Trump's cloven hoof finally pops all the way out

& your chance to weigh in on moving the Super Bowl to Saturday

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

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.

Just plane racist and sexist: Trump’s response to the D.C. air disaster proves what many knew about him all along

In an old joke, a husband hires a private detective to find out if his wife is having an affair. After a few days, the detective reports back: “I followed her to a bar where I saw her drinking and slow dancing with a man,” he says. “They left together and I followed them to a motel, where they checked into a room. I had the binoculars on them and saw through the window as they began to undress. Then the man walked over and closed the drapes. That’s all I saw.”

“Argh!” says the husband, wringing his hands. “Always the element of doubt!”

I’ve long resisted calling President Donald Trump a racist — completely resisted, I think, but it’s possible I’ve slipped up a time or two. It’s a poisonous accusation to make against someone, and I try to use it sparingly.

Trump’s long campaign claiming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president? Baseless and ignorant, of course. But maybe he would have made that argument against any Democrat with a foreign-born parent.

His claim that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were eating their neighbors’ pets? Utterly unfounded, but maybe Trump would have made that same xenophobic claim if he’d heard the same loony rumor about, say, Polish immigrants.

Trump’s expressed confusion about whether Kamala Harris is Black? Weird but maybe rooted in Harris’ occasional emphasis on her East Asian roots.

I know, I know. “Shithole countries,” immigrant “animals” with “bad genes,” “Black jobs” and on and on. Racially charged? Yes.Shrill dog whistles? Probably. Yes. And racist groups and individuals were enthusiastic backers of Trump. And maybe I was being as naive as the husband in the joke in defaulting to my “always the element of doubt” handwringing.

But there can be no maybe about Trump’s knee-jerk declaration that “common sense” told him that DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion — hiring initiatives were the cause of Wednesday’s air tragedy near Reagan International Airport.

Well before investigators sorted out what happened in the control tower, in the American Airlines jet and in the Blackhawk helicopter that struck the jet over the icy waters of the Potomac River, Trump blithely implied that the responsible party was a member of one of the groups given hiring preferences under DEI and therefore presumptively less qualified and less responsible than — let’s just say it, shall we? — a white man.

It was simultaneously racist and sexist of his to say so.

In an op-ed in The Hill, attorney A. Scott Bolden the former former chair of the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party noted:

In the case of air traffic controllers … job applicants all have to meet the same rigorous requirements — including aptitude and psychological tests and a physical exam — and undergo three to four years of training before earning full certification by the Federal Aviation Administration. DEI does not require lowering standards to hire, retain or promote unqualified people of color, women or anyone else.

Vice President JD Vance’s effort on Fox News to sanitize Trump’s odious remark was unpersuasive:

The president made very clear that he wasn’t blaming anybody, but he was being very explicit about the fact that DEI policies have led our air traffic controllers to be short-staffed. That is a scandal. Thankfully, it’s a scandal that the president has stopped. … Let’s just say the person at the controls didn’t have enough staffing around him or her because we were turning people away because of DEI reasons.

It remains unclear if short staffing in the D.C. control tower had anything to do with the deadly crash, or if an underqualified person of any sex or ethnic identity was to blame for the collision. But even if it turns out that blame rests on a person who was in his or her position because of DEI, the instant assumption that that was the case was not common sense, but common bigotry.

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

A third term for Trump

Laurence E Siegel — Last week’s item “How Trump could serve a third term” was a depressing way to start the morning! His first term was a disaster! The first two weeks of his second term make me want to vomit and ignore the news! A third term? Please no!

Jim —I wonder what Republicans would have said in 2016 if Obama had decided to try to exploit the constitutional loophole you identified. I am pretty sure there would have been unanimous opposition and outrage.

Mark K. — I look for Trump to declare a bogus national emergency and suspend all federal elections indefinitely. There will be no one to stop him.

What did those deportees ever do to you?

David Leitschuh — Your recent rant ran under the headline, “Leave law abiding immigrants alone!” But people who intentionally entered our country illegally, and continue to remain here illegally, are by definition distinctly not law-abiding. The Democrats’ open borders policy had normalized non-enforcement of our immigration laws, and Republicans in charge are now simply enforcing laws that have long existed.

A primary issue in the recent presidential election was the choice between the Democrats’ border policy and Trump's promise to close the border and deport people who are here illegally. National polls have consistently reflected that a majority of the American people are in favor of mass deportations. Trump is now simply doing what he promised during the campaign, and what many people voted for.

Though immigrant labor is an essential part of our economy, government has simply been looking the other way as immigrants violate our immigration laws. There needs to be a new system where necessary workers can be vetted and authorized. Hopefully, this will be a key component of immigration reform.

I also want the government to put a stop to the sort of cruelty suffered by Laken Riley, who was brutally raped and murdered by an illegal immigrant with a criminal history. And to the cruelty suffered by 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray who was abducted, sexually assaulted for hours and then murdered by two Venezuelan illegal immigrants who had been released into our country without any vetting. I also want the cruelty to stop in Aurora, Colorado, where a Venezuelan gang essentially took over an apartment complex, assaulted, brutalized and threatened dismemberment to people who would not pay them money.

Of course the great majority of illegal immigrants do not commit violent crimes, but there are far too many who have inflicted tragic violence on American citizens. And then there is the issue of literally hundreds of thousands of minors who were admitted into this country without any tracking whatsoever and undoubtedly many of them are being horrifically used in human trafficking. We are derelict as a people if we do not move aggressively to stop this cruelty.

Zorn — Ahem. "Aurora police chief says there's no evidence that Venezuelan gang took over apartment," "Unpacking 'Hysteria' Over Venezuelan Gang Members Allegedly Taking Over Colorado Apartment" Not to say that there aren’t horror stories about about violent crime perpetrated by those in the country without documentation. And the vast majority of us — Democrats included — want those evildoers ousted tout de suite.

My question for those of you who are so extremely animated by this issue is, how has it affected you personally? Is it just a question of principle? Or have these undocumented migrants actually harmed you in someway? Lowered your standard of living, for instance? Because it seems to me that, like a lot of issues these day — trans rights, for instance — people get into a lather over things that have absolutely no impact on them.

"The Democrats want open borders" was a successful but false political slogan. There were lots of deportations and exclusions during the Biden years. And Obama was tagged with the nickname "deporter in chief."

The immigration issue has been so demagogued that it’s almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion among reasonable people about what level of immigration we want and need, and how to make our immigration/asylum policies consonant with our national values.

Is Lady Liberty no longer lifting her lamp beside the golden door, but instead throwing up a stop sign? If so, are there good reasons for that that go beyond prejudice?

To be clear, it should be almost impossible to enter this country without legal authorization. But I have very little patience with the "pull up the drawbridge" position of so many immigrants and descendants of immigrants who are lucky enough to have become citizens. The drawbridge should remain down and its capacity ought to be generous and based on the economic needs of our country as well as the circumstances of those who are applying to be here.

Mark Martinez — Just as “open borders” is a false accusation, so is “anti-immigrant” and “you want to pull up the drawbridge.”

There are currently 47.5 million non-native born legal residents of the US. There are 1.2 million new permanent residents, 1.5 million work visas, and about 450,000 student visas annually.

We probably need more work visas, and pathways to citizenship for those workers.

The bigger issue today is the growth in asylum and refugee status. There are now 7.5 million in the system. The vast majority are economic refugees, and not the more traditional political or natural disaster refugees. This group also requires more support and government services. The UN says there are 125 million displaced people globally and there are billions that would be economically better off in the U.S.. Most have sympathetic stories. Given the current deficits and unmet needs in the U.S., this seems like a major issue. We saw the impact locally last year when just a tiny percentage came to Chicago.

David Leitschuh (in response) — I’m in complete agreement that there should be an efficient pathway for vetting and admission of people to our country that presently does not exist. After the border is secure and the dangerous illegal immigrants here are removed, hopefully there can be expeditious partisan movement toward a comprehensive reform of our broken immigration system that will include lawful admission of the many workers our economy needs. The term “open borders” is not to suggest that we don’t have border control personnel, but that in the overwhelming majority of cases, their role has been simply to process people and then release them into our country without any vetting.

Enforcement of our existing laws is not in any way radical or wrong.

Zorn — We can agree that dangerous . And we can agree on the stronger border security. We will not agree on raiding workplaces and hauling out people who are living here without documentation but are otherwise following our laws.

A solution to the combined transfer portal/NIL problem?

Jim McDonough — Regarding your complaint that name image likeness money and the transfer portal are ruining college sports, I, too, think the rules need to be changed:

• Each student athlete should be allowed one unrestricted transfer. If you transfer more than once, you must wait a year to regain eligibility

• The transfer portal should not open until the national championship is concluded, regardless of the sport.

Christopher Adams — If a coach is fired or leaves his job, then the players the coach recruited should be allowed to transfer elsewhere without penalty. As much as we want to believe every athlete at our alma mater is there because they love our school as much as we do, that’s not realistic. Nearly every college athlete attends a school because of the relationship they built with the coach who recruited them. When the coach goes, the athlete should be allowed to go, too.

Zorn — I don’t agree with allowing players to leave when a coach leaves, but I am starting to think more and more that college athletes who receive compensation ought to have mutually binding contractural relationships with their schools.

An what about making the unrestricted transfer opportunity available only to bench players — those who participated in less than half the action that similar starters or first-stringers participated in? That would allow recruits who didn’t get see the action they hoped for to try their luck at a new school while not allowing star players to hopscotch around the country looking for more money every year.

Making Willie Wilson fans uncomfortable

Steven K. —I’ve always liked Willie Wilson’s columns in the Tribune, gimmicks and all, and can never understand why so many local journalists seem to dislike him. His style is sort of that of an everyman who identifies problems head on, notes the complacency in which too many of us are ensconced, offers up some clearheaded and common sensible approaches to dealing with the problems, and then challenges us to snap out of our apathy and become engaged. I don’t know why this method should make anyone’s skin crawl, but clearly it does some.

This animosity toward Wilson reached absurdity earlier last year when Neil Steinberg wrote a column in the Sun-Times in which he went apoplectic because Wilson had written a piece in which he criticized President Joe Biden for endorsing Transgender Day of Visibility when it coincided with Easter Sunday one year.

Steinberg’s criticism was consistent with one of our more unfortunate cultural norms: No one ever reacts to anything anymore, we only overreact with maximum outrage, grievance and indignation, always jacking the needle on the outrage-o meter right to 10. Wilson proffered a few silly, backward ideas in a column, and Steinberg reacted as if he’d advocated for a kitten holocaust.

Zorn — Steinberg deftly wielded his rhetorical scalpel on a column in major American newspaper that insulted the dignity of trans people by arguing that the coincidence of a day of visibility for them and Easter Sunday was disappointing, divisive and “could give citizens a license to move away from God.” Wilson concluded that it “made a mockery of Jesus Christ.”

Steingberg wrote:

This is bigotry on its face … First, his assumption that the loathed community is somehow corrupting the delicate sensibilities of regular normies. They are the spit that ruins the soup. … You can't have a day acknowledging the existence of trans people fall on the Christian holy day because then the Christian holy day is ruined. It's an insult!

Second, his assumption that everyone views Christianity as he does — as a club to take upside the head of those who stray from his very narrow definitions of conduct.

I don’t dislike Wilson. He’s a friendly enough fellow and generous with his money. I dislike that the only credential he has to have a column ghost written for him is that he’s a successful entrepreneur who thinks his success qualifies him to hold high political office, and that the Tribune enables this belief.

Yes, I realize that rich people thinking they deserve political power is not a new phenomenon — Illinois’ last two governors come to mind — but it’s unfortunate that the Tribune promotes Wilson’s ambitions by giving him free space in the paper every two weeks.

One last thought on why journalists should reform their ways on the use of ‘mandate’

Kevin Kirkley — The Oxford dictionary defines mandate as: "the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election" By this definition, every elected politician has received a mandate. But in common usage, “mandate” implies an overwhelming support of an idea or movement. With this in mind I firmly agree that Trump has no mandate.

Zorn — Yes, if any victory is a “mandate,” then the term becomes either meaningless or redundant. It’s a word journalists should be careful of — an argument I also make for the word “reform.”

Technically to “reform” something means simply to change it in some way, but the colloquial understanding is that to “reform” something means to change it for the better. So if , for example, you write or speak about “a school funding reform proposal,” you are implying that the proposed changes will mark an improvement over the current system. That’s fine if you’re meaning to convey that opinion — though a straight news story ought not do so — but if you’re not sure or want to project neutrality, you should say or write, “a proposal to change the way schools are funded.”

Unpopular opinions? Play the Super Bowl on Saturday

Steven K — My unpopular (?) opinion is that the Super Bowl should be moved from Sunday evening to Saturday night.

I like this idea a lot. The Super Bowl party is an American tradition and Saturday nights are far better for parties than Sunday nights, when the looming reality of Monday morning throws a blanket on the merrymaking

In 2018, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell explained why the league won’t move the game:

The audiences on Sunday night are so much larger. Fans want to have the best opportunity to be able to see the game and we want to give that to them, so Sunday night is a better night.

Sure, in general, Saturday nights have the lowest TV ratings. But the Super Bowl is an event unlike any other, and my guess is that viewership would be even higher were the game on Saturday night.

Another argument for keeping the game on Sunday is that it gives host cities an extra night of hotel and dining revenue — assuming fans arrive at the host city on Friday either way

Sportsbook Review offered other reasons last month in an analysis headlined, “Super Bowl Saturday: Spending, TV Ratings Would Plummet – But Beer Sales Would Soar.”

• Consumer spending on the big game would plummet by between 20 and 45%

• TV viewership would drop by nearly 20 million viewers, resulting in a $104 million drop in ad revenue

• Office productivity would surge by nearly $4 billion due to a significant drop in day-after-Super Bowl lateness and absences

• Beer consumption would rise well above the $1 billion presently spent annually on Super Bowl Sunday

• Traffic accidents would rise measurably, based on major Saturday celebrations producing 31% more wrecks and 42% more fatalities than Sunday events.

Perhaps the best solution would be to move the game back in the calendar to the Sunday before President’s Day — observed annually on the third Monday in February; Feb. 17th this year. The Super Bowl would then be played anywhere from Feb. 13 to Feb. 20.

The Super Bowl is now scheduled for the second Sunday in February — this coming Sunday, Feb. 9. Moving it to the Sunday before the third Monday in February — or moving Presidents Day up a week — would make the game part of a three-day weekend for the many people who don’t have work or school on Presidents Day

To test that idea, Super Bowl 61 (enough already with the Roman numerals) will be on Feb. 14, 2027, the latest the game has ever been played and — for the first time — on the day before President’s Day.

Your turn:

Last week’s result

434 votes

My idea that every TV station does not need its own meteorologist proved spectacularly unpopular.

Ross Patronsky — Good luck trying to get localized insight from someone in Atlanta trying to spit out dozens of local forecasts.

Tom T. — I really like the local weather segments and hope they don't get dropped. Emily Wahls (FOX-32) and Morgan Kolkmeyer (WGN-9) are my two weekday favorites and Kevin Jeans (NBC-5) is best on the weekends. They help me plan on when I can spend time outdoors in the next few days.

Jeff Stern —The TV weather technology is the same on each station, but the meteorologists bring their own personalities to the show.

Tom Krish — Weather is such hyperlocal news, and often serious and urgent. I'd prefer to hear reports from someone who lives in the area, not an outsider. Even if the content would be the same, it would connect with me more from a local figure.

John N. — Local meteorologists are important during local weather emergencies - think, hurricanes, blizzards, tornados, rain that causes flooding, etc. Far better to have a local meteorologist advising commuters of the presence of tornados in the western 'burbs of Chicago threatening the BNSF commuter train line (which happened last summer, as I recall) than having some meteorologist advising of possible tornados west of Chicago, reporting from Atlanta. Day to day? Perhaps weather news from a central location like Atlanta is worthwhile. But in emergencies, forget it.

OK, I give up. But what continues to baffle me is that the weather report is almost always the exact same length whether or not there's anything notable or remarkable going on in the atmosphere. Most viewers jus want to know if it’s going to rain or snow and what the likely temperature range will be That's about 30 seconds worth of content on most days. How or why anyone watches local news in real time without fast forward/30-second skip capabilities is utterly beyond me.

This occasional Tuesday feature is intended to highlight opinions that are defensible but may well be unpopular. If you have one to add, leave it in comments or send me an email, but be sure to offer at least a paragraph in defense of your view.

This isn’t a joke, but I was sure it was at first

The week’s best visual jokes

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

I concede that the “shits”post isn’t really visual in nature, but it’s too long and involved to work in the written-quips poll every Thursday and I’d hate not to include it.

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

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

Info

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.

Contact

You can email me here:

I read all the messages that come in, but I do most of my interacting with readers in the comments section beneath each issue.

Some of those letters I reprint and respond to in the Z-mail section of Tuesday’s Picayune Plus, which is delivered to paid subscribers and available to all readers later Tuesday. Check there for responses.

If you don’t want me to use the full name on your email or your comments, let me know how you’d like to be identified.

Help?

If you’re having troubles with Substack — delivery, billing and so forth — first try “Picayune Sentinel Substack help, Frequently Asked Questions.” If that doesn’t work check out the Substack help page. And if that doesn’t work, shoot me an email and I’ll be happy to help.