Hurray for Beto, calling a mofo a mofo
... & a Smollett prosecutor seeks redemption
8-18-2022 (issue No. 49)
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.
This week
Word Court — where I solicit your votes on matters of usage.
News and Views — on the death of the Republican Party we once knew, the latest on the dreaded parking meter deal and more.
Where does Joe Magats go to get his reputation back? — Not here!
Land of Linkin’ — Where I tell readers where to go.
The Picayune Sentinel recommends… —Books and podcasts to complete your media diet.
Today’s Tune — my (current) favorite waltz
He said what???
Speaking to a campaign town-hall last week, Democratic Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was particularly animated when saying this:
The law that’s on the books, ladies and gentlemen, that says you can buy not one, you can buy two or more if you want to, AR-15s. Hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and take that weapon that was originally designed for use on the battlefield in Vietnam to penetrate an enemy soldier’s helmet at 500 feet, and knock him down dead. Up against kids at five feet—
At this point in O’Rourke’s diatribe, a supporter of Republican incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott in the crowd laughed audibly. Some news reports suggested that the heckler was laughing about the schoolchildren slaughtered in Uvalde, Texas on May 24 — not an unreasonable assumption given the context — but gun lovers and those who’ve dealt with them for years knew that he was attempting to show scorn for O’Rourke’s lack of understanding of firearms. As senior editor Jacob Sullum wrote in Reason:
(O’Rourke’s) implication was that the AR-15, compared to other rifles that legislators have not classified as "assault weapons," is especially powerful and therefore especially deadly. But that is plainly not true. … The laughing Abbott supporter had a point: He laughed because O'Rourke did not know what he was talking about.
Flyspecking the misapprehensions of those unfamiliar with firearms when it comes to the precise history, the proper nomenclature and the capabilities of certain popular weapons is a favorite pastime among gun enthusiasts. For instance, I was inundated with patronizing emails when I referred in 2020 to the rifle Kyle Rittenhouse was toting around Kenosha as a “weapon of war” because, well if you know you know and if you don’t know, you don’t really care.
In a 1981 history published in the Atlantic, James Fallows wrote:
Early in 1963, with strong support from President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Special Forces (better known as the Green Berets), asked for and got approval to use the AR-15 as their standard issue, because they needed lightweight gear for mobility and stealth. The Army’s airborne units in Vietnam also got it, as did some agents of the CIA.
Fallows noted that the weapon was “militarized” later that year into the M-16.
Are AR-15-style rifles “especially powerful and therefore especially deadly”? Not really, but they have proven especially useful to psychopaths bent on mass murder — see Las Vegas (58 dead), Sutherland Springs, Texas (26 dead), Pulse nightclub (49 dead), San Bernardino, California (14 dead), Sandy Hook Elementary School (27 dead), Highland Park (7 dead), Uvalde (21 dead) and I need not go on.
And the tactic of laughing off widespread concern over these bloodbaths on technicalities comes across as smug, heartless and grotesque.
“It may be funny to you, motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me,” O’Rourke barked back. The room erupted in cheers and applause.
Many on social media also applauded O’Rourke’s outburst, though quite a few civility scolds weighed in to say that such coarse language is unbecoming, inappropriate, corrosive and unhelpful.
I reject the stale argument that profanity reveals a lack of imagination or a poor vocabulary. Swear words can be punchy and provide emphasis and suggest emotions that sanitary synonyms simply cannot. Choosing the right one can be something of an art.
“It may be funny to you, you jerk, but it’s not funny to me,” would have been a sad-trombone rejoinder from O’Rourke, feeble and barely worth sharing.
And he chose the right vulgarity for the moment. Sure, “motherfucker” sounds awful if translated literally — accusing someone of having carnal relations with his own mother — but common usage has worn down the word’s rougher edges, and it’s now a milder insult than, say, “asshole” or “dickhead,” arguably less confrontational than the seemingly mild “son of a bitch,” which, like “motherfucker," can also be used affectionately.
In “How Mofo Got Its Mojo,” Slate’s Forrest Wickman wrote:
By the late ‘50s and ‘60s, motherfucker finally became, in some usages, a positive description. … A 1954 line in the “The Life,” a collection of oral poetry about black hustlers, reads, “I love him madly, he’s my motherfucking man,” showing that the adjective form could also be used positively. “What a motherfucking man he was, Shamus!” exclaims one character, similarly, in the 1973 novel “Fogarty & Co.”
The blog version of last Friday’s Neil Steinberg column began:
Don’t fuck with librarians.
In the newspaper, I’m using a weaker word than “fuck,” (“mess”) the watered-down euphemism required by the kabuki of daily newspapering. Which in the freer online world I can ignore. Why not? The nation is in continual crisis, if not circling the drain. Norms are trashed left and right. Newspapers are wan imitations of themselves as it is. Time to unleash all the words.
I don’t know about all the words, but most of them should be arrows in the quiver of anyone who is writing or speaking to adults in most situations.
I lost a paying subscriber last week because he took offense at my description in the comment thread of how Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett were installed on the U.S. Supreme Court as “Republican fuckery.”
“I’m really tired of such uncivil discourse from a guy who apparently never belonged at a family newspaper,” he wrote. “I’m done.”
And I may lose some subscribers with this salty post today. Who knows? Maybe someone will step up to replace the anti-fuckery guy.
But O’Rourke’s unfurling of “motherfucker” was spot on — authentic, determined and the perfect word to describe the … jerks … who simper and sneer and nitpick at the anguish and rage so many of us feel about the serene indifference so many gun-rights activists exhibit to the sickening levels of gun violence in our society and the easy availability of these ghastly weapons.
“Motherfucker” showed fight. It showed resolve. It showed the spirit that Democrats are going to have to harness if they’re going to make any progress at all in reducing the carnage. And anyone who finds humor in O’Rourke’s anger because he’s not clear on his technical understanding of weaponry more than deserves the label.
Last week’s winning tweet
I also conducted a bonus, all-politics Tweet of the Week poll. The winner:
The all-politics poll proved so popular I’m reviving it again this week. Link.
Scroll down to read this week’s nominees in the regular poll or click here to vote.
Word court
Ladies and gentlemen of the language jury, your verdicts please:
Only
I found the following quote attributed to the late Pauline Phillips, the original Dear Abby: “It's only work if you would rather be doing something else." An interesting sentiment, to be sure, but it reminded me of how misplaced "onlies" are my pet peeve. What Abby meant was: "It's work only if you would rather be doing something else." I had the same reaction the other day to this sentence in a news story: "Illinois law only allows municipalities to put three referendum questions on election ballots." The writer meant, "Illinois law allows municipalities to put only three referendum questions on election ballots," and though I doubt this misplaced word engendered confusion, I still think it's worth striving for the proper placement of "only,” or at the very least considering where the word belongs in formal writing.
Certainly pop culture is indifferent to my complaint: “I Only Have Eyes for You” should be “I Have Eyes Only For You.” “You Only Live Twice” should be “You Live Only Twice.” “I Only Date Cowboys” should be “I Date Only Cowboys.” “Only Murders in the Building” should be “Murders in the Building Only.” “Heaven Only Knows” should be “Only Heaven Knows.” You get the idea.
And I’m sure I’ve misplaced more than a few onlies in my time, but always in the service of being colloquial or satirical*, I swear. Your verdict?
*as in how I worded poll answer No. 1
Suddenly
A recent newspaper obituary said the subject of the story had died “suddenly,” a common usage that prompted me to grab the leash and take another one of my pet peeves for a walk: Everyone dies “suddenly,” in that they are alive one moment and then the next moment they are dead. What we mean by this usage is that they died unexpectedly.
My Facebook family did not, in general, agree with my critique. Don McLeese commented that “unexpectedly” has come to sound to him like a euphemism for a death by suicide. Neal Pollack stopped by to declare, “My death scene will be long and melodramatic like Cyrano’s.” Robyn Michaels simply asked, “Must we quibble?”
Indeed we must! What is social media for?
That patch of land between the sidewalk and the street
I asked on Facebook what people call the land in front of a house between the public sidewalk and the street that homeowners don’t own but are obliged to take care of. We called it “the government strip” when I was growing up in Ann Arbor, but commenters mentioned “tree lawn,” “road verge," "nature strip," “easement,” “extension,” “monkey island,” “boulevard,” “tree belt,” “hell strip,” “berm,” “parking strip,” “curb lawn,” “Devil’s strip,” “grass bay,” “mow strip,” “planter zone,” “sidewalk lawn,” “terrace,” “tree bank,” “ditch,” “dog bog” and, by far the most common answer,“parkway.”
So here’s my simple question:
News & Views
News: Republican U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming was trounced in Tuesday’s primary by Trump-endorsed candidate highly critical of Cheney’s acceptance of the 2020 election results and her participation on the committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
View: This ought to dispel any doubts that the Republican Party, while perhaps not a cult, has been taken over by cultists. Mary Schmich has some excellent reflections on the Wyoming election result below, but I’d like to add a few quotes.
Los Angeles Times columnist Mark Z. Barabak: “The resounding defeat of Liz Cheney was more than the rejection of a brave and principled individual. It was the repudiation of values and a worldview that have shaped the Republican Party for well over a generation. It was also a thickheaded denial of reality and the stone-cold fact that President Trump lost the 2020 election and schemed and lied to deny it, sacrificing safety and the country’s stability on the altar of his infinite ego.”
The Lincoln Project: “Tonight, the nation marks the end of the Republican Party. What remains shares the name and branding of the traditional GOP, but is in fact an authoritarian nationalist cult dedicated only to Donald Trump."
Financial Times Associate Editor Edward Luce: “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.”
Former Tribune metro editor Mark Jacob: “This isn’t your grandfather’s Republican Party, unless your grandfather was a fascist traitor.”
I’m nostalgic for the Republican Party that I simply disagreed with rather than despised. I don’t recognize the morally bankrupt, paranoid gang of nativist authoritarians now riding the elephant. True conservatives wouldn’t want Donald Trump within 100 miles of the White House again — he was an ineffective president when it came to realizing their goals.
Trump never replaced Obamacare, delivered on an infrastructure plan or built a “big, beautiful” wall along the Mexican border. Sure, he cut taxes for the rich and appointed three conservative justices to the U.S.Supreme Court.
But any of the indoor Republicans who ran in 2016 — including Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and Jeb! — would almost certainly have delivered those results as well as others, and might also have been a stronger leader during COVID, increased or at least maintained our country’s stature on the world stage and probably won reelection, as most first-term presidents have since 1936. (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush are the only incumbents who ran for second terms and lost, while Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have run for second terms and won.)
Timothy Noah in The New Republic writes:
The Trump political scorecard is not a conservative one. Even before Trump’s loyalty test became a professed belief that Trump won the 2020 election, Trumpery was mostly a mishmash of nonideological vices: rank bigotry, xenophobia, authoritarianism, greed, and a gleeful breaking of rules and ethical norms large and small. Mix in nativism and trade protectionism. … In recent years, the political faith that’s really gotten the stuffing knocked out of it is conservatism. It didn’t begin with Trump, but Trump made matters significantly worse by forcing Republicans to choose between defending the traditional pillars of democratic governance and subverting these to Trump’s will. Almost uniformly, Republicans bent the knee.
I honestly do get that Trump’s big selling point is how he vexes and infuriates people like me. I’m sure that’s really fun for hard-core Republicans. But is he still really the best they can do?
News: 1,800 privatized parking meters have been added since Mayor Lori Lightfoot took office
View: I will die mad about Mayor Richard M. Daley’s cowardly and fiscally reckless 2008 decision to privatize city parking meters, signing a 75-year lease for a paltry $1.2 billion that was spent in less than three years so that Daley didn’t have to make tough budgetary decisions.
I included the parking meter deal when I laid out the case in 2018 that Daley had been a singularly terrible mayor. His brother Bill fired back in an op-ed:
The meter system was generating only $19 million a year before the lease was made. The city simply did not have the resources to adequately invest in the antiquated system. The private operator, however, completed a wholesale modernization ahead of schedule. The deal also preserved the City Council's decision-making authority over the meters' placement, numbers, hours of operation and fees. The transaction enabled the city to deposit an additional $400 million into its long-term reserve.
Yes, but the reason the meter system was underperforming was that the mayor and the City Council didn’t have the guts to raise the small-town rates they were charging, nor did they have the foresight to hire a vendor to install and run a system similar to the one we now have while retaining control over it. Under the current arrangement, the city is having to add more and more spaces to compensate the private company for hours when spots are out of service for festivals and even for street repairs.
John Byrne’s Tribune story notes that mayors have “very little wiggle room” when it comes to minimizing the effects on city finances of Daley’s Folly (OK, one of Daley’s follies), but Lightfoot doesn’t appear to be wiggling at all:
Lightfoot inherited the infamous parking meter deal. But as mayor-elect, she said she’d take a look at the meter agreement … saying as mayor she would try to improve the deal for Chicagoans.
In the three-plus years since then, however, Lightfoot has not announced any changes to the contract with Chicago Parking Meters LLC. What’s more, 193 new areas where drivers have to pay to park have been added since the mayor took office. … Lightfoot drew attention in her 2021 budget for adding 96 of the pay boxes covering about 750 spots, some of them around Montrose Harbor.
Remember when Lightfoot ran pledging to end the city’s “addiction” to fines and fees? Good times.
News: The Food and Drug Administration has finalized enabling access to over-the-counter hearing aids.
View: This is long overdue.
Hearing loss can complicate communication and contribute to social isolation, and researchers have also linked it to walking problems, falls, dementia and depression. Some 30 million U.S. adults could benefit from hearing aid use, according to the FDA. And yet, only about 14% of Americans with hearing loss actually use them. (NPR)
That small percentage is in significant part due to the exorbitant cost of modern, effective hearing aids — a cost that is projected to drop by some $2,800 a pair under the new rules. Now lawmakers need to address the outrageous fact that standard Medicare does not cover hearing aids.
Where does Joe Magats go to get his reputation back? Not here!
Attorneys representing now-retired Cook County First Assistant State’s Attorney Joe Magats published an op-ed in Wednesday’s Tribune defending Magats against “any criticism of his integrity” in his handling of the Jussie Smollett case.
I’m not sure why they or the Tribune decided to drag this matter back into the spotlight — Smollett was convicted last December of staging a hate crime against himself in early 2019, in a trial that took place only after a special prosecutor was able to override the decision of the Cook County state’s attorney’s office not to pursue the case.
State’s Attorney Kim Foxx informally recused herself from the case but took 99% of the criticism for how her office initially decided to let Smollett off the hook without even a pro-forma admission of guilt.
I’d wager that not one news consumer in 1,000 could have told you on Monday the name of the assistant who formally took over for her. Magats’ attorneys wrote:
Magats decided to resolve the Smollett case through an informal diversion agreement. For decades, prosecutors in the office have used informal diversion agreements to resolve cases involving first-time felony offenders charged with minor crimes.
In fact, special prosecutor Dan Webb’s 59-page report on how the case was bungled said the decision was anything but routine:
During their interviews with the Office of the Special Prosecutor, (Foxx’s then-First Assistant) Magats, and (current First Assistant Risa) Lanier both were asked what, if any, similar precedent they had in mind or relied upon when resolving the initial Smollett case. Neither identified any specific precedent on which they had relied.
In other words, lesser known defendants aren’t allowed to deny credible charges against them and then get a free pass that allows them to piously portray themselves in the media as martyrs.
The attorneys:
(Further investigations and inquiries have found that Magats’) conduct was neither criminal nor unethical, and those decisions were entirely within his discretion as a veteran prosecutor. Any criticism of his integrity was meritless.
I agree that criticism of his integrity was meritless, and those who floated foamy conspiracy theories were way off-base. It’s Magat’s judgment, not his integrity, that remains at issue.
This was a very high-profile case involving a sensational and, as it turned out, utterly phony allegation launched by a TV star. It received international news coverage. The decision to try to let Smollett off without an admission of guilt was bound to provoke outrage in the public even though, yes, yes, yes, there are more serious crimes on Foxx’s docket.
The reputation of prosecutors rests on public confidence in their judgment. My questions about Magats’ judgment are only increased by what appears to be his decision to allow his lawyers to float this feeble, tardy and unnecessary defense.
Previously in the Picayune Sentinel:
Foxx, Smollett find it hard to say 'I'm sorry,' evidently (3-17-22)
We are never going to stop arguing about Jussie Smollett (12-9-21)
Land of Linkin’
“A Complete List Of Every Bizarre Thing Dr. Oz Does In This 39-Second Clip Of Him Grocery Shopping” takes you step by step through perhaps the most unintentionally hilarious campaign commercial ever. So does this Lincoln Project tweet.
Trumpalos are bound to get the vapors at Neil Steinberg’s Wednesday column, “Gacy and Trump: the surprise connection — Sociopaths are never at a loss to explain their bad behavior,” but there are similarities!
Sign on for the ride. Chicago writer and editor Martha Bayne, 54, was diagnosed with breast cancer 10 days before her wedding in May. Her Substack “Bell, Whistle” is taking readers along on her recovery journey.
Charlie Meyerson now owns “LeftistClaptrap.com,” leaning further into the complaint of a reader who cancelled his free subscription to Chicago Public Square, Meyerson’s daily email news briefing.
Laura Washington’s Tribune column Monday on Emmett Till referred to “Mapping Police Violence,” an interesting site to visit. The Washington Post database on the same topic is behind a paywall.
Comic Sarah Cooper’s “10 Tricks to Appear Smart in Meetings” seems to have been the inspiration for one of the nominees in last week’s Tweet of the Week poll.
Craig Shimala’s time-lapse images of Chicago scenes — found on his Facebook page, his Twitter feed and his Instagram — are spectacular.
Alexandra Petri’s “CDC’s updated guidelines for living with the zombie apocalypse” in the Washington Post is yet another example of why she should be the first humorist to win the Pulitzer Prize for commentary since Dave Barry won in 1988.
Chicago writer Mark Guarino wrote for the Washington Post about John Hinckley Jr.’s attempts to start a music career in “The man who shot Reagan wants to play concerts. It’s not going well.” “Though some see his presence as controversial, mental health experts, and even prosecutor Kacie Weston — who did not object to Hinckley’s June 15 release from oversight — characterize Hinckley as someone who ‘has demonstrated the success that can come from a wraparound mental health system.’”
The Picayune Sentinel on the air: On Thursdays at 4:30 p.m., WCPT-AM 820 host Joan Esposito and I chat about ideas raised in the new issue. The listen-live link is here.
The Picayune Sentinel preview: Tuesday 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.
The Picayune Sentinel recommends…
Yeah, it’s just me doing the recommendations this week, but don’t all endorsements carry extra weight when they seem to come from an institution? Just so.
“The House that Madigan Built.”
My former colleague Ray Long’s book on the career of legendary, controversial and now federally indicted veteran speaker of the Illinois House is an indispensable look at the major controversies in Springfield that have shaped this state for the last four decades. Long explains clearly and in detail why the state fell so far behind in pension funding and how power and money intersect behind the scenes. It’s a fair and nuanced picture of Madigan the politician that takes you behind simple attacks and partisan defenses. If anyone ever asks you why Illinois government is the way it is, hand them this book.
Long will be speaking at the Harold Washington Library Center at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 13. It will air live on the Chicago Public Library's YouTube channel and Facebook page.
“Talking Sopranos.”
So-called “rewatch podcasts” are often a delight and revelation. Series insiders go episode by episode through popular TV and streaming programs, analyzing and recapping the action while offering behind-the-scenes tidbits and, often, interviews with key people involved in the production. “Talking Sopranos” is, as the title suggests, a deep look at the landmark HBO series “The Sopranos,” which ended its six-season run 15 years ago but had a renewed burst of popularity during the pandemic when many people — including me and Johanna — finally got around to watching it.
Hosts Michael Imperioli (who played Christopher Moltisanti) and Steve Schirripa (who played Bobby Baccalieri) have a jolly chemistry, and their digressions into non-Sopranos subjects —such as Schirripa’s preference for personal hygiene products — are part of the relaxed charm of the podcast. The two have a good eye for the symbolism and Easter eggs that viewers might have missed.
I liked the podcast so well that I bought their book, “Woke Up This Morning: The Definitive Oral History of The Sopranos,” which features many highlights from the show and was released in November 2021 just as the podcast was concluding with a fitting and sudden cut to silence.
Speaking of rewatch podcasts, my future daughter-in-law swears by “The Office Ladies” and I’ve heard good things about “West Wing Weekly” and “Clear Eyes, Full Hearts,” a show-by-show analysis of “Friday Night Lights.” But there are quite a few tedious, uninformed show-related podcasts out there trying to make a buck off this trend, and, as far as I know, no reliable critic sorting out the good from the bad.
“Murder in Illinois”
This 2021 podcast revisited a searing 2007 crime, but it remains very relevant today as the case continues to wind through the courts. Here’s the official description:
Chris Vaughn was arrested during a funeral for his wife and three children. He would be tried and convicted of their murders. To this day he maintains no memory of what occurred that tragic day ... “Murder in Illinois” follows the complicated circumstances that led to Vaughn’s conviction, as well as the forensic evidence his supporters believe proves his innocence-in attempt to answer one question: Who killed the Vaughn family?
This podcast, which features considerable input from private investigator Bill Clutter, is a must-listen for those who want to refresh and catch up on a very compelling story.
“The Interestings”
I’m nine years late to this 2013 Meg Wolitzer novel that a New York Times critic said belonged “among the ranks of books like Jonathan Franzen’s ‘Freedom’ and Jeffrey Eugenides’s ‘Marriage Plot.’ … With this book, (Wolitzer) has surpassed herself.” It follows the main characters — a group of friends who meet at an arts summer camp — from their teenage years into a very complicated middle age with jumps in time and focus reminiscent of the NBC series “This is Us” (which I loved). But while this saga is, ahem, interesting enough, it’s Woltizer’s gift for language that kept me turning the pages.
Any dedicated fans out there want to recommend another of her novels? And does anyone have an opinion about the 2016 TV movie? (Steve Bertrand interviewed Wolitzer in 2014.)
“A Trip to the Boundary Waters”
Chicago author Alex Kotlowitz took three friends — including my former Tribune colleagues Gary Marx and Chris Walker — on a canoe trip to the Boundary Waters wilderness area where Minnesota touches the Canadian border. This 17-minute audio journal for “The New Yorker Radio Hour” captures the magic of that place. The entire full-time staff of this publication heartily endorses it.
Mary Schmich: Liz Cheney, winner
My former colleague Mary Schmich posts occasional column-like entries on Facebook. Here, reprinted with permission, is her most recent offering:
You’ve heard the news by now. Liz Cheney lost on Tuesday in her bid to keep her Wyoming seat in the U.S. House.
In the parlance of the news media, she was “trounced.” She took a “drubbing.” It was a “landslide.” The details are widely available.
Suffice it to say here that she was yet another victim of the lying, scheming, treasonous ex-president she has worked so diligently to expose.
Now Cheney is branded with that president’s favorite insult: Loser. And what do sad-sack losers do? Some might limp away to a life far from the insults and injuries of politics.
Cheney may run for president.
I don’t know that I’d vote for Liz Cheney for president. The party she represents—whatever it is these days—would have to change a whole lot for that to happen. So would her policy views on some essential things, like abortion rights.
But I kinda hope she runs, and I’d be open to hearing what she has to offer. I hope she kicks the butt of the bully who thinks he’s kicking hers.
I hope that, at a minimum, she stays in public life somehow to fight the valiant fight, to show what principle and courage can look like on that battlefield of politics, to show that Republicans and Democrats and others can sometimes join forces for the common good.
And while I don’t think women simply by virtue of gender make better politicians than men, or that they’re more moral—hi, Marjorie Taylor Greene!—I’m in the big crowd of Cheney admirers who take special satisfaction in seeing a woman stand up as strong and tall as Cheney has.
She just lost an election, but moral courage is a form of winning. — Mary Schmich
Minced Words
Host John Williams welcomed Heather Cherone, Austin Berg, Jon Hansen and me to “The Mincing Rascals” podcast panel Wednesday afternoon. The above video is a bit of the pre-show jibber-jabber. Once we got rolling, we spoke of Liz Cheney, Donald Trump, Sophia King, Mehmet Oz and others, and mulled over the wisdom and effectiveness of suburban legislative bodies opposing assault weapons. Toward the end Heather rips off a long, impressive analysis of the upcoming mayor’s race. Subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. Or bookmark this page. If you’re not a podcast listener, you can now hear an edited version of the show at 8 p.m. most Saturday evenings on WGN-AM 720.
Re: Tweets
In Tuesday’s paid-subscriber editions, I present my favorite tweets that rely on visual humor and so can’t be included in the classic Tweet of the Week contest where the template for the poll does not allow the use of images. Subscribers vote for their favorite, and I post the winner here every Thursday:
The new nominees for Tweet of the Week:
Bigfoot's feet aren't big. They're actually very proportional. He's just taller than you. He should be called "Taller Than You."— @Laser_Cat
Hot seniors in your area want to complain about the weather. — @BubbyMalloy
I'm going Ginger every time. Mary Ann, and you will be in the hand-holding phase for a decade. You'd have better luck with Lovey. — @IamJackBoot
Me: Why would I stop eating cheese because of what you heard in a horoscope? Doctor: Stethoscope. — @capnwatsisname
One exclamation point is proper enthusiasm. Two is a bit cutesy. Three or more: You’re off your meds. — @UnFitz
Give me the strength to change the things that I can change and the Wi-Fi access to bitch about the things I cannot. — @bigpoppadrunk
Just discovered there's a term for such expressions as "ATM machine," where people add on a word that's already included in the acronym. It's called RAS Syndrome, which stands for Redundant Acronym Syndrome Syndrome. — @OtherDanOBrien
My grandma often said, living well is the best revenge. It was a great way to throw off suspicion from her actual favorite revenge, arson. — @boobsradley
Me: Raising kids is the most rewarding thing you'll ever do. Kidnapper: Just pay the ransom, I'm not keeping them. — @English_Channel
They make a cute little girl even cuter, and a big scary dude even scarier. Pigtails are the MSG of hair. — @scottsimpson
Vote here in the poll. The all-politics poll proved so popular I’m reviving it again here. Those finalists are:
Given that Trump has turned out to be guilty of literally everything he's accused others of, I'd say there's a 20 percent chance that one of his seized passports will reveal he was born in Kenya. — @DannyZuker
TRE45ON — @ed_solomon
Historian on the rise of Nazi Germany: This must never happen again. Americans: Gotcha. We’ll keep an eye on Germany. Historian: I mean it must never happen anywhere. Americans: Totally. Watching those Germans. Historian: But -- Americans: Germans. Keeping. An. Eye. — @lloydrang
Mehmet Oz’s Schedule 12:30 p.m. Seminar to Pennsylvania’s working class: Spotting cheap Iranian substitutions when you specifically ordered Petrossian caviar. 3 p.m. Demonstration to factory workers: Detecting if your Dom Pérignon Rose 1959 was ice-burned through improper storage. — @BettyBowers
If Donald Trump can't violate the Espionage Act, are any of us safe if we violate the Espionage Act? — @BettyBowers
This isn’t your grandfather’s Republican Party, unless your grandfather was a fascist traitor. — @MarkJacob16
How'd they get pro life from the Bible? That book has more bodies than an action movie in the ‘80s. — @treydayway
Just copyrighted Mar-a-Launchcode — @RickAaron
For instructions and guidelines regarding the poll, click here.
Tune of the Week
I’ve been on a bit of a Jay Ungar jag lately. Ungar, 75, is an American fiddler best known as the composer of the haunting “Ashokan Farewell,” a waltz that documentarian Ken Burns used as the title theme for his 1990 documentary series, “The Civil War.”
We played it last Saturday at the Oak Park Farmers Market jam along with “Mountain House,” a waltz Ungar composed with his wife and musical partner, Molly Mason. We also played my favorite Ungar/Mason composition, “The Lovers Waltz.”
Ungar explained:
"Molly and I wrote this tune in 1985, when we were first together. It was a spontaneous composition -- where I started playing melody and she played chords, and both the chords and melody evolved as we played it. We'd played it at home together. But it was too personal to play for other people -- I felt the same way about “Ashokan Farewell” at first. You know, you're not sure if people will like it. Eventually, we played it at a late night waltz session at Ashokan*. It seemed like the right moment for the tune to emerge.”
*Ungar and Mason run a summer music and dance camp at the Ashokan Center in the Catskills.
Those who read music can give it a go with the sheet music.
Consult the complete Tune of the Week archive!
The Picayune Sentinel is a reader-supported publication. Simply subscribe to receive new posts each Thursday. To support my work, receive bonus issues on Tuesdays and join the zesty commenting community, become a paid subscriber. Thanks for reading!
.
The poll option for “only” should read “something only pedants care about”. You need to work harder on this!
I found myself rolling my eyes reading the piece on Joe Magats yesterday until I got to the end when I read that the authors were his lawyers. If the Trib had taken your advice and put that information at the beginning, I could have saved myself a few minutes.