Ask not for whom the Skyway toll rises

... it rises for thee

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.

Tuesdays at 11:30 a.m. I talk with WGN-AM 720 host John Williams about what’s making news and likely to be grist for the PS mill. The WGN listen-live link is here.

Remember that a $50/year gift subscription to the Picayune Sentinel is always the right size and color, and always in good taste.

Skyway robbery: Auto toll will jump another 9% next month

On January 1, the toll for a standard passenger car to cross the 7.8-mile Chicago Skyway will jump from $6.60 to $7.20. That reflects a 22% increase over the 2022 price of $5.90 and a 380% increase over the $2 toll in 2004, just before the city sold a long-term lease on that asset to private investors. If it had kept pace with inflation it would be $3.23 today.

In 2017, when the toll was $5, I wrote a column reporting that my check of Waze, Mapquest and Google Maps at random intervals showed that those headed to and from the city to Michigan or Northwest Indiana saved from from zero to 18 minutes by taking the Skyway instead of the free route along Interstate 94 that’s approximately five miles longer.

The Skyway is prettier and less scary than I-94, but $7.20? Almost a buck a mile? I drive back and forth to Ann Arbor, Michigan about once a month and I’m rarely in such a hurry that I want to pay that much for a slightly nicer route. But I’m kind of cheap.

In consultation with a representative from Runzheimer International, the Waterford, Wis., company that calculates such things, we decided that the extra cost per mile in gas, oil, wear and tear on the car and so on is in the ballpark of 20 cents, or about $1 for taking the long way around the southern tip of Lake Michigan. So the freeway route isn’t exactly free.

Back then I posted a two-question click survey aimed at those who regularly drive from the city into Indiana. I’ve cleared the earlier results and reposted it so I can see if anything has changed as far as behavior and public attitude. I’ll report on the 2017 results vs. the 2023 results next week.

Will the nation’s responsible media outlets sound the alarm about Trump?

A reader of Sun-Times’ columnist Neil Steinberg’s blog wrote him recently to “lend encouragement to you and your coworkers to take whatever risks you think you can to stop Trump before it’s too late.”

In his online reply, Steinberg wrote:

I brought up that very subject at an open meeting last Thursday, explaining to the powers-that-be that this is a moment of grave national peril, and did they really want to look back at it, years from now, and know they sat on the sidelines because they're worried about their 501(c)3 status? I wish I could say their answer was encouraging, but it wasn't really an answer at all. More of a we'll-get-back-to-you-on-that murmur. I'm not holding my breath.

My plan is, as always, to say what I think needs to be said, when it needs to be said, and if the paper won't print it, despite my best arguments, well, then that is their right. As I sometimes tell readers who demand to know how I can permit some top level misstep or another: I just work there; I don't run the place. I do have my blog, which draws a respectable number of eyeballs. I've already been writing columns about the Israel-Hamas war there, not bothering to turn them into the paper because doing so causes such a quivering bolus of alarm, hand-wringing and nit-picking that it's hardly worth it. Were the Middle East waiting breathlessly for insight from me, I might feel worse about that, but — spoiler alert — they're not. That might be one reason I'm writing a two-part series on baking bread this week.

We are seeing more and more responsible reporting about the clear threat that a re-elected President Donald Trump would pose to democracy and rule of law. “If Trump wins” is an extraordinary and sobering collection of essays in The Atlantic from all along the political spectrum. See also “Donald Trump’s 2024 Campaign, in His Own Menacing Words: Trump’s language has become darker, harsher and more threatening during his third run for the White House” in The New York Times (gift link).

If voters aren’t deeply alarmed by Trump’s statement over the weekend that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” I can’t help them.

This quip has been making the rounds on social media:

“If Donald Trump hates immigrants so much, he should stop marrying them.”

Notes and comments from readers — lightly edited — along with my responses

Abortion

Response to my Thursday item, “Pro-lies: Deception is at the heart of the movement against abortion rights” was heavy:

Bruce L. — I am pro-choice, but I feel the Texas Supreme Court’s seven-page opinion blocking Kate Cox from getting an abortion was well written and logical. The state has a law that says women can only get abortions if a medical doctor approves the procedure under the standard that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the woman “has a life-threatening physical condition,” making an abortion necessary to save her life or to save her from “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

The plaintiff was required by law to have a doctor state under oath, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that plaintiff's life or limb was in jeopardy if the pregnancy continued and that by this it was meant that her life was in jeopardy beyond that of pregnancy in and of itself and that abortion was the only cure. The plaintiff did not comply with the law. She introduced no evidence whatsoever, i.e. no doctor, neither the treating doctor nor any expert witness doctor, to this effect. In spite of this, the trial court judge, a non-doctor as well, found in her favor in the absence of any evidence supporting her claim other than her own non-medical, non-expert assertion and opinion.

The Texas Supreme Court had no other choice but to overturn the trial court's order. The trial court's order was in violation of the law. I accordingly, was curious why you wrote that the opinion amounted to “overreach.” Judges are bound by their oaths of office to obey lawful statutes and decide cases on the admissible evidence. In the Coxcase, the trial judge substituted his medical opinion for an expert medical witness and made a decision that contravened the statute.

Nowhere in the decision do I see anything that indicates that plaintiff is any more in danger herself because of medical complications of the pregnancy than is any other woman who is pregnant and about to deliver. Nor was there any evidence that the fetus would die right after birth.

Rather than try to take down the entire court system your job is best served by directing your wrath where it belongs, and that is on the Texas Legislature. Tell your readers to vote. Tell them to demonstrate. Tell them to move out of Texas. But it's not good to tell them to simply flout any law they disagree with.

Zorn — The “grotesque overreach” of which I wrote was the overreach of the law itself. What you see in the opinion is that the justices didn’t think enough evidence had been produced to back up the claim in Cox’s legal complaint that she “has had two prior cesarean surgeries, (therefore) continuing the pregnancy put her at high-risk for severe complications, threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture, and hysterectomy.”

This is exactly the sort of judgment I think should be left between the patient, the patient’s family and the doctor. I don’t believe it’s my business, a judge’s business or the business of the zealots in the Texas legislature what the decision should be.

Here’s WebMD on Trisomy-18, the genetic condition with which Cox’s fetus was diagnosed:

What Is the Outlook for Babies With Trisomy 18?

Because trisomy 18 causes such serious physical defects, many babies with the condition don't survive to birth. About half of babies who are carried full-term are stillborn. Boys with trisomy 18 are more likely to be stillborn than girls.

Of those babies who do survive, less than 10% live to reach their first birthday. Children who do live past that milestone often have severe health problems that require a large amount of care

Jim. C. — You are being quite unfair to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Without exception the people I know who work at these centers insist on medical and personal honesty. They stand by the birth-mothers — and with birth-fathers who are in the picture — with practical and emotional support. They provide counseling for girls and women who have regretted their abortions. They depend upon volunteers, and, to say the least, they aren't in it for the money. An implication that their motivation is to punish females for sex outside of procreation and marriage is simply not true.

Zorn — If they’re so committed to honesty there would be no need for them to have filed suit to defend their right to lie. Here is a passage from an issue brief posted by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists :

Data from the Center for Countering Digital Hate show that Crisis Pregnancy Centers are using digital marketing tactics to target people seeking information about abortion care. According to the data, 71% of CPCs use deceptive means such as spreading thoroughly debunked misinformation and 38% do not clearly state on their home page that they do not provide abortion care. These methods make it harder for people to get reliable information about an important decision that will affect their health and their lives. By using deception, delay tactics, and disinformation, CPC staffs undermine the tenets of informed consent and patient autonomy and impede access to comprehensive, ethical care. 

As for the deeper motivations of opponents of abortion rights, I do suspect that the abortion debate is in some ways a stalking horse for a debate over sexual mores. A belief in sexual freedom and a belief in abortion rights are linked in our culture. Not totally, but I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that it’s coincidental that those who hold more liberal views about sexual behavior tend to hold more liberal views on abortion. And vice versa. Opposition to contraception and opposition to abortion are also somewhat linked, and contraception is integral to sexual freedom. One definition of sexual freedom is the ability to express oneself sexually with controllable consequences.

Terry Cosgrove, president and CEO of Personal PAC, a pro abortion-rights organization — Anyone who doesn't think the anti-abortion movement is working for ending access to abortion for all women under all circumstances for all time is living on another planet. Twenty years ago, the antis would claim to support rape and incest exceptions and would not object to them in legislation, as it would seem too extreme. Today, they have little use for that exception or exceptions for a woman's health, and now the public knows that concerns for a woman's life and future fertility is no reason for allowing an abortion.

Roberta M.— I'm surprised you didn't mention how the Pro-Lies (love
that term) folks don't really care about reproduction. The threat to Kate Cox's opportunity to have more children appears to be of no importance to them. Better for her to bear a baby who dies immediately and never be able to have more children than to terminate a doomed pregnancy.

David G. — I’m pro-life and an evangelical Christian, but, to me, the abolitionist wing of the pro-life movement is going too far. They won't stop at abortion. Their next target is to outlaw "artificial" methods of contraception. Some are calling for ending no-fault divorce and for criminalizing adultery and so forth.

It's obvious to me that a good chunk of the pro-life movement has lied about their plans because they believe the end justifies the means. They are going to end up doing for abortion what the good ladies of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union did last century for alcohol.

David L . — It's unfortunate that the abortion debate has become hyperpolarized between two extreme camps that demand either no access to abortion for anyone in any case, and the other camp that refuses to consider any restrictions whatsoever. I think the best way to guard against draconian restrictions is to consider restrictions against later term abortions unless the health and safety of the mother becomes involved. But unfortunately, there are many people who will not consider restricting abortion even up until the time of delivery. And so we are left with the two camps both set in their extreme corners and no middle ground that would avoid either of the extremes.

Zorn — I agree that the most active people on either side of this debate see any compromise at all as a fundamental erosion of the philosophical rock upon which their belief is based.

If human life begins at conception, as so many opponents of abortion rights argue, then even a morning after pill is potentially a murder weapon. And if women have the basic right to choose whether or not to be pregnant, as many supporters or abortion rights believe, setting a gestational limit on that right is anathema.

I don’t think these polar positions are symmetrical. It’s so rare as to be unheard of that women in the final stages of pregnancy seek for reasons of convenience to abort viable fetuses. Late-term abortions occur in severely compromised pregnancies and are usually considered heartbreaking by all concerned. To suggest they are obtained frivolously is wrong and insulting. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that in 2021, 93.5% of abortions were performed at less than 14 weeks’ gestation; 5.7% were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and less than 1% were performed after 20 weeks.

Those favoring abortion rights recognize that no compromise with the other side will ever hold. Give them a 20-week limit and they’ll start agitating for 15, then 12, then 6. Then they’ll push for an absolute ban. So why even start playing that game?

The ejection of Nikola Jokic for cussing at a ref

I got significant pushback for writing that it was excessive for Denver Nuggets center Nikola Jokic to be ejected from the first half of last Tuesday’s game against the Bulls at the United Center for reportedly complaining to the referee, “Call the foul, motherfucker.”

Laurence S. —You’re just plain wrong. Don't blame the refs for the infantile behavior of a player. The fans did not pay to see him curse out the ref and he brought it on himself. The ref did his job. And yes, I'll add the disclaimer that I am a long time ref that has heard much and doesn't get his feelings hurt any more.

Bob K. — As a high school and college official and umpire for 25 years, I can tell you we had one hard and fast rule on ejections: When it gets personal, they're done.

"That's the worst horseshit, motherfucking goddamn call I've ever seen" draws a shrug of the shoulders, a stern look, a verbal warning, etc.

"You suck" earns a trip to the showers.

The magic word is "you," not any of the others that folks might think.

Dennis A. — I couldn’t disagree with you more when you say that NBA refs need to develop thicker skins. They are professional and athletic rules keepers in a fairly rough sport. I’m not expecting a lot of decorum, but a modicum of respect and profanity-free speech in an indoor environment are not taxing demands. Watch your mouth, pro athlete—them’s the rules.

Thomas N. — I am a long time high school official of multiple sports and I respectfully and energetically ask you to rethink your response to the ejection of the star basketball player who allegedly referred to an official as a "motherfucker." You believed that such a hostile statement should be merely a technical foul, that his removal deprived fans of featured entertainment. I argue that the official did not remove the player. The player removed himself. It was his behavior that caused the ejection.

If this language is not punished by ejection, then what language warrants ejection? What if he says it twice? What if he says it twice within a few inches of the ref while towering over him?

A line has to be drawn somewhere and of course there will be an ongoing debate as to where it should be drawn. What's not debatable is that our country is suffering from a national shortage of high school and youth officials with the number one reason cited in numerous polls being offensive behavior from fans, coaches and participants. In high school, calling an official "motherfucker" will most certainly result in an ejection and suspension from the next game. Hopefully, the coach and/or school will have further disciplinary actions for such behavior.

Yes, high school is different from college which is different from professional sports. There will be different rules for each level, including behavior. But there IS a trickle down effect. 

I tip my hat to the official who had the courage to eject a star player, knowing full well the potential fall out of such a call. I tip my hat to the father I imagine who attended the game with his ten-year-old daughter, who after the ejection turned to her and remarked, "That's too bad. It's too bad we won't see a star player for the rest of the game. And it's too bad that the player chose to behave so poorly and unsportsmanlike. It's too bad you had to hear it and see it. And it's too bad that so many people are booing the official."

Zorn — First, yes, I agree that it’s unwise and immature for players to argue with officials or to call them names. Let the coaches handle any disputes over rules and accept that, absent replay capabilities, officials will never — can never — reverse judgment calls. And verbally abusing low-paid officials in youth and high school sports is vile behavior.

But I still think the first remedial step when players cuss out an official should be a technical foul, not a game misconduct. A second offense? Sure, toss ‘em out.

Comet comment

Steve T. — Your item on Halley’s Comet beginning its return trip toward Earth offered the cruel and ghoulish memory from 1986 of the parent who told her then-four year old, “The next time you see that comet I'll be dead. And I want you to think of me.” But it prompts me to ask you to check out the loving, poignant lyrics on the same subject from Mary Chapin Carpenter:

 It came from the east just as bright as a torch
She saw it in the sky from her daddy's porch
As heavenly sent as it was back then
When Halley came to Jackson in 1910

Zorn — Lovely song, thanks, but I demand to see Mary Chapin Carpenter’s artistic license. In 1910, Halley’s Comet missed Earth by only 15 million miles and was a dagger of light in the sky. Last time, the time Carpenter waxes lyrical about, it came no closer than 38.8 million miles and was nowhere near “bright as a torch.”

Is Amazon blowing Santa’s cover?

Bob G.— We have four kids at our house, ages 8 to 15. This year, online shippers have been dropping off gifts we’re ordered in packages in boxes that clearly depict what’s inside. And the boxes end up on the front porch where our kids are likely to see them. Shippers ought to allow the option of delivering gifts in unmarked boxes.

Zorn — Most of the boxes and packages we have delivered are just branded by the retailer — Amazon, for instance — and not the product manufacturer, but I’ll put this out there to see if others are having their holiday gift surprises spoiled.

Poll question

Bob E. — Why do you allow click voters to select multiple favorites in Thursday’s written Tweet of the Week poll, but you only allow us to vote for one of the visual tweets on Tuesday?

Zorn — I use different poll templates for each. For the written poll I use CrowdSignal, which is more versatile but requires readers to leave the Picayune Sentinel in order to vote. For the visual tweets I use Substack’s native polling tool, which has a number of limitations but is easier to use and keeps readers on the page.

Subscription question

Carole V. — Please change my email address to (address deleted)

Glad to do it since you asked nicely, but Substack’s help section for readers has a page on address changes. I have a bit of a backlog of subscription issues I’m trying to deal with, so if I’ve been slow to respond to yours you might want to check that help section.

Any what now?

At 2:48 in this video of Kate McKinnon’s “Saturday Night Live” monologue last weekend I’m hearing “anyfuck,” despite what the caption people at NBC think I should be hearing.

Neither makes any sense, but “what the fuck?” also doesn’t make any sense. Can we, should we, try to make “anyfuck” happen as a transitional word in conversation?

Ya gotta see these tweets!

Here are some funny visual images I've come across recently on social media. Enjoy, then evaluate:

@JoelksterMusic

Guitar chord charts generating a texting initialism? Well, I laughed.

Vote for your favorite. I’ll share the winner in Thursday’s main edition.

Usage note: To me, “tweet” has become a generic term for a short post on social media.

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

.