So is this now the Denny Hastert law?

J. Dennis Hastert of Yorkville used to be thought of as one of the few Illinoisans to ever rise all the way to the rank of Speaker of the House of Representatives, and is actually the longest-serving Republican to ever hold that all-powerful political position.

HASTERT: Is this now lis legacy?

One that actually puts its occupant in line for the U.S. presidency in the event of an emergency that takes down both the president and vice-president.

BUT JUST AS Dan Rostenkowski fell from grace and the notion he was the all-powerful chairman of House ways and means, Hastert also took a plunge in reputation.

To the point where he probably has experienced an even bigger fall. Which is illustrated by the new law in Illinois approved by Gov. J.B. Pritzker that relates to statute of limitations for people to be charged with sex crimes.

It now seems that aggravated criminal sexual assault and abuse are now the equivalent of murder – as in there’s no amount of time that can pass without someone running the risk of criminal prosecution.

Come Jan. 1, anybody facing criminal suspicion can face prosecution if state’s attorney officials somewhere are capable of putting together a criminal case. Whereas it used to be that prosecutors had 10 years to put together a criminal case – AND the case had to be reported to police within three years of the alleged incident’s occurrence.

THIS LAW WAS enacted because of political people who wanted to appear to be doing something significant in response to the predicament caused by Hastert – who once was a high school teacher and wrestling coach who later in life had some of his former students claim he took liberties with them of a sexual nature.

The incidents supposedly occurred back when Hastert was their teacher and coach in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but it wasn’t until the mid-2010s that the allegations became public.

Which meant that even if sufficient evidence could be procured, so much time had passed that Hastert was never in danger of criminal prosecution.

PRITZKER: Signed the measure into law

But it was because of actions that Hastert took to try to keep people from talking about things that eventually resulted in J. Dennis being found guilty of something criminal – which resulted in him getting a prison term (he’s been free for a couple of years now) and becoming the highest-ranking government official to ever have to serve time for a crime. While also proving the notion that it's the cover-up, and not the crime itself, that gets you in the most trouble!

WHICH HAVE SOME people convinced that something wasn’t fair. Which also is what motivated legislators of both Republican and Democratic partisan leanings to sponsor the bill that passed overwhelmingly this spring before getting Pritzker’s approval last week.

So now, theoretically, we could have prosecuted Hastert for the crime, instead of the technicality. Although I have to admit to being a bit wary of such incidents.

Usually because the passage of so much time means the actual evidence becomes weaker, more heresay, to be honest.

To be honest, the strongest criminal cases are the ones whose defendants literally are caught in the act right at the time of their alleged criminal occurrence.

WHICH IS THE point of statute of limitations laws – acknowledging that there are some instances where it is not practical to punish someone for something that happened many years ago and where people might have been too ashamed to talk about it at the time of occurrence.

Although some see that as a good thing (it means sexual predators cannot escape their actions ever) and a bad (people may wind up getting prosecuted and convicted based on testimony from people whose memories may not be quite as accurate as they once were due to the passage of time).

Not that I don’t doubt some people aren’t going to let that possibility concern them – they may want more prosecution, regardless of how solid the charges may be.

And Hastert’s contribution to our public discourse may well be something he did long before his 8 years as House Speaker (and 20 years in Congress overall) back in the days when he was a nobody to the masses – and “coach” to a select few individuals living out in what some of us would have dismissed as “the boonies” of the Chicago area.

  -30-

Have times changed to shift support away from R. Kelly’s alleged penchant for being too close to young girls?

I’m eager to see how the whole saga related to R&B singer R. Kelly plays out – will his celebrity status continue to make people think he’s somehow above the law and shouldn’t be punished?

Or has his time finally run out? Will he wind up facing legal consequences as a result of the criminal indictments he was hit with Friday – as a result of allegations that Kelly (who is 52) has a thing for girls aged roughly 16.

THE CHARGES OF aggravated criminal sexual assault for which he was hit were for incidents involving four females – three of whom were 16 or younger. His initial appearance in Cook County Circuit Court for a bond hearing is set for Saturday.

Now the reason I’m not yet convinced that anything significant will become of all this is because this isn’t even the first time Kelly has faced criminal charges related to his conduct with young girls.

It was back in 2008 when prosecutors pushed for charges, and he wound up going on trial for claims that his use of video cameras to record his activities amounted to child pornography.

He was acquitted for all those charges, and there were people back then who were more than willing to believe speculation that Kelly was being persecuted. Similar to the 2005 trial of “King of Pop” Michael Jackson – who was found not guilty of criminal charges claiming he had a “thing” for young boys.

THERE WERE PEOPLE more than willing to see their prosecution as petty acts by petty prosecutors who couldn’t handle the thought of a black person being successful.

It was true that during Kelly’s last criminal trial, the case ultimately fell apart when the girls who supposedly were molested were unwilling to confirm that anything improper was done to them.

So what will happen as this case works its way through the legal process?

There are some who think that activists with a focus on abuse against women will manage to prevail. We’ll see his behavior as so tacky that we’ll eagerly hope he gets found guilty of each count against him – with prison terms piled up consecutively.

THERE ARE THOSE who already are speculating on a 70-year prison term for R. Kelly – with just the slightest touch of disgust that probation is also an option.

Not that I’m counting on such an outcome occurring yet. Let’s not forget the recently-completed criminal trial of former Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke. Remember the people who speculated on a pileup of sentences that could result it a 90-year-plus prison sentence?

And just what was it that Van Dyke ultimately got as punishment for the incident involving a 17-year-old being shot to death? A judge who figured out a way to give him a prison sentence that – when time off for good behavior is factored in – will come to just over three years served in prison somewhere.

There are those who think Van Dyke should suffer more. Will there be a outburst of anger from people eager to see Kelly suffer?

IT MOST DEFINITELY won’t be the same people. I suspect the kind of people anxious to see Van Dyke suffer will be the ones most likely to think that Kelly is somehow being persecuted.

It’s ultimately going to be a matter of how many people still have sympathetic memories of watching “Space Jam,” whose theme song “I Believe I Can Fly” was performed by Kelly. To the point where they can’t believe anybody connected through the film to basketball star Michael Jordan and Bugs Bunny himself could do anything immoral.

The fact is that some people do have the ability to overlook fact, thinking of them as the sordid details that distract from truth – or at least truth as they want to view it.

We’ll have to wait and see just how much we’re willing to take a serious look at what has occurred here.

  -30-

Reynolds ‘done w/ America?’ I thought Chicago was “done” w/ Mel long ago

One-time member of Congress from Chicago Mel Reynolds, the man who more than two decades ago made the phrases “peach panties” and “did I win the Lotto?” words worth snickering at, has added a new one to the lexicon of ridiculous things spoken by political people.

REYNOLDS: From Congress to incarceration

Reynolds, who back in 1995 was found guilty of having sex with an underage girl, was sentenced to prison this week on charges he went four years without filing income tax returns.

HIS REACTION TO getting a six-month prison term?

“I’m done with America,” he said, even though he admitted his sentence was far less than the just-over two years of prison time prosecutors sought, and that it is assured he’ll be free before year’s end.

Reynolds says that after he serves his time and is released, he plans to leave this country and live the rest of his life in an African nation. Possibly South Africa, where it turns out one of his daughters has resided for several years.

Reynolds, in talking with reporter-type people following his sentencing at the Dirksen Building federal courthouse, made it clear he thinks he’s the one being victimized – just another black man being constantly hounded by law enforcement and being sent off to prison just because he’s tried to make something of his life aside from menial labor.

NOW I DON’T doubt that there are elements of our society that do seek to keep black people from accomplishing much; or making any success they do achieve as difficult to do so as possible.

There may even be some who are taking a perverse pleasure at the thought that Reynolds – who served two terms in the House of Representatives from Chicago’s far South Side and surrounding suburbs in the early-to-mid-1990s – is now on his third term of incarceration.

But I can’t help but think that most people who heard of Reynolds’ fate on Thursday got their snicker from what they perceive as the man’s awfully-high perception of his self-importance.

Reynolds is “done with America?” I think it’s more accurate to say that America, particularly that segment of the nation that is Chicago, is “done” with Mel. To the point where most of us haven’t thought about him in ages – and may have even been a little shocked to learn the man is still around.

I SUSPECT WE’LL get over the idea of a Mel-less society, particularly since even the people who were supposed to be his strongest supporters were never that thrilled with the man.

Reynolds was a product of the 1992 election cycle that gave us Bill Clinton as president. There also was Gus Savage in Congress, and his oft-outspoken ways that provoked the sensibilities of non-black people (to be honest, he didn’t care what they thought) created a gap for a challenger.

Which was Mel, a Mississippi-born and Chicago-raised man who got a chance to attend Harvard University and also was a Rhodes Scholar.

I remember that many black people were apathetic about Reynolds, largely because of the perception that Mel thought he was better than everybody else. Which created conditions that – when he got into legal troubles – too many were more than willing to laugh at him and enjoy his misery.

AS FAR AS an Africa-residing Reynolds is concerned, my reaction is to wonder which nation would actually accept him. One of Reynolds’ more recent predicaments was an arrest in Zimbabwe – which makes me think that no matter where he goes, he’s going to manage to tick people off and be harassed by the local officials.

Some people just bring out the worst.

Although there may well be one other bit of significance to the Mel Reynolds saga. The man who once had the whole wide world at his grasp will have lost it all and wind up living off of his daughter.

For his sake, he’d better stay on her good side, since he might not have any other friends left.

  -30-

EXTRA: Can we move on from Hastert?

I hope the general public, or at least the segment of our society that was obsessed with knowing all the sordid details of what it was that one-time Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert did, is satisfied.

How long 'til portrait viewed sympathetically

For on the day this week that Hastert had to appear before a judge (being permitted to sit in his wheelchair even though he tried to stand himself up at the crucial moment), it seems we finally got to know what it was the one-time high school wrestling coach “did” with his boys all those decades ago.

IT SEEMS HE’S a groper. He likes to touch them. He probably justified it in his mind as harmless fun. Just being one of the guys.

But one of them died carrying what he considered to be a shameful secret, and others also felt like they were abused. Which ultimately is the key to understanding such cases.

Hastert may not have intended as such, but it is what he caused.

Which is why the judge in U.S. District Court rejected his statement that he “mistreated” his athletes, and wound up referring to Hastert as a “serial child molester.”

WHICH IS A moment I’m sure made Hastert wince inside. I’m sure he realizes the lede of his obituary is no longer “one-time House Speaker” but instead the words that Judge James Durkin spoke.

It was curious that it all came out this week. Because for the more than a year that this case has been pending, prosecutors have resisted getting into the details of what it was that Hastert did back at Yorkville High School.

For Denny, who in the years after his service in Congress became a lobbyist and finally accumulated some wealth, was using it to pay off at least one person from the past to keep their mouths shut. In fact, one person claims Hastert reneged on the agreement, and now wants their money.

The charges to which Hastert pleaded guilty to and were sentenced for this week were financial violations – he withdrew so much money from his bank accounts and did not report it to the federal government, as is required.

IT’S A LAW meant to go after organized-crime types who deal so much in cash. As a fictional example, remember that episode of “The Sopranos” where we learn Tony has bundles of cash hidden in the bird feed, with the amounts just below the dollar figure that would have to be reported.

There was the sense that the U.S. attorney’s office people who prosecute financial crimes were so eager for their case to not get emotional or sloppy that they were willing to downplay what the money was for.

I’m sure there were many people who were disgusted with the legal proceedings until this week, when the case, according to a Crain’s Chicago Business headline, “live(d) down to all expectations.”

Personally, I wasn’t obsessed with knowing every sordid detail because that’s not what he got the 15-month sentence. I try not to get my kicks from other people’s unseemly moments.

BESIDES, I HAVE covered too many capital crimes proceedings where everybody claims that only execution will ease the pain and suffering. Only to realize it doesn’t. The suffering will be the same for the "victims" regardless of what happened to Hastert. It certainly doesn't matter what that wrestling Hall of Fame does with Denny's memory of his athletic days.

He got the prison sentence that will keep him locked away for just over a year (presuming he behaves himself and doesn’t become a prison disciplinary case). It was even said that federal prisons are equipped to handle older inmates with medical conditions that Hastert’s attorneys tried using to justify a sentence of purely probation.

So now Hastert goes away, so to speak. He does his time. With any luck, he lives out his sentence even though, as Judge Durkin said, his “good name is gone.”

Because it’s a sex-related crime instead of merely financially-related, does this mean the collection of political bribe-takers, shake-down artists and other corrupt politicos we have here in Illinois will think they can look down upon Denny?

  -30-

EDITOR'S NOTE: I deliberately held off a day before trying to write anything about the Hastert predicament; for fear I'd write hysterics I'd later regret. Besides, both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz acted like goofs on Wednesday, making it possible to take a pass on Denny.

Good, or bad, that Hastert may never actually go to trial on his charges?

I can already hear the rants and rages that will come about due to the word that one-time House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is considering a “guilty” plea to the charges that claim he made financial payoffs to keep a one-time student of his quiet about alleged sexual misconduct.


HASTERT: May learn next month if trial required

For it seems that Hastert’s attorneys on Monday (Hastert himself wasn’t in court) told U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin that they wanted a continuance because they believed they were very close to negotiating a plea deal with the U.S. attorney’s office.

WHICH WOULD HAVE Hastert shift his “not guilty” pleas on at least part of the charges, in exchange for eliminating the need for a criminal trial at which time evidence would have to be presented about the alleged wrongdoing.

If there is never a trial, then the general public will never get more than the speculation that currently exists about what exactly it was that Hastert did wrong.

Federal prosecutors have said that Hastert, after he ceased being the House speaker, made an agreement with one of his former students back when he was a wrestling coach at Yorkville High School to pay some $3.5 million.

Prosecutors say he made withdrawals of his own money in ways that were meant to evade detection – which is a technical violation. Although one can argue that Hastert has the right to spend his money however he wants – no matter how strange it seems to pay it to a former student.

WHAT WE DON’T know specifically is why Hastert would want to do so. Although the Chicago Tribune reported claims that Hastert had taken advantage of the student in a sexual manner, and now wanted to make sure the one-time student kept his mouth shut.

But that is speculation. We don’t have that “on the record” in any way.

And there are people who are eager for that to come out publicly in the form of a trial. They want to know sordid details of whether Hastert really did do something wrong with one of his students.

Mostly for their own cheap titillation factor. Although I’m sure some political operatives will find ways to use the fact that a one-time House speaker who was Republican somehow reflects upon all of his GOP colleagues.

WHICH MAY WELL be why Hastert would consider entering a “guilty” plea, particularly if his legal counsel is capable of working out an agreement that would put the potential for incarceration at a minimum.

Perhaps even no prison time, but some sort of significant fine. I don’t know for sure what is being considered. Although I’m sure Hastert is most concerned with reducing his level of shame to the bare minimum – as in no more than he has already suffered.

While those people eager for a trial are most concerned with bolstering the shame level to the maximum – even if it means playing off the homophobic fears and thoughts that some in our society are determined to cling to.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing this case go away – largely because the offenses that might be considered the most serious aren’t going to be the key to any criminal prosecution of Hastert. The statute of limitations on any acts committed against students is long past – they’re so old.

THIS WOULD TURN into a technical trial on financial matters that some will try to exaggerate into titillation for their own benefits.

There’s also the fact that Hastert is a retired politico – similar to Edward R. Vrdolyak when he was finally caught and wound up doing about one year at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind.

Is that going to be Hastert’s fate as well?

If so, we need to realize that it won’t change anything – people who back Hastert will continue to do so, while those who want his “head on a pike” so to speak will forevermore be displeased by the outcome of any legitimate trial.

  -30-

EXTRA: He’s coming back home! But do we really want Mel to return?

It would seem that one-time Congressman Mel Reynolds is NOT some form of international pornographer.

He’s just a guy who overstayed his visa, and is about to get kicked out of the country. Zimbabwe, that is.

FOR IT SEEMS that the one-time representative from the Far South Side and surrounding suburbs who got caught using the camera on his personal phone to take pictures of women in compromising pictures is not going to face a criminal charge on that, after all.

A judge in Harare dismissed that charge of pornography possession – which is a felony in Zimbabwe.

But Reynolds did plead guilty to a charge that he was in Zimbabwe on an expired visa (he’d been there since November, theoretically so that he could make contacts to benefit U.S. corporate interests that want to do business in Africa).

So for that, a judge ordered Reynolds to be deported.

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE reported Friday that attorneys for Reynolds say they expect him to return to the United States next week, although they’re not sure if he will wind up back in Chicago proper (he had been living in the Bronzeville neighborhood in recent years).

Although the part that most intrigued me was the claim by the hotel manager to the Tribune newspaper that they had nothing to do with Reynolds’ arrest. He had something like a $24,000 hotel bill he had run up. Who knows if they’ll ever get the money?

I still wonder if this was more about Reynolds offending some local persona, and then falling into a trap of his own making by having all those girls up to his hotel room so he could try making himself a personal film.

All of which makes this week’s Reynolds saga -- which was already so overloaded with tacky incidents -- a self-inflicted wound!

  -30-

Reynolds, the one-time “lotto” winner, faces sex-related charge in Africa

No, one-time member of Congress Mel Reynolds never actually won the Illinois lottery, or any other game of chance.

REYNOLDS: Won't go away!

It’s a reference to Reynolds’ alleged response (which came out during his criminal trial on charges that he had sexual relations with an underage girl) to the idea of getting involved with a Catholic school girl.

WHICH CREATES THE image in all of our minds of an adult male who can’t keep his hands off the young girls. An image that Reynolds seems to have reinforced this week with his arrest in Zimbabwe.

It seems that Reynolds, who represented the Far South Side and surrounding suburbs in Congress from 1993-95, got himself arrested in Harare. Local newspapers reported that Reynolds brought models and other women to his hotel room, where he used his camera to take pictures and video of them.

Technically, he has run up a hotel bill totaling the equivalent of $24,000 since arriving in Zimbabwe back in November. And his visa wasn’t authorized for such a lengthy visit.

But the charge that will draw the international attention will be the pornography possession charge – which is particularly harsh in Zimbabwe because the laws prohibit any kind of material that could be construed as sexually explicit.

FOR ALL I know, this very weblog has published things that could be construed as pornographic – under the standard that is being used in this particular case. Where it is questionable as to how consistently it is enforced by local officials.

A part of me wonders if local officials think Reynolds is trying to get out of paying his hotel bill, and they turned him in to ensure that he coughs up some cash.

A part of me also expects that he’ll spend a couple of days in a jail cell in Zimbabwe, before ultimately being deported from the country.

So much for the idea that he’s some sort of U.S. business executive who is advising other officials in this country about how to make money in Zimbabwe. He’s now going to be the U.S. sex offender who used an African sojourn as an excuse to take dirty pictures.

THE SAD PART of all this is that Reynolds seems to walk right into these incidents. You’d think he’d realize he’s in a life situation where his every miscue is going to get international attention.

We may not really care much about what happens to the one-tie Oxford-educated man who rose to a brief stint in Congress before his downfall in Chicago. But we are the type of people who will gladly use his gaffes to give ourselves a cheap giggle.

Which is what this latest story is about.

Personally, I think the story in and of itself is cheap, and that Reynolds wasn’t a significant enough figure (barely one term in Congress, would we care as much if it were Michael P. Flanagan who got arrested for something?) to deserve to last in our memory so long.

EXCEPT THAT IT allows us to recall his trial in Cook County Circuit Court, where the most interesting aspect was that the girl in question tried to refuse to answer questions about her involvement with Reynolds – which led the state’s attorney’s office to play legal hardball and have her put in jail for a few days for contempt of court; before she finally admitted what the Congressman did to her when she was younger.

There also are those of us of a certain generation who will always get a giggle from the phrase “Peach panties.”

All of which is why it becomes impossible for Reynolds’ memory to wither away into nothingness – which is what we really wish were possible.

  -30-

Reynolds and Sosa; not-so-proud 1990s memories seek redemption

Mel Reynolds and Sammy Sosa. They’re a pair of gentlemen, so to speak, who came from impoverished circumstances to rise to high levels in life during the 1990s – only to crash and burn from the public scene.

REYNOLDS: Wants a comeback?

But on Wednesday, both men showed signs indicating that they may be delusional enough to believe they can experience a comeback.

REYNOLDS IS THE one-time member of Congress from the Far South Side and surrounding suburbs (yes, the infamous Illinois Second Congressional District) who said he is a candidate for the special election to replace Jesse Jackson, Jr. – who, of course, is the guy who replaced Reynolds in a special election back in 1995.

It seems that Mel Reynolds has dreams of snatching back what he regards as rightfully his and probably has thought for the past 17 years was stolen from him by J.J., Junior!

Those of us with any kind of political memory, of course, know why Reynolds left the political scene. He’s the guy who gave meaning to the phrases “peach panties” and “Did I win the Lotto?”

Quit your snickering. Wipe that smirk off your face! And get your mind out of the gutter that Reynolds dragged us all into when he became one of the few political people whose criminal offense was prosecuted by the Cook County state’s attorney’s office – rather than the U.S. Attorney (although they eventually got their piece of Mel as well).

FOR IT SEEMED that Mel Reynolds cheated on his wife, Marisol (who herself came from impoverished circumstances and wound up returning there once Reynolds went to prison) with a girl who, at the time their affair began, was underage.

She actually did a couple of weeks in the county jail because she initially didn’t want to testify against Reynolds. But she eventually broke, and Reynolds became the congressman with a sex offense (although it seems kind of hypocritical since so many other people in Congress have been known to mess around with girls younger than themselves).

So Mel went to prison, eventually got transferred to a federal correctional center when prosecutors at that level got him convicted on more conventional criminal charges for a political person, and he has maintained a very low profile since being released (on a pardon, from then-President Bill Clinton).

SOSA: Wants glory!

Quite a demise for a man who rose from poverty to being a Rhoads Scholar. Which is why he probably dreams of re-election. Perhaps he thinks he can erase his taint by regaining office.

ALTHOUGH WHEN IT comes to tainted public people, Reynolds probably has to take a back seat to Sammy Sosa (and to Frank Thomas, who will make his first Hall of Fame ballot appearance next year). All because of the way many people in our society place such a significance on professional athletics.

Because in the years after Reynolds, Sammy was that real-life version of actor Garrett Morris’ Chico Escuela character.

He clowned it up for the Chicago Cubs while hitting all those home runs (he’s the only professional baseball player with three seasons of 60-or-more home runs) that made him a superstar.

Of course, now many believe he was among the primary users of various steroids meant to artificially bulk himself up.

WEDNESDAY WAS THE day that the ballots for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., were issued that contained Sosa’s name for the first time. People will have to decide if Sosa’s numerical figures for home runs and other baseball stats are legitimate enough to warrant inclusion.

Sosa himself has said he thinks he’s legit. Although many baseball fans now sound like Chicago White Sox fans did back in 1998 – claiming that Sammy was a clown and unworthy of the attention he was getting.

We’ll get to see for ourselves in coming weeks as sportswriters cast their ballots for the Hall of Fame. Will Sosa get his redemption? Somehow, I suspect he’ll get lost in the overflow of other ballplayers whom do not have any taint of suspicion against them.

Just as Reynolds may wind up getting lost in the mess of candidates who seem determined to treat a seat in Congress as a once-in-a-lifetime perk that is theirs for the snatching.

  -30-

Campaign ’12 truly is the race to avoid saying something stupid (and some fail)

It was an old Saturday Night Live gag – a parody of a presidential debate was introduced by famed announcer Don Pardo as “the race to avoid saying something stupid.”

AKIN: Still not sure what he meant

There is an element of truth to that in any campaign event. And by that standard, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., has failed – although I’m sure there are some people who will want to believe him and will go out of their way to cast ballots for him come Nov. 6.

AKIN, OF COURSE, is the guy who turned himself from no-name congressman to national nitwit this past weekend when, while discussing the whole issue of rape and abortion and reproductive rights, gave us the phrase “legitimate rape.”

He also gave us the pseudo-science lesson that tells us women who are forced into sexual intercourse against their will have something occur within their bodies that causes them to shut down in a way that they cannot become pregnant.

Which, I guess, means that all those women who have become pregnant following a rape weren’t really raped. He probably thinks they are just sluts who brought “it” on themselves and got what they deserved.

Which is incredibly ignorant not only to say, but to even think.

THEN AGAIN, THE people to whom Akin was trying to appeal to are ones who aren’t all that concerned with the women involved in these instances. They try to cadge their language with talk of “defending life” and protecting the life of the unborn.

But they really don’t want the “real” life (that of the mother, rather than the unborn) to have a choice about themselves.

That is what Akin was really getting at, and I think I’d have a little more respect for him if he would have just come out and said it that bluntly.

Then again, I also think I’d have more respect for him if he’d have come up with some pseudo-religious explanation along the lines of saying that Jesus comes down and blesses the women who were raped to protect them.

WHICH WOULD STILL imply that some women are sluts who brought it on themselves.

He has since (with the very same news cycle on Sunday) issued a pseudo-apology, claiming his remarks were “ill-conceived.” Although he hasn’t really clarified what he really believes, which gives the real majority of our society the impression that the only thing Akin is “sorry” about is that he’s being given grief and called on his nonsense-talk.

But it has me wondering how delusional Akin was in school on the day in biology class when he was ever taught something that he interpreted to mean that a woman’s body could shut down in ways to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.

If that were true, don’t you think many women would be taking advantage of that, rather than relying on unreliable birth control pills or other devices?

AKIN IS GETTING his national derision. Political pundits are now wondering if the Democratic Party candidate (a woman) actually has a chance to defeat him come Election Day.

President Barack Obama himself is adding on to the piling on against Akin, using it as a serious example of the harm that can come from putting these ideologues in positions of authority where they can influence public health policy.

OBAMA: Joining in the criticism



Even though I’m sure the ideologues who backed Akin before will claim that Obama is being a “bully” for defending the women they would prefer to deride. Which is nonsense on so many levels. It’s laughable!

Even Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is going out of his way to put as much distance between himself and Akin. “Guilt by association” through the same political party. Romney has enough problems. He doesn’t need Akin adding to them.

ALTHOUGH ROMNEY HAS his own concern. He can’t put too much distance between himself and Akin, because like I wrote earlier, there are those people in our society who are going to want to believe the Congressman.

And if Romney tries to condemn Akin too much, they may turn on Romney to the degree that he loses the Nov. 6 elections by an even larger margin.

Which makes me wonder -- when the Romney camp accuses Obama of running a campaign of "division and anger and hate," what are they thinking. Nothing that has come from Obama's mouth has been as bitter as what some of these ideologues seem to want to believe about science and biology!

  -30-

This is why “Burge” is wrong

I hate the idea that a man now serving prison time for his involvement in the gang rape and torture of a young woman may well be able to start thinking of himself as the “victim.”

Because as I understand it, even by this own man’s admission, he held an iron to the thighs of the young woman to burn her (he claims only his friends forced themselves sexually upon her).

BUT WE MAY have to start thinking of Stanley Wrice – who went on trial in 1983 and received a 100-year prison sentence for the 1982 attack on the woman at Wrice’s South Side home – as the wronged-one.

Because when he was arrested, he came under the control of the detectives working at the then-Pullman Area police headquarters (down on 111^th Street) who were supervised by police Commander Jon Burge.

We have heard so many stories throughout the years of the degree to which Burge and his crew used force to extract confessions from those who they thought were guilty of crimes – even though there is substantial evidence that many of them were merely guilty of “being black.”

The likelihood that Wrice underwent treatment possibly worse than what was done to the girl (who ultimately was abandoned on a side street, where she walked to a local gas station to call police) was used (rightfully so) by the Supreme Court of Illinois on Thursday to justify new hearings.

A JUDGE IS going to have to decide how much of the incriminating testimony Wrice made against himself was coerced by Burge violence. If the outcome is severe enough, it could result in a new trial.

At the very least, it could wind up with a new sentencing – one that would end his prison term much earlier than the 2041 release date he now faces.

BURGE: Still causing problems



Considering how long he has been in prison, he may well get sentenced to a term that he has already served. Which would leave this man in a position where he could claim to have been incarcerated for too long a time period – which would put the state in a position of having to compensate him for the damage done to his life.

Which is disgusting, because there is strong reason to believe that he did commit the particular offense. Prosecutors had hoped the state Supreme Court would leave the matter alone – instead of determining that coercion by police is severe enough to taint any legal outcome.

“IT IS NEVER harmless error,” the high court wrote, in their ruling this week.

That is the real harm caused by the Burge behavior of the late 1970s into the ‘80s. It has police acting like little more than thugs – perhaps more criminal than the individuals they were arresting.

We needed protection more from the police than the muggers and rapists of the police districts that patrolled the Far South Side of Chicago. Which is a sad commentary on our society.

The fact that the Burge conduct is now resulting in a situation where a potential wrongdoer gets more respect than he ought to deserve is despicable. As far as I’m concerned, it is the reason I can’t feel the least bit of sympathy for Burge – who ultimately got picked up by federal prosecutors for a perjury charge for which he is now serving a 4 ½-year prison term in North Carolina (which is even more lame than Al Capone getting prison time for tax evasion).

BURGE IS NOW far, far away from our streets of Southside Chicago. But not far enough!

Because some people are still deluded enough to think he’s the victim – a dutiful police officer protecting us from the scum of our society. Nonsense!

Burge brought his own fate upon himself by giving in to the aura of violence that he was supposed to be protecting the people from.

And in doing so, he gave many people whose behavior was appalling a legal leg upon which to stand as they will continue to have their lawsuits seeking damages for the aspersions he “put” onto their “moral character” (or lack thereof).

  -30-

Sad to say, Castro not new situation, brings back memories of “Jungle” Jim

I’m curious to see how the fate of Starlin Castro – the Chicago Cubs shortstop whom some think could become the ball club’s next big star – plays out.

For there is a woman who is accusing the 21-year-old Dominican of rape – claiming she came to consciousness and found Castro on top of her.

AS OF FRIDAY afternoon, Castro had not been charged with anything – although the news reports indicate he spent his Thursday night into the early hours of Friday being questioned by police trying to figure out what really happened.

What has complicated this investigation is that the woman’s claim didn’t come out until after the 2011 baseball season was over and Castro had already returned home to the Dominican Republic.

So police had to wait until Castro voluntarily returned to Chicago before they could question him. For what it’s worth, Castro is back in town for this weekend so he can be on hand for the Cubs Convention – that annual winter gathering of Cubs fans that is taking place at the Chicago Hilton & Towers, 720 S. Michigan Ave.

In short, Castro isn’t behaving like a man who thinks he’s about  to get whacked with criminal charges. If he did, I’d think he’d have found an excuse to get out of returning here this week – even if it is to be surrounded by the most delusional of Cubs fans who will adore him.

AND WHO ARE the people who most likely are having feelings of resentment that this issue is even coming up this week. They’re the ones who probably wish it could have been now-former pitcher Carlos Zambrano who got hit with such an accusation so it could have been used as justification for getting rid of him without having to pay him $15 million more (the amount of his 2012 salary that the Cubs will pay, compared to $3 million paid by the Miami Marlins).

I’m wondering to what degree people are going to feel willing to look the other way at bad behavior by a ball player, just because of what he could do on the field.

For this isn’t exactly a new experience for Chicago baseball. In fact, Castro (even if he ultimately is hit with criminal charges and is someday found “guilty”) isn’t even the first local ballplayer to have such accusations made against him.

For all those people who want to claim that the “good ol’ days” were somehow more innocent, I say “Nonsense!”

BECAUSE ALL WE have to do is remember the tale of one-time Chicago White Sox outfielder Jim Rivera – who was the regular right fielder on that “Go Go” team that won the American League championship for 1959.

Being able to lead the American League in stolen bases in 1955, along with being runner up in several other seasons to teammates Minnie Miñoso and Luis Aparicio and playing with a certain ferocity is all that many people want to remember of the ballplayer known as “Jungle Jim.”

Many are more than willing to forget the fact that while serving in the U.S. Army, he was court martialed after an officer’s daughter accused him of rape. Those charges ultimately got knocked down to attempted rape, but he still did some time incarcerated.

It was only his athletic skills that ultimately got him out early, as a minor league ballclub in Gainesville, Fla., negotiated his early release so he could play professionally.

HE ULTIMATELY ROSE through the minor leagues to join the St. Louis Browns, and was traded to the White Sox in July 1952. Just a couple of months later, he got arrested in the White Sox clubhouse at Comiskey Park when the wife of an Army statistician stationed in Chicago claimed he raped her in her apartment.

Rivera claimed, at the time, that their contact was consensual, and in October of that year, a grand jury voted against an indictment. He was free and clear of criminal charges. I don’t have any evidence that a 60-year-old grand jury got it wrong.

But then-baseball Commissioner Ford Frick ultimately put Rivera on probation (within the context of baseball, not the law) for one year, with the White Sox being required to report any incidents involving their new outfielder and also being forbidden from trading him to any other team during that probationary period.

Not that it mattered much, from a baseball perspective. For Rivera wound up living up to team expectations and performing well for those teams that perennially finished behind the New York Yankees in the standings in the 1950s.

BY THE TIME Rivera finally was traded away in 1961 (to the Kansas City Athletics, where he played one season before retiring as a ballplayer), the fact that these allegations ever came up were made to seem like ancient history – so long ago that perhaps it was just our faulty memory and that they really didn’t happen.

Which, I’m sure, is exactly what Castro is hoping becomes the outcome of his own case. Considering that much of the rhetoric I have read surrounding this case focuses on how much this incident will distract from the ability of new baseball boss Theo Epstein to rebuild the Cubs into a serious ball club, he's not alone.

Some things just never change.

  -30-

Some people don’t know when to shut it

My guess is that it falls into the category of “screaming ‘fire’ in a crowded film theater.” Or perhaps joking about having a bomb packed in one’s luggage while waiting in the security lines at the airport.

MADIGAN: Threatened? Or too touchy?



But there is a man from the Roseland neighborhood who now faces some serious criminal charges, all because he couldn’t resist the chance to take a pot-shot at Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

NOT THAT MAURICE Pennington is any stranger to the legal system, particularly its methods of incarceration as punishment.

For it seems that the 56-year-old Pennington already has served time in prison in Texas after being found guilty in that state of sexual activity with an underage girl.

After completing his prison time in Texas, Pennington came our way. He now lives among us. Although considering that former prison inmates have to live somewhere, it would be ridiculous to think that we don’t (or shouldn’t) have any in Chicago.

In order to remain in compliance with Illinois law, he has to notify his local police department of his presence in the community – along with his exact address.

THAT INFORMATION THEN goes to the Illinois State Police, which puts it out there for the public to see on the Internet. The idea is that people have a right to know if someone who committed a sex crime is now living near them.

The Illinois General Assembly passed the laws requiring such registration years ago, as have legislatures in other states. The concept has received legal review in the appeals courts. Thus far, it has been deemed acceptable.

But that doesn’t sway Pennington , nor does it discourage him. Pennington has filed a lawsuit that contends such a notification requirement is a significant burden on his life and his ability to “rehabilitate” himself.

He’d like it if a judge somewhere were to declare the concept of notification to be un-Constitutional.

AND IN ONE of his legal briefs related to his lawsuit, he wrote statements that were derogatory towards the image and persona of state Attorney General Lisa Madigan. No one is saying exactly what his lawsuit stated about her. But it seems that it was hostile enough to be construed as a threat.

That is what led the police officers who work under Madigan to show up at Pennington’s Roseland residence on Thursday and arrest him. He got to spend the night and the bulk of the day Friday in a holding cell, and was to be in court for a bond hearing Friday night.

All because he felt the need to include a few derogatory sentences in his legal brief, which he crafted himself because Pennington is acting as his own attorney.

He may think he’s a legal genius. Although I’m more inclined to think that he can’t find an attorney willing to take on a lawsuit that challenges the legal requirement about ex-inmates notifying the police of their presence.

WE CAN MAKE all the wisecracks that we want about stupid criminals or the fact that this case seems to be a legal no-brainer in terms of “guilt” or “innocence.”

The evidence is the written copy of his lawsuit. His words are in print.

Yet what strikes me the most about this particular case is some of the reaction it is generating on the Internet. Those anonymous people who like to post blatantly-partisan, if not outright-ignorant, comments about everything seem to be taking up the cause of Pennington.

Because Madigan is of the Democratic Party persuasion and is the eldest daughter of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, there are those who claim she is impinging on his freedom to speak or express himself.

ONE PERSON USED the Chicago Tribune website to say that Madigan should, “shrug this off.”

Even though Pennington is charged with threatening a public official, which is a felony. Just as it is a crime to do anything that could be construed as threatening a police officer, the same general concept applies to the attorney general.

Except that some people seem to want to think that only certain public officials are entitled to protection from harassment. That is taking partisan politics to a new level of lowness. In fact, it may well be more bizarre than the idea of someone writing a threat into a lawsuit – which is what Pennington is accused by prosecutors of doing.

So keep in mind that when the headline of this commentary implies that some people should “shut it,” Pennington isn’t the only person I’m referring to.

  -30-