To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.
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.
One of the three new game jerseys for the WNBA Chicago Sky is the Nike Rebel Edition emblazoned with “CHI * TOWN.”
What an airball of an idea!
"Chi-Town," a cutesy term used almost exclusively by people who don't live here or by writers and advertising people straining for variety. Employing it marks you as a poser from elsewhere, in my view — San Franciscans say the same thing about “‘Frisco” — and my Facebook post on this topic drew nearly 400 comments, nearly all of them echoing my disdainful indignation, some wishing to add “Windy City” to the list of forbidden phrases.
Here’s a sampling of the (very few) dissenting opinions:
Barbara S. — Born and lived virtually all my life here. I’ve said Chi-town. I’m sure I’ll say it again. Not sure why anybody cares whether people use this term or not
Rick R.— These replies are a bit north-side centric, no? "Chi-Town" has been popularized by a lot of rap artists, including Chance, who was there courtside as the Sky won the championship. I don't use the term, but I certainly don't think less of those who do. Language is always changing. Youth culture propels
Bayo O. — I know plenty South Siders of who use the term "Chi-town" with crowing pride, particularly when they speak of "Sweet Home" to others from other places
Andre G. — I am a lifelong Chicagoan and I had a band in the 80s called Chi-town Breakdown.
I’m open to the idea that youth culture is trying to and just might revive this expression, and that the Sky marketing department is hoping to get out in front of the trend and make the Sky cool with the kids. I’d call that a long shot, though.
The commenters were also very hard on the term “Chicagoland” as a synonym for “the Chicago area” or the “the greater Chicago metropolitan region.” I’m not as averse. Here’s the Encyclopedia of Chicago entry:
Col. Robert R. McCormick, editor and publisher of the Chicago Tribune for most of the first half of the twentieth century, usually gets credit for putting “Chicagoland” into common parlance. In McCormick's time, it referred to the city and its grain, timber, and livestock hinterlands covering parts of five states (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa), all of which were served by rail delivery of the colonel's newspaper. Later in the century it came to mean a smaller, denser area of city and suburbs in three states stretching from northern Indiana to southern Wisconsin.
Speaking of “airball,” if you sing that taunt to yourself you are quite likely to hit an F note followed by a D note — if you sing it with a group of friends, you’re almost certain to do so.
In a 1992 research paper titled "Air Ball: Spontaneous Large-Group Precision Chanting," communications professor Cherrill Heaton of University of North Florida observed that —
Without direction, instruction, a conductor or a pitch pipe, thousands of strangers, massed in indoor stadiums and arenas, are able, if stimulated by an air ball, to chant "air ball' in tonal and rhythmic unison.
The same general tonal agreement is said to be true about the singing of “"Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" at departing relief pitchers — trying singing the first four words and then checking here to see if you’re in the key of Dm. (I was in Cm, myself).
Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses
Some of these messages are in reference to items in last Thursday’s Picayune Sentinel.
I’m reminded once again of how virulent and blistering the debate is over abortion rights. Harvard lawyer Laurence Tribe called it a “clash of absolutes,” in the title of his 1991 book on abortion politics because the dispute is driven by advocates on both sides who can’t recognize and see no need nor advantage to cede any middle ground positions.
Bruce L. — Contrary to what some are saying, the draft opinion from Justice Sam Alito simply reasons, with some logical support, that the Constitution does not argue for or against abortions even when the unspecified penumbra of rights under the Amendments are included. It specifically states that Abortion is a state's rights issue such that each State can legalize it or not.
I see nothing in this opinion that strips the states from making their own decisions on the topic. It’s not the court's job to predict what Congress may or may not do. Its job is to simply rule on what is before it.
This is a civics class view of how the Supreme Court operates. It’s certainly possible to find in the “unspecified penumbra of rights” a woman’s right to bodily autonomy that supersedes any state legislature’s interest in controlling that right — justices did it for years! And it’s obviously possible not to see such a right. Alito’s doing it right now!
Remember, the Constitution was written by people who thought it was OK for human beings to own other human beings and didn’t include women when extending such fundamental rights as the right to vote. Those who worship the Founders can never satisfactorily account for those, ahem, oversights when demanding that we hew to the traditions rooted in such racism and misogyny.
Jake H. — Zorn wrote that Republicans will abolish the filibuster when they have the chance, so Democrats we might as well do it now. My view is that that the Republicans didn't do so in the very recent past when they had the chance and Trump was telling Sen. Mitch McConnell to do it, so I wouldn't be so sure of that, and that the filibuster will be an important defense for Democrats when the Republicans take power, as they surely will eventually.
I don’t think McConnell demurred out of principle. I think he demurred because the stakes weren’t high enough, the advantage not obvious enough, in part because Roe still stood and a nationwide ban on abortion — the right’s goal, let’s be honest — might well have been overturned.
With Roe gone — as we assume it will be — and with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate the White House — which they will one day be — eliminating the filibuster to pass a nationwide abortion ban would be worth the risk.
Sure, Democrats might undo such a law when the political teeter-totter tips back and they again take control. But staffing and reopening long shuttered clinics would be much harder than simply shutting them down. And the cultural and religious conservatives behind this movement often sound quite certain that history is on their side and granting abortion access against would be as politically difficult as, say, granting states the right to again forbid interracial or same-sex marriage.
Martin T. —Abortion is an important issue, but unfortunately Democratic hopes in November will be decided by inflation, the border, chaos on the world scene, and increased urban crime. Again, it’s not all about abortion – except in the minds of the Democratic base.
As the old expression has it, if what you say is true, then you may be right. Abortion rights are very important to a subset of Democratic voters, voters who have not been particularly motivated or inspired to get out to the polls even in years when certain states have been slowly chipping away at abortion rights.
Predictions that animated, energized voters from certain demographic or ideological groups will turn out in great force and surprise the pollsters and the pundits have usually proven wrong. And even if those who want to protect abortion rights register and vote in great number, it’s possible that opponents of abortion rights, sensing the stakes in the off-year election, will do the same.
At the same time, I would not underestimate the ability of red-state Republicans to inflame Democratic voters by passing extremely punitive, restrictive abortion bans now that they have the chance. A yeah, people are worried about what’s happening along our southern border, but they’ll be more worried about what’s happening in their homes and
Peggy P. — I recently won election to my local village board. We trustees are subject to the Open Meetings Act. We cannot meet, or even correspond via email or text more than two of us in conversation without violating the law. All voting must take place in open public meetings. We are limited to what can be discussed in private and most discussion takes place with residents in the audience, or watching via the internet. The Supreme Court’s “privacy” should be limited as well.
There’s a good argument that the Supreme Court functions as a quasi-legislative body and its processes and deliberations should therefore be more open. Certainly arguments should be televised. I would have to be persuaded that the public interest is advanced by secret deliberating/negotiating sessions by the justices. An argument can be made for it, just as an argument can be made that debates among trustees on your board might be more productive if they were held in private.
The justices flatter themselves that they’re above the political fray, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor saw through that in comments with this abortion case was being heard: “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she said. “I don’t see how it is possible.”
John N. — Alito and the four justices who signed on to his draft opinion started with a decision based on their ideologies then searched for the legal arguments to justify a decision that aligned with the ideology and their goals. These Federalist Society types have had their justifications lined up for decades and they were just waiting until they had the votes to implement them. At the first chance — bam! — it’s done.
David L. — Conservatives owe thanks to the leaker of this draft opinion. While there is unquestionably manifestation of outrage in the streets by the hair-on-fire predominantly women furious over this news, does anyone seriously believe that any material percentage of these rabidly pro-abortion individuals were ever going to vote for any Republican candidates?
The gender gap on abortion rights when it comes to those who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases (6 percentage points) is less pronounced than the race (10 points), age (12 points) and education (21 points) gaps.
And while of course the votes of those “rabidly” on one side or the other are set, there are a lot of voters in the non-rabid, mushy middle
By the way, the term “pro-abortion” is false and inflammatory. Very few if any people want more abortions to be performed or think of abortion as an optimal outcome from a sexual encounter that ends in an unintended pregnancy. These “rabid” folks are pro-contraception and pro-abortion rights.
Michael N. — There is no chance the Supreme Court will allow states to prohibit birth control. Griswold v. Connecticut, though bad, isn't as bad an opinion as Roe.
From Forbes:
“Alito’s rationale for overturning Roe stems from the fact that abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. ‘The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,’ Alito writes. …
“Constitutional scholar and Congressman, Jamie Raskin [maintains] that the original Roe decision was based on a 1965 Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a law that banned birth control. In that case, the Supreme Court said that individuals had a right to privacy over intimate decision-making.
“‘We know, there is a right-wing war on contraception now, but if Casey is to fall, if Roe v. Wade is to fall, then Griswold v. Connecticut, presumably, is to fall as well, because the word ‘contraception’ or ‘birth control’ doesn't appear in the Constitution. Indeed, the phrase ‘right to privacy’ doesn't appear in the constitution. So this would appear to be an invitation to have Handmaid's Tale type, anti-feminist regulation and legislation all over the country,’ Raskin said”
Beyond Alito’s soothing purring that his draft opinion is only meant to apply to abortion, nothing in the principles or logic behind it limits its application.
M.R. — I would suggest that the term “pregnant person” is absolutely not “enlightened” language. In fact, I think much of the linguistic gymnastics put forth by our woke brethren and sistren and theythren is truly self-destructive. When the stakes are real and life-threatening for LGBTQ and other minorities in key states around the nation, the continual hectoring about word choices is a sub-optimal use of energy, good will and political capital that distracts from and undermines the essential effort to protect the vulnerable. I understand the nuance and the reasoning, but the woke police repel people who could become their allies with their continually updated, but hardly enlightened, terminology edicts. IMO.
The Guttmacher Institute estimated that roughly 500 of the some 610,000 abortions performed in America in 2017 were performed on trans men. That’s roughly 1 in every 1,200 abortions or less than a tenth of a percent. An Australian study in 2014 found that 54 out of roughly 300,000 births in that country were to trans men — or 1 in 5,500. Those numbers are probably growing with trans acceptance, but still not large enough, in my view, to compel a wholesale change in the language.
Interesting Twitter thread started by Kori Rumore Finley, co-author of the weekly Vintage Chicago Tribune newsletter. Vaporous local projects; big ideas that never came to fruition. The most frequently mentioned “never mind” big idea in the responses was the Crosstown Expressway followed by the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art. Others:
The airport in Peotone
The tunnel to O’Hare
The 1992 World’s Fair and the 2016 Olympics
The downtown light-rail circulator
The move of the Chicago Children’s Museum to Grant Park
The CTA’s Block 37 Superstation
The Tiger Woods-designed championship golf course on the current footprint of Jackson Park Golf Course and South Shore Golf Course
Will we one day add the Chicago casino to this list? Until recently, a Bears stadium in Arlington Heights belonged on it, but now…
What else deserves a mention?
Ya gotta see these tweets!
I often run across tweets that are too visual in nature to include in the Tweet of the Week contest (the template for the poll does not allow the use of images). Here are a few good ones I’ve come across recently, starting with a Clippy joke:
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.
.
SCOTUS deliberations were designed to be held in private specifically to shield them from influence by third parties. In fact, Federal criminal Statute 18 U.S.C.,1507 explicitly criminalizes attempts to influence the judicial process with regard to judges, jurors and witnesses.
Also, the same statute makes the current demonstrations in front of the SCOTUS justices' residences patently illegal and subject to prosecution. The statute reads in part,
"2. With the intent of influencing any judge...in the discharge of his duty...
3. Pickets or parades in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge..."
But of course, the Biden Justice Department has absolutely no interest in enforcing laws against street activists who are furthering their partisan narrative . There is plenty of attention to prosecuting concerned parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists, but a total blind eye toward these ongoing very public criminal acts at SCOTUS judge residences. (And I will add that I believe demonstrations at the residences of any public officials are fascistic in nature and should be banned all together.)
Thanks for the comments about "Chi-Town" and "Windy City." I use neither.
As for "Chicagoland," I learned the origin and sometimes use it. The vagueness, if you wish, is okay; it's preferable to the precise definition of Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area [SMSA]. Also, "Chicagoland" has some analogous words in other parts of the USA. These are needed.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, a "trans-man" who is pregnant or gets an abortion is a chromosomal female with an XX pair of chromosomes. I call this person a "woman."