps is really nothing more than a throwback to the past.

LET’S NOT FORGET that the segregationists of old used to cloak their racist views against African-American people by claiming that their ideas were “God’s word.” They were able to quote biblical passages that they interpreted as evidence that, “the Lord God himself” wanted the races to be kept separate.

Now, only the most buffoonish of white supremacists make that claim (try reading their diatribes about “mud people” who were God’s “mistaken creation”).

But before one thinks I am trying to lambast organized religion of the past as blatantly racist, I’m not. I’ve seen too many old civil rights protests of the 1960s where priests and nuns joined the marches to show their solidarity for the concept of integration. I’ve also heard enough religious people talk sincerely about racial equality to know that religion itself is not the problem.

It is the sorry way in which some people allow their twisted views about life to interpret religion in a blatantly un-Christian way.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between Phelps and some southern preachers of the past is that Phelps replaces African-American people with gay people. The 21st Century, in his mind, gives us a different group to wrongly demonize.

If I wanted, I could easily go see the Phelps protests, which are taking place near funeral homes in the suburbs of Oak Forest and Country Club Hills. (My parents actually live in a neighboring town, and I could combine reportorial duty with a family visit). But I think I’m going to skip it, and not just because my funeral clothes are in need of a dry cleaning.

I have already heard the rhetoric that Phelps likely will spew forth on Saturday.

I still remember a wintry January in 1994 in Springfield, Ill. A “preacher” walked up to a podium set up on the east steps of the Illinois capitol (the main entrance) and he proceeded to give his “sermon.” It is a spiel I will never forget.

THE CLERGYMAN THAT day asked God to, “strike the Earth with a plague to wipe out all the n-----s, f-----s and other perverts who take up space, so as to leave this planet and its natural resources free and available for decent, Christian people.”

That clergyman then put his hood on and took part along with his colleagues in a Ku Klux Klan rally that was meant to denounce the fact that people in this country these days honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. with a government-sanctioned holiday, rather than denounce him as some sort of “Communist agitator” and “pervert” like they used to.

The only difference between that clergyman’s sermon (I forget exactly what the Klan calls its clergy, other than to know – like everything else in Klan-speak – it starts with a “K”) and the Phelps talk is that Phelps doesn’t hide under a white hood.

He’ll just wear those ridiculous sunglasses, even on cloudy, overcast Midwest winter days.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church (which Baptist officials say is not really Baptist) is the subject of these studies (http://www.baptistwatch.org/fredphelps.html) as to how un-Christian (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp) his beliefs truly are.

Some journalists also have done their work in seriously digging up information (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html) about the Rev. Fred Phelps.

For those who want to believe that these resources are biased, check out this crude statement (http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080207_illinois-mall-shooting.pdf) released by Phelps to justify his actions on Saturday.

The 1960s will end some time around 2050

One of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign themes is that his election will bring an end to the infighting between the factions of U.S. society who lived through the social turmoil of the late 1960s.

He thinks that choosing a president who did not come of age during the “Summer of Love” or the My Lai Massacre will allow the nation as a whole to move forward, rather than getting caught up in the continuing battles of the culture war between so-called liberals and conservatives.

Critics of the Vietnam War march along Michigan Avenue in conjunction with the 1968 Democratic Convention. These placards (below) were distributed to Chicagoans who approved of the brutal police treatment towards the protesters, which the Walker Commission labeled a "police riot." Photographs provided by Chicago History Museum.

But the degree to which the spirit of the ‘60s is embedded in the mindsets of the people (both “dove” and “hawk”) who lived through the era ensures that not even Obama in the White House could bring an end to the social squabbles that had their roots planted 40-something years ago.

The latest outburst of ’60s tensions came earlier this week when 58-year-old Joseph Pannell said he would not fight extradition to face criminal charges related to the 1969 shooting of a Chicago police officer.

Understandably, the officer who was shot, Terrance Knox, remains upset, particularly because Pannell has managed to live the bulk of his life in freedom in Canada without having to face criminal charges.

At the time of the shooting, Pannell was 19 and a sympathizer of the Black Panther Party, which saw itself as a revolutionary group willing to use force to defend the civil rights of black people. Many African-American people who lived during the times remember the Panther party as being a group offering social programs such as free breakfasts to help impoverished West and South side neighborhoods.

Knox is firmly on the other side of the culture clash, telling the Chicago Sun-Times that Parnell of the Black Panther Party, “is what I would consider in today’s terms a terrorist.”

I know Knox is not alone in that belief. When the City Council seriously considered a proposal two years ago to rename a one-block strip of Monroe Street to honor Fred Hampton (the Black Panther leader in Chicago who was killed during a Dec. 4, 1969, police raid), the Fraternal Order of Police used its clout with white aldermen to squash the measure.

Some black activists to this day insist the police raid was an assassination of a budding black leader, although prosecutors never did bring criminal charges against anyone in connection with the incident.

Law enforcement officials prefer to remember Hampton and the Panthers as a criminal element not worthy of praise. They definitely do not want to be reminded that the reason Panthers felt the need to arm themselves was because they believed African-American people back then were being harassed – rather than protected – by the police.

The presence of the Oakland, Calif.-based Black Panthers in Chicago will always be controversial, even though many of the group’s survivors have moved well into mainstream society.

Bobby Rush – who now laughingly tells the story of becoming a founding member of the party’s Illinois chapter after national Panther leaders Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton were arrested in Chicago and knew of no one else in the city who could bail them out of jail – is possibly the biggest success story.

He has served in Congress since 1993, and currently represents the South Side and inner southwest suburbs. To some, even that is controversial.

The majority African-American city neighborhoods in his district view him as an old warrior from the ‘60s who is looking out for their interests, while some in the white suburban communities are wary of him.

In one case, former Crestwood Mayor Chester Stranczek tried to use his political influence to get his town drawn into another congressional district, saying he did not believe someone with Rush’s background could adequately represent the ideas of the white ethnics who live there.

Perhaps Obama’s presence on the political scene is a sign that, to quote Sam Cooke, “A Change is Gonna Come.”

After all, Pannell told reporters this week the reason he is now willing to return to Chicago after decades of living a peaceful life in the suburbs of Toronto is that he sees the presence of Obama and the way he is perceived by people in the United States as evidence that he might get a fair hearing in the judicial system.

But let’s be honest. While some of us like to mock Hillary Clinton’s claim many years ago that a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” was targeting her husband’s presidency, she wasn’t exactly being paranoid.

There WERE social conservatives with ample funding from sympathetic foundations who were anxiously awaiting, readying themselves to pounce on Bill Clinton the moment he dropped his pants at an inopportune moment.

The choice of Hillary Clinton as president will merely stoke the raw emotions of those people (thereby ensuring that the 2010s will be a repeat of the 1990s), their embers of anger will not die out just because of Barack Obama.

For some, the presence of a non-white man as Leader of the Free World may even cause more of an outburst than the presence of Hillary. The split caused by the ‘60s is not going to end anytime soon.

Who is winning the split is determined largely by the perceptions of the individual. Recently on MSNBC, a panel of professional political pontificators was talking about the presidential campaigns when conservative commentator Pat Buchanan said the situation in this country remained largely a battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda, “and John Wayne is winning.”

To his mindset, I’m sure he likes the idea of the tough-talking cowboy actor beating up on the 60s generation star of such films as “9 to 5” and “Barbarella” (my favorite for pure cheesiness is “Cat Ballou”) whose opposition to the Vietnam War was so intense that she is still remembered for the North Vietnamese propaganda photographs she posed for alongside an anti-aircraft gun.

But would a country where “John Wayne is winning” seriously be banning cigarette smoking in public – the way Illinois and 21 other states have? I can’t help but think that Jane has ol’ John in a headlock and has the potential to drop him for good.

Whenever I think about it philosophically, I realize the 1960s will not end until some time between the years 2050 and 2060.

Think about it. Every generation manages to produce a few members who, through good health and the luck of the draw, live past 100. So someone in the United States who was a teenager or college-age person back in the 1960s and manages to live long enough will become a centenarian at about the middle of the 21st century – similar to how the last veteran of the Civil War didn’t die until 1959.

Only when all of the children of the ‘60s are gone will the unrest that sprang up in the decade come to an end.

Of course, that leaves one question. Will the last ‘60s child be a “hawk” or a “dove?” Are we destined for the sight about 40 years from now of the last ‘60s child wearing a tie-dyed shirt and proclaiming the virtues of the flower children over a racist society?

Or is it going to be someone who supported the idea of the U.S. military in Vietnam, proclaims him or herself to be a “real American,” and thinks that his survival longer than any other of his generation is the ultimate proof that, “the hippie freaks lost.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: I love the Encyclopedia of Chicago. Here are entries concerning the Black Panther Party (http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/142.html) and civil rights protests in Chicago (http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/293.html).

Here’s a Panther perspective (http://www.blackpanther.org/legacynew.htm) about the organization denounced by then-FBI leader J. Edgar Hoover as, “the greatest threat to the internal security of the United States.”

Ban the Ashtray Ads

I don’t smoke. I never have. It’s just one habit that always struck me as too filthy and smelly to bother with.

So a part of me is eagerly awaiting Tuesday, when a new Illinois law takes effect that, for all practical purposes, bans smoking of tobacco products in public places.

But in recent weeks, there has been a television commercial airing on stations in the Chicago area. I would guess it is airing across the state, as well. It is an American Cancer Society public awareness spot that tries to illustrate how much happier life will be without cigarette stench in public.

A sudden swift kick, however, is the gut feeling I get every time I see the television spot. If I feel that reaction, I can easily imagine the smoking dimwits of the world seeing this ad and becoming even more enraged and determined to try to do something.

The television spot tries to depict a world without smoking where ashtrays are now obsolete.

A narrator talks about how people all across Illinois were forced to brainstorm for creative uses for their now useless ashtrays. We get to see the sight of people growing plants in them and kids using them as pucks to play hockey.

The most disturbing image, in my mind, is the sight of a woman hanging a Christmas holiday wreath on her home’s front door, with about a half-dozen ashtrays woven into the wreath. The woman turns to the camera and flashes us a big smile, as though all is right with the world.

Bull!

To me, using such an image trivializes the seriousness of the issue. The last thing any real person would ever do with an ashtray is turn it into holiday cheer. The image is just too absurd for the spot to be taken seriously.

I also fear the fact that it will stir up the anger of smokers, who already are trying to turn this issue into a case of their civil rights being violated.

Think I’m exaggerating? I recently stumbled across a new weblog written by a St. Louis man who believes Illinois’ new law will inspire Missouri officials to follow suit. Noting that Illinois sits right across the Mississippi River from the Arch and downtown St. Louis, he equates his ability to smoke a cigar in a restaurant with “freedom and property rights.”

I doubt he’s alone.

A group calling itself Illinois Smokers’ Rights has arisen, claiming the new law violates the provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that allow people the freedom to peaceably assemble in groups of their choosing.

What bothers me about this silly, trivial public awareness television spot is that it will stir up these people a lot more than necessary. I’m waiting for the first protest march by smokers seeking their “constitutional right” to ruin my meal with their tobacco stench.

They would have the support of corporate America. Many professional organizations representing the service industry, such as restaurants, lobbied hard against the new law, claiming they would lose too many customers who want to smoke.

The riverboat casino industry has been among those to complain about the new law, saying their business will suffer because they just can’t imagine a world where people lose their money without the stink of burnt tobacco lingering in the air.

For what it’s worth, Illinois Smokers’ Rights is part of a larger coalition of groups in 12 states that are trying to persuade corporate entities to cut off charitable contributions to the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association -- all because those groups support the idea of statewide smoking bans.

Personally, I see smoking in public as the legal equivalent of that old saying, “Your right to swing your arms about freely ends at the tip of my nose.” I think my right to inhale as few noxious fumes in public as possible outweighs whatever pleasure you might derive from tobacco.

I don’t like this ad because it feels like needless piling on. We won this fight. The smoking bans enacted by Chicago and assorted suburbs in recent years gain added strength because their standard is now the law of the land, not just their isolated communities.

I almost fear that smoking in restaurants is going to become a conservative cause similar to Chief Illiniwek, the “honored symbol” (he’s really a mascot) of the University of Illinois at Urbana.

There were many years worth of verbal brawls between American Indian activists and the old-line alums who were willing to defend their right to have a white kid dress up as an Indian chief and do a dance that bore as much resemblance to native tradition as a document that has been photocopied six or seven times, losing something each generation.

I believe that if the student body at Illinois had decided the issue without the outside influences, the Chief would have been seen as a silly anachronism and would have died off years ago with little note from the public.

Now if only the idea of lighting up a cigar in a restaurant could do the same.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here’s a link to the weblog called “Keep St. Louis Free.” I think he’s wrong, but you can decide for yourself. http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/