Zorn: Readers weigh in on Amy Jacobson

& another boffo visual jokes poll

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.

Sadly, yes, Bill Clinton is probably a rapist too

Friday in the Guardian, columnist Moira Donegan asked “Why is alleged predator Bill Clinton still welcome in the Democratic party?”

People who like Bill Clinton, or who find him convenient for their own goals, have a long history of underplaying the multiple allegations of sexual harassment and violence that he faces from at least four women. … They echo Clinton’s denials of wrongdoing in all these cases, against all these women. … (They) ignore his accusers because they can. These women’s dignity, their equality and their right to control their own bodies matter less to them than their esteem for Bill Clinton — less than whether he can deliver a few votes, make a zinger on television or look nice in a suit.

I wrote about this in a 2019 column in the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations of teenage sexual assault against U.S. Supreme Court nominee (now justice) Brett Kavanaugh:

I decided … to read extensively about (Juanita Broddrick’s) allegations for the first time and to listen to them in a recent interview on the just-released season finale of Slate’s “Slow Burn” podcast. And having heard her, I believe her.

This is not a retraction. I didn’t write about Broaddrick at the time. It’s a reckoning — long delayed for me and anyone else on the left side of the political spectrum who, in the name of political expediency and tribalism, brushed off the strong likelihood that the president, our guy, wasn’t just a horn dog but a violent sex criminal.

Our collective failure to listen to her, to demand that Congress bring forth corroborating witnesses in a timely manner and perform a thorough investigation before Clinton’s impeachment trial, was wrongheaded, cruel and ultimately immoral.

Searching for doubt and clinging to minor imperfections in her account to give ourselves permission to ignore it was obtuse and cynical.

And continuing to treat the Clintons as honored members of polite society …. is inexcusable.

Consistency and common decency demands an apology to Juanita Broddrick. Here’s mine.

That column generated a lot of angry mail, as you might guess, and I addressed many of the claims and counterclaims in a follow-up column:

To the few liberals and Democrats who don’t believe Ford and who do believe Broaddrick and to the few conservatives and Republicans who do believe Ford but don’t believe Broaddrick, my apologies.

But are the rest of you really, honestly taking a step back, listening to these stories and testing them against your common sense, not your political inclinations? I saw little evidence of that. … Democrats and liberals were, in general and overall far too willing in 1999 to disregard and discount Broaddrick’s tale because it created cognitive dissonance and political liabilities for them.

I believe they need to reconcile themselves to that and determine never to do it again. I also believe that Republicans and conservatives would have jumped on the Ford story the way they jumped on the Broaddrick story had she been accusing a liberal Democrat, and that in the fullness of time at least some of them will repent. Perhaps when a girl or woman they love reveals the circumstances of her own sexual attack.

Sometimes a good test to put any belief or opinion to is to ask yourself if you’d believe it or hold it if it undercut many of your other beliefs; if it were painful or inconvenient to believe it; if it required you to re-evaluate a long held position.

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

In my item last week giving all the details and some analysis of the controversy surrounding the way Florida-based right-wing radio talk-show host Dan Proft and his locally based sidekick Amy Jacobson, I argued that it would have been better had Jacobson not resigned under pressure from her volleyball coaching gig at Amundsen High School but instead to have addressed what she had said and done with the student body there. Some 57% of more than 1,000 voters in my click poll disagreed with this view (as did my wife and several good friends). Here is some related feedback:

Wendy C — I feel zero sympathy for Amy Jacobson. Would you still defend her if she were a teacher? I doubt it. Anyone in a position to supervise students, classroom or sporting activity which probably includes children with some form of a disability, shouldn't be cheerleading this kind of degradation.

Bob E. —Amy Jacobson made a mistake. Do you cancel everyone in your life who makes a mistake? Some will say it was an egregious mistake. Maybe, maybe not. she was an accomplice granted, a willing accomplice] to Proft's egregious mistake. I’m fed up with canceling, from both the left and the right. Let him [or her] who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Nancy Meyer — High school students do indeed need support and good role models. But since it is impossible to hire a flawless role model — and how would fallible kids even identify with such a paragon? — the next best choice might well be a coach who has egregiously messed up, owns up that she did so, and as Eric suggested, can "explain why it’s wrong to make fun of people with differences and why it’s important to stand up to those who do. And then they should have asked her to spend an hour listening to students who live with cognitive disabilities so they could tell her first hand how painful it is to be teased and othered."

Not all education is the result of classroom lectures. What better lesson than for students to witness a role model humbling herself to make right what she made wrong? Maybe they'll learn to clean up after their own inevitable life mistakes.

Jenni Roberts — She apologized only when she found out Gus Walz has a diagnosis. She did not say she was wrong to make fun of a 17-year-old kid for being so proud of his dad. I would not want a coach who thinks making fun of a kid in a public interview (or any other time) is OK working with my children.

Mary Beth Lang — You don't get to keep a job working with kids when you publicly mock them, however the job loss is defined. I am a school speech therapist, and I can't imagine remaining employed if I went on the radio and made fun of kids who stutter.

Terry— Not to defend Jacobson's actions, but if she's had a clean record as a coach until this, I'd prefer some remediation and discipline. "Zero-tolerance" locks everyone into maximal positions

Laurence E Siegel —Jacobson was happy to join in the mockery with Proft . She made no attempt to stop or disagree with him. Suppose the young man did not have special needs? Would that have made her actions less objectionable? No sympathy!

We often tell teachers to shut up on politics so as to not overly influence students. As a coach, she is at least a quasi-teacher and guides young people. She needed to shut up as she set a poor example for the young people under her. Conservatives get teachers fired all the time for their political views and actions. Sorry, Eric. As far as I'm concerned, she goes. Even if she apologizes, her actions and attitudes are still out there.

Michael Gorman — There is no "Gus Walz debate." There is just the continuing spectacle of MAGA cruelty, punching down, and cretinous attempts at humor involving mocking the defenseless, the poor, and the weak.

K. Mason — In order for anyone to say those cruel things about a kid, they have to think those cruel things. - And no apology that doesn't include an admission of absolute shame for these thoughts is not an apology! These trolls tried to justify their cruelty by saying that they didn't know he was neurodivergent!! As if that made a difference.

Melinda A. K. — As a parent to an autistic, developmentally different young adult, I was gutted to see people going after Gus Walz. Gus' reactions to his dad tell me everything I need to know about their relationship ,and the cruel reactions of others tell me all I need to know about them.

Amy Parker — Like you, I’m tired of “cancel culture,” and had parents rallied around Jacobson at Amundsen High School, I might be inclined to believe she should not have been pushed out of her coaching job. But, tellingly, parents did not stick up for her. So I don’t think of her as having been canceled as much as I think of her as having paid an appropriate price for having been wildly inappropriate in a public forum, mean to a child and his family for all to hear, and thus an inappropriate choice for coaching other children. She got what she deserved.

Joanie Wimmer — Sometimes people lose their jobs as a consequence of saying things that conflict with the job they have been hired to do, saying things that will make them less effective at the job they have been hired to do. There are consequences for our actions and our speech.

It seems to me that most of the instances of “cancel culture” about which people complain involve people in dominant cultural groups who get fired for punching down on people who are minorities. Here, Amy Jacobson punching down on a member of the disabled community. She and Dan Proft had to know Gus was “different.” That he didn’t satisfy the patriarchal cultural narrative on manliness. That’s enough. And they probably did know Gus’s condition had a name, although in their mea culpas, they claimed that fact had escaped their notice. People in dominant cultural groups feel that they are entitled to punch down on people who are minorities.

Phillip Seeberg — The video of Gus crying reminded me of the video of Kyle Rittenhouse crying in court. I didn’t make fun of either, but there were some on the left who made fun of Rittenhouse’s tears and didn’t pay a penalty

Bryan Sims— Much of what drove the negative reaction to Amy Jacobson 17 years ago was that she was wearing a bikini top when she was at a pool party thrown by a man widely thought to have killed his wife. Was that a great idea? Probably not.

However, as a reporter, she had the opportunity to spend time in a relaxed setting with a person of great public interest. I can't imagine that there is a reporter out there who would have passed on that opportunity. The hate for her at the time was driven by misogyny. Since then, of course, Jacobson has proven herself to be a right-wing zealot in some of the worst ways possible. As for the current situation, the school had to know what it was getting when it hired her. Nothing about her has changed since then. If they were OK hiring her, they should be OK keeping her on.

Jim Anderson — Forgiveness is in rather short supply these days especially for public figures. I would caution people not to take glee in Amy's departure. Any one of us can and will make mistakes.

Martha Wiseman — From the moment I saw Gus Walz on TV I knew that this young man had some sort of handicap/condition. As a coach who works with high school students this should have been obvious to Amy Jacobson, too. Kids like Gus who are “weird,” to use one of this father’s favorite words, are bullied, picked on, shunned, etc. by students who have not learned this yet. The news is full of stories of angry young men who finally snap, grab a gun, and commit yet another fatal atrocity. Someone with such a poor social skill set should never be allowed to work with young people. The damage they cause is often not visible immediately, but has lifelong repercussions.

Zorn — I’m intrigued by the question of what sort of speech, conduct or belief system would make a person ineligible or inappropriate to be teaching or coaching high school students. I’m sure there is general agreement that convicted violent felons and particularly sex offenders, should be excluded from supervising minor students. Same goes for those known to use offensive terms to denigrate racial, ethnic, religious or other groups.

I’d hope there is agreement that there is nothing the least bit wrong with openly gay and lesbian teachers and coaches and with teachers and coaches who, outside of school identify with and advocate for political parties, even those parties whose policy views are in sharp contrast to the views of the parents and students at the school and that, in the case of calls for mass deportation of undocumented residents, some students and families in the school community might find threatening.

Certain religions have beliefs and practices widely considered sexist and homophobic, yet we do not bar adherents to such faiths from the classroom or the athletic field even if, outside school, they openly proclaim these beliefs.

Had Jacobson used a word now considered a slur to describe those with intellectual disabilities or had she mocked or belittled one of the students at Amundsen High School, then yes, she’d have to go. But there is no evidence that she’s done either, so what she said in a brief moment on a fairly obscure radio program is, to my mind, a much closer call.

Caught up in the partisan nonsense that defines her radio station, she imitated Gus Walz in a mocking way as co-host Dan Proft was leading the conversation. This was wrong and sanctionable, but not evidence that she’s unfit to be around teenagers. I graciously concede that I have lost this argument, however.

About Kyle Rittenhouse: He was an adult at the time of his trial and not in the spotlight because of his parents. The criticism of his crying on the witness stand seemed to be that he was acting in order to garner sympathy. A very different set of circumstances.

Barron can’t be a baron, so what?

David O. I note that Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan was able to mock the name of Barron Trump when he was just 13 and still keep her job.

Zorn — Here is the key passage from a story about this 2019 “incident” that had Republicans collapsing in grief and indignation:

"While the president can name his son 'Barron' he can't make him a baron," Karlan quipped during her testimony.

Republican congressman Matt Gaetz quickly launched into a contentious back and forth with Karlan over the comments.

"Now let me also suggest that when you invoke the President's son's name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like you're attacking someone's family, the minor child of the President of the United States," Gaetz said.

First Lady Melania Trump also responded in a tweet.

"A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it," Mrs. Trump said.

In no way was Karlan making fun of Barron or of his name; she was simply using the name to point out the limits of presidential power. The thin-skinned Republican flop here was appalling and hypocritical.

De-platforming the pro-Palestinian caucus at the Democratic National Convention

A.S. -- Your usually insightful observations fell far short with your comment, "It was a mistake for convention organizers not to give a representative from the pro-Palestinian Uncommitted Movement a speaking slot (at the Democratic National Convention)"

You cite the large percentage of support among the pro-Palestinian Uncommitted Movement, particularly in Michigan, a battleground state, as well as across the country and stated that keeping them off the podium "could cost Harris the election."

The pro-Palestinian movement is made up of diverse groups that include active pro-Hamas sympathizers, those who are not so active, but would not shed a tear if Israel were to pushed into the sea, and a large number of well-meaning, but ignorant supporters who have almost no understanding or knowledge of mid-East history, including, I am sorry to say, a not insignificant number of those who are Jewish.

The DNC wants to have a big tent. But, "diversity and inclusion" should not mean including every viewpoint. What we see in Gaza today was brought on by Hamas. There was a cease fire in effect on October 6. Israel is now in an existential fight for its existence against an evil force. Those who live in Gaza aided and abetted the tragedy that struck Israel on October 7.

Israel did not invade Gaza on October 7. Hamas did. Israel's response is to do what any country would do: To chase after and strike down the attackers. Hamas knew that this would be the response. Hamas knew that thousands of Gazans would get caught in the crossfire. Hamas — not Israel — is responsible for their deaths.

Had the DNC allowed those who sympathize with Gazans to speak, it would have cemented what those in my Orthodox community believe about the Democratic party today, and, about Kamala Harris, in particular. I have my own reservations about the depth of Candidate Harris' support for Israel. However, unlike many in my community, I believe that a weak United States will undermine its support for Israel. And, because I believe that Donald Trump will undermine the strength of the United States in its foreign policy, I support Harris even though she is trying to straddle the fence.

But it would have been a disaster for the DNC to have allowed a representative of those who support Palestinians to speak. Where is the outcry about what is going on in Syria? Where is the outcry about what is going on with the Uyghurs? or in Nigeria, or in Darfur and Sudan? Yet, when Israel tries to defend itself by going after those who harbor and seek to destroy Israel, it is accused of "genocide!" Those who sympathize with Hamas do not deserve a platform and those who fail to understand the history of what has happened do not deserve a platform.

The supporters of Hamas and their allies are very loud and vocal. They are willing to break laws to make their point. That alone should tell you something about who you are dealing with. But the vast majority of people in the United States support and stand behind Israel.

It was both politically smart and morally correct to deny a platform to the pro-Palestinian Uncommitted Movement. If the Palestinian Uncommitted Movement wants a platform, they can start by condemning those who murdered the hostages. And, they can then continue by calling for the unconditional return of those still held by Hamas, both those who died in captivity, as well as those who are still alive.

If the Uncommitteds wants to sit home and not vote in November, so be it. If, as a result, Donald Trump wins, it will be a loss for everyone. Do they believe that he is more sympathetic to their cause? Everybody knows the answer to that, including the DNC. The DNC had everything to lose and nothing to gain by allowing Gazan sympathizers to speak. They made the right call. You did not.

JakeH — If the pro-Palestine demonstrations were focused on peace, ending the war, ending the suffering, withholding military aid to Israel, two-state solution, maybe even a smattering of "release the hostages" and an unkind word or two for the despicable Hamas, they might attract a more significant following that might even bring a good number around to an appreciation of the Palestinian cause. As it stands, the demonstrations seem less pro-peace than anti-Israel, often virulently so, shrill and fanatical, with significant contingents seeking confrontation. Easy to ignore, easy to dismiss, easy to see as crazy kids and jerks

Daniel Weinberg — I wouldn’t have trusted an Uncommitted Movement speaker to speak moderately once they had the podium.  What’s happening to the people of Gaza is horrible!  But it’s not “genocide!”  But it is certainly that with their Mission Statement calling on the murder of my family in Israel!  Just where is the call from leaders and media on Arab states and on Islam itself to put pressure on Hamas—I hear only silence or it willfully muttered as an aside.

Jeff Biss — The Democratic Party must also set itself apart from the GOP by actually being a democratic party that accounts for the spectrum of views of its members and by not providing them a speaking spot that made the Democratic Party look a bit less democratic.

Zorn — My view was not based on weighing the arguments but on the political reality that there is a significant and potentially decisive faction of the Democratic electorate that is disturbed and angry about the dismaying loss of civilian lives in Gaza and frustrated to the point of ballot-box rebellion about not being allowed to voice their views on the stage at the convention.

I disagree that “Those who live in Gaza aided and abetted the tragedy.” Certainly some did. But there haven’t been elections there since 2006, and many — most? — of those killed as collateral damage have never cast a vote either for or against Hamas.

Sure, support for Hamas is rising in Gaza, as you’d expect in a time of war when your schools, apartment buildings, hospitals etc. are being bombed, but it’s not even a majority. From the Times of Israel:

(A) poll, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) between May 26 and June 1, found that overall support for Hamas in the Palestinian territories stood at 40%, a six-point increase from the previous survey three months ago. …Before the war, overall support for Hamas stood at 22%. … In the Gaza Strip, support for Hamas today stands at 38% (34% three months ago)

I agree that “genocide” is not the appropriate term to describe Israel’s intent or even effect, and that the message of Uncommitted is mixed and muddled. Perhaps a video “speech” that the DNC could have been sure didn’t go off the rails would have been a compromise solution.

I don’t understand the reluctance so many have to listening to and considering opinions that differ from their own when those opinions are certainly not out of the mainstream of thought.

The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad White Sox

Tim R. — The White Sox are heading for the worst record in baseball history, but it is worth noting that after the 1962 Mets lost 120 games, it took the team only seven years to win the World Series. And the Tigers took only three years to go from 119 losses in 2003 to the World Series in 2006.

Zorn — I’m a newly minted White Sox fan — renounced the Cubs over how so many in the Ricketts family support and help fund Donald Trump — yet I’m enjoying my adopted team’s fall into infamy. There will be nowhere to go but up from this year, but true, long-time, die-hard Sox fans may be close to out of patience.

Regrettable?

Edward Cook — Following links to your 2007 coverage of Amy Jacobson I saw this line: “Early in my career I took off all my clothes to cover a nudist convention near O'Hare.” Will we read this column in your new, occasional "Regrettable" feature? I'd like to see a reprint of that column.

Zorn — I have not gotten around to digitizing my pre-1985 work, but yes, I did doff my duds to cover a nudist convention. No regrets about that story — it was before I had a column — and that might make for a good flashback feature. No pun intended.

I was able to reflect on this for the Columbia Journalism review for their 2012 feature, “Beyond ‘Deep Throat’ — Reporters find themselves in odd situations.”

Chicago’s big gamble

Garry Spelled Correctly — Bally's is insane if it thinks people are going to go gamble where the Tribune printing plant was. It's an appallingly stupid location, out of the way, with terrible traffic problems. I'm waiting for Bally's to go to Metra and demand they to build a station there, as their tracks go right by it.

Laurence E Siegel — In an interview with NBC-5, Bally’s chairman said he thinks the casino will do well because it will be a "destination" site. Hotel, restaurants, entertainment venue. But people can do that in Des Plaines. There is a ballpark across the road. There is both a shopping center and an outlet mall. There are restaurants and the Rosemont Theater. Why would I want to try and navigate downtown Chicago?

Zorn — I associate myself with the view of skeptics. Online sports books, video poker and so on are real competition for the casino experience, and the River West site does look like it will be tough to get to. I’m putting my marker down on failure within five years.

People Get Old

Barbara Mays — Yay to Tim O’Brien for “People Get Old,” last week’s “Tune of the Week.” What a beautiful song. It did make me sad, but it’s still good.

The week’s best visual jokes

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

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Quip 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.

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.