Pardon Me While I Rant

by Libby Hellmann

Are we all done with Valentine's Day? OK. For those of you who don’t like political blogs, just scroll on by, because I need to vent. It’s been over 6 months since I’ve written on politics, so I’m due. And it's President's Day anyway, which seems appropriate.

As many of you know, I grew up in Washington DC, where, when you were gossiping about the neighbors at the dinner table, you were essentially talking politics. I came from a “mixed marriage:” my late father and brother were Republicans -- my father even shared the same birthday as Richard Nixon -- and my sister and I were liberals. My mother didn’t declare until my father passed away. She turned out to be decidedly liberal.

Liberal or conservative, however, we were always expected to present our opinions based on fact. I can’t count the times I was told, “But, Elizabeth, where are your facts?” In my father's view, opinions were just hot air unless you could support them objectively. So I learned at an early age how to build a cogent argument.

Over time I began to see how facts could be manipulated. I might have even done it myself a time or two. But I could deal with it. Consider the source. Study the methodology. Analyze the implications. Understand that people often exaggerate. Still, there was usually a kernel of truth – or facts – embedded in political manipulations and exaggerations.

Not any more. Fueled by 24-hour news cycles, cable networks, and blogs, those tiny kernels of truth have disappeared. Politicians are out and out lying. Whether it’s in the pursuit of “truthiness,” re-election, or just obstructionism, the lies are blatant. And when they’re called out, neither the liar nor the listener does anything about it. In fact, it’s almost seems like lying is a badge of honor. The shamelessness makes my stomach twist.

There’s John Boehner claiming health care is dead because they don’t have 4 key Republican principles in the bill. Except all four are in the bill. There’s Sean Hannity chortling over the blizzards and belittling climate change and Al Gore. There are those who feel the US criminal justice system isn’t good enough to try terrorists, even though over 300 terrorists were prosecuted in criminal courts during the Bush years. There are the politicians who voted against the stimulus package then posed for photos with giant-sized stimulus checks in their home districts.

And let’s not even discuss Sarah Palin.

To be fair, Obama has waffled on the public option, executive pay, clean coal, and hiring lobbyists. And getting Democrats to agree on most issues is like herding cats. To his credit, though, Obama seems willing (maybe a little too willing for liberals) to move to the center. Still, neither side is ready to play nice. The two parties are so intent on “winning” or “obstructing” that nothing gets done. Congress is in a stalemate. At a time when our economy and our position in the world is so fragile, it’s unconscionable.

A lot of that impasse is due to the Senate filibuster, the ability of the minority party to basically kill bills they don’t like by demanding cloture. Cloture requires a vote of 60 in order to stop debate on a bill (the actual filibuster part) and vote on it. If they can’t get 60 Senators to vote to vote, the bill withers away.

Yes, Democrats used the filibuster to block Bush legislation. But they’re pikers compared to Republicans, who have used cloture, or the threat of it, nearly 140 times in the first year of Obama's presidency. And then claimed he was weak because he couldn’t overcome it. The Founding Fathers never intended the filibuster to be used this way (there’s are some interesting pieces on it here, here, and here) but it is, and it’s paralyzing Congress.

Some in Congress are beginning to realize the monster they’ve created, but mustering 60 votes to change the filibuster rule is, of course, going to be problematic. Especially since they'll need 60 votes to do it.

So while both parties are arguing, blaming each other, or playing the populist victim card, the opportunity to tackle the tough issues evaporates into the vapor. (I’m still confused why Harry Reid torpedoed a bipartisan effort to draft a jobs bill).

Meanwhile, a recent New York Times poll reports only 8 % of voters think their Congressmen are worthy of being re-elected. Hey guys, are you listening? A pox on both your houses.

OK. Rant over. Comments welcome.

PS Back to crime fiction for a moment... if you’re a Kindle person, the prices of 2 of my novels, EASY INNOCENCE and DOUBLEBACK have been reduced. Smashwords too. Check them out.

Twice a Hero, Once a Rascal

At the Outfit we tend to shine a light on Chicago’s political, legal, and police corruption. But we shouldn’t forget that Chicago has some of the best sports scandals in the nation as well. And when sports intersects with politics and religion, the stories can be fascinating. Like this one by guest poster, Mike Bohn.

Bohn is the author of Heroes & Ballyhoo: How the Golden Age of the 1920s Transformed American Sports, recently published with Potomac Books. His other books include Money Golf, 600 Years of Bettin’ on Birdies (2007), The Achille Lauro Hijacking, Lessons in the Politics and Prejudice of Terrorism (2004), and Nerve Center, Inside the White House Situation Room (2003). As a freelance writer, he regularly contributes features and golf reporting to a group of newspapers in Virginia. For more information, visit his website www.bohnbooks.com.

As the tryouts for the 1924 American Olympic swimming team approached, Chicago’s Johnny Weissmuller was a mortal lock to make the team. He had broken thirty-eight world records over the course of 1922 and 1923.

Yet as Weissmuller prepared to travel to Indiana, a dark cloud descended over the family home at 1521 Cleveland Avenue in the German Town section of Chicago. U.S. Olympic officials had asked all team aspirants to provide proof of citizenship. Stunned, Elizabeth explained to her anxious son that he was not an American. She and her husband, Peter, had emigrated from Austria in 1905 when Johnny was seven months old.

After arriving in America, the family initially had settled in Windber, Pennsylvania, where their second son, Peter, was born. After moving to Chicago in 1908, Papa Weissmuller worked in a bar, and Elizabeth as a cook. Neither had the time nor inclination to apply for U.S. citizenship.

Johnny burst onto the American swimming scene as a seventeen-year-old in 1921. Bill Bachrach, the swimming director at the Illinois Athletic Club in Chicago, had taken the raw youngster and molded him into a swimming sensation. Bachrach was both an able coach and an inspired con man. He and Johnny connived to shave just tenths of seconds off records instead of shattering them. New records meant new headlines; more headlines brought more money to the IAC.

Just before the Indianapolis meet, word leaked to the press that Johnny had been born in Austria. U.S. Representative Henry Rathbone of Chicago further muddied the, um, water, by asking the U.S. department of labor to investigate.
Elizabeth spoke to the press and, with her fingers crossed, tearfully claimed that Johnny had been born in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune reacted with a positive story—“Can’t Bar Weissmuller from Olympiad; Was Born Here.” Rathbone pulled back slightly in the face of an emotional mother and sought a politically safe middle ground.

Johnny and his mother then decided to have him swap birth certificates with his American-born brother. Bachrach was likely involved because he was the Olympic swimming coach, plus Johnny was his meal ticket at the IAC. Within a few days, someone altered the baptismal records of Windber’s Saint John Cantius Catholic Church. Peter Weissmuller suddenly had a middle name—John—albeit written in different ink and penmanship. Bachrach stood ready to spin the press about how the family had always called the boy by his middle name.

Back in Chicago, Johnny gave the Olympic Committee his brother’s birth certificate. Officials, eager to have Weissmuller on the team, quickly accepted the unexpectedly tidy solution to a messy problem. The federal investigation fizzled, Rathbone retreated, and Elizabeth said ten Hail Marys.

Johnny, now as American as apple strudel, swam to Olympic glory, winning a total of five gold medals in 1924 and 1928. A hero twice over, he also starred in eighteen Tarzan movies in the 1930s and 40s. Reportedly worried that he might have to return his Olympic medals, Weissmuller never revealed the secret of his actual birthplace.

R.I.P., Senator Edward Kennedy

by Marcus Sakey

As I’m sure you all know, Teddy Kennedy died last night. While hardly unexpected—the man was 77, and battling brain cancer—it’s still a blow. The end of an era.

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, this was a man to be admired, a man who spent decades fighting for the larger good. Civil rights, voting rights, Americans with disabilities, healthcare, immigration, these were his central causes. In a world that was increasingly focused on personal gain, he fought for a better nation.

It’s interesting to me—his father, Joseph Kennedy, was not a good person. A brutal businessman, a bootlegger, a machine politician, an insider trader, a briber of politicians and journalists, he amassed a fortune by breaking the rules. The parallels to today’s shady tycoons are easy to draw.

But for all the reasonable comparisons you can draw to Ken Lay and James Cayne, one crucial point of difference is the love of country and the dedication to service that he instilled in his children. Joe Kennedy may have been a relentless grasper after money and power, but once he had both, he used them to assure that his children would do better than he had. It’s sort of a dark version of the American dream.

John, Robert, and Edward Kennedy all had personal failings. They all had skeletons in their closets. But they also had a dedication to making the world a better place that makes it hard for me to judge them.

These days, politicians have learned that it’s better to be seen as not standing for anything at all than to risk being seen as human. Watergate, the war, the eighties, the other war, the Bush administration, 9/11, the other war, they’ve shaken the system to a point where it seems like politics is less about country and more about campaigning.

Edward Kennedy was one of the last of the old guard. A sinner? Sure. But a man who fought to make the world better. And I for one will miss him.

May he rest in peace.

Sex in the White House

by Libby Hellmann

Those of you who read The Huffington Post might have come across this article about Barack and Michelle Obama’s relationship. It is the Huffington Post, of course, so it was highly complimentary. It talked about how they touch each other in public, how you can see their obvious love and respect for each other, etc.

My reaction? B-O-R-I-N-G. In fact, the Obamas may become the first Democratic occupants of the White House in years who are as boring as the Republicans in the bedroom.

Think about it. How many times did we see Nancy Reagan’s adoring gaze when she looked at Ronnie? Do we really want more of that? Remember all those love letters with the saccharine nicknames?

Excuse me, let me out.


What about Bush 41 and Barb? Be honest -- can you imagine them .. well.. you know? Or Nixon and Pat? Please. George and Laura? Well, maybe, when they were young. And yes, there was Eisenhower and Kay Summersby, but that happened During The War.

It’s much more fun to gossip about what went on behind the Clintons’ closed doors: the temper tantrums… the lamps being thrown… the Monica problem. And what about Jack Kennedy? Everyone knew he was a philanderer. Even LBJ was known to be a stud, when he wasn’t revealing his scars or his dogs’ ears. Okay, admittedly, Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman were boring, but what about FDR?
We still read all sorts of stories about his escapades, and, occasionally, even Eleanor’s.

Frankly, up until recently, the Democrats’ sex lives have just been more colorful. Maybe they took the call to “go to the mattresses” more seriously.

But now everything’s changing. First there were allegations that John McCain had an affair (in addition to the one with Cindy which broke up his first marriage). Then the National Enquirer claimed Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband’s business partner. Are the Republicans trying to play catch up, libido-wise?

Democrats acting like Republicans...Republicans acting like Democrats... And if Obama wins, he and Michelle may bring something approaching stability... even (gasp) love... into the White House.

B-O-R-I-N-G.

Actually, given everything else that's going on in the world, boring's probably not so bad.

What do you think?

Gender Politics Piss Marcus Off

by Marcus Sakey

I'm a diehard feminist.

Because that's a trigger-word these days, I guess I better tell you what it means to me. Simply put, it's the belief that men and women should be afforded the same rights and opportunities. Everybody gets an equal shot, everybody gets treated with basic respect and dignity. Period.

What the word does not mean is that men and women are the same, that our differences are something we should ignore. I understand the ideological basis for the argument, the idea that we are people first and gender second, and that acknowledging gender gives rise to hierarchy. But that's rhetoric, and it's crap. We aren't people first. Our identities are inextricably linked to our gender, with all the biological and sociological differences that entails.

And I think that's great.

The reason I bring that up is that I gotta say, I've been startled by the sexism I've witnessed lately. The topic? Sarah Palin, of course.

Sean raised a number of interesting points about her selection as McCain's running mate. I tend to agree with him; I can't imagine why someone who supported Clinton would vote for McCain, and I'm stunned at the suggestion that a significant portion of America is so fevered in their enthusiasm for having a woman in the White House that they will vote for a uterus instead of a policy. To me, that's as sexist as it comes.

Maybe I'm missing something, and if you feel like I am, I hope you'll try to explain it to me. But the idea of voting for someone primarily because of their gender seems the equivalent of being friends with someone because they're black. The idea is offensive. You don't pick your friends by skin color, and you don't pick your leaders by gender.

I have posted before about my frustration with the campaign Clinton ran. But it would never have occurred to me, had she won, to vote for McCain because of his gender. So why is the opposite an okay sentiment?

Hell, why is it even okay to say in public? Imagine the reverse.

And while we're on the topic of sexism, how about the media coverage of Palin? Yeah, I get that she's a little thin on credentials, that there isn't a lot of political backstory to dig into. But is anyone else offended that every news story seems to mention, within the first two paragraphs, that she's a wife and a mother of five?

So what?

Should that information be in the story somewhere? I suppose. But stories about Obama don't generally mention his wife and daughters above the fold. More like the last paragraph, which is where that kind of information belongs.

Worse, I've seen a number of opinion pieces that suggest that the fact that she is a mother has some bearing on her job performance. Some think it a positive thing, some a negative. Me, I gotta wonder--when she's on a diplomatic mission to Iran, how do her children come into the equation? And if they do, do Obama's as well? Should we vote based on whose are better dressed, better behaved?

What do you think, folks? Am I crazy to be wound up by all of this? Am I looking at it the wrong way?

Focused Explosions

by Marcus Sakey

Ever fired a gun?

You've seen it thousands of times on screen, of course. But have you ever actually held or fired one? Most people haven't, and so there's something they don't realize.

Guns feel terrific.

Just holding one. A gun embodies a tactile balance of metal and grace. Smooth and heavy, they smell faintly of oil, and fit your hand so perfectly that you wonder if your hand wasn't made for the gun, rather than the other way around.

Which is maybe part of the problem, too.

Two weeks ago, I was out in Utah, writing an article on rock climbing, which is very good work indeed. Afterwards, I drove to Los Angeles to see a friend, a former Army Ranger, gang cop, and current LAPD firearms instructor. We went to a range in the hills and spent three or four hours firing a multitude of weapons.

I had done a little shooting before, when I was about eighteen. I had a .22 rifle, and once or twice fired my dad's .38 snubnose. I remembered it fondly, the feeling of holding a weapon, the precision and ease and rhythm required, the satisfying roar and punch when you pulled the trigger.

This was different.

We shot an AR-15, structurally a very similar weapon to what our troops are using in Iraq. An AK, the most popular insurgent weapon in the world. An authentic World War One Mauser with a kick like a rhino. We shot skeet with his imposing-as-hell shotgun (my best run was 6 of 8, launched one at a time; his was 10 of 10, flung 2 and 3 at once.) But the real fun was the handguns. He had about a dozen: several Glocks, a Beretta, a 1911, and some others.

As I mentioned, my friend is an instructor. So this wasn't just a couple of yahoos blasting away. He taught me how to hold a weapon, hands braced, maximum amount of palm to the grip. The proper stance, legs apart, gun directly in front, arms extended, elbows straight, wrists steady. How to pull the trigger slow and gentle, keeping the sights as centered as possible, but not trying to catch a moment--just keeping them on target and pulling so smoothly that you are almost surprised when the thing actually fires.

All which allowed me the supreme pleasure of sending row after row of bowling pins flying.

Now is probably a good point to interject and say that despite the tone thus far, I'm really not a gun nut. I'm a member of the ACLU, and well left-of-center politically. I wouldn't say that I'm against the NRA per se, but I do question the need for readily available armor-piercing rounds. And while I respect the Constitutional right to keep and bear, I also think the country would be a far better place if we weren't awash in weapons. I don't worry about people like my friend having guns; I worry about fourteen-year-old gangbangers.

They say that guns don't kill people, that people kill people. That's true. Guns just make it a hell of a lot easier.

Having said all that, let me say this: Firing a weapon is an intense experience. You are tapping into raw power. As a kid, I used to stare out the car window and pretend my eyes were laser beams that could slice everything I saw. A gun is the physical manifestation of this fantasy. You point it, move a finger, and something far away is shattered.

As I said, intense. Which is part of the problem, too.

The title, and theme, of my debut novel comes from a Homer quote that reads, "The blade itself incites to violence." I've held swords. Real ones. They don't incite nearly the way a gun does. The fact is that guns are made for shooting, and when you pick one up, it's very hard not to aim it at something.

At the same time, in the hands of a trained individual, a gun is a tool. It might be all that protects you or your family. In 1987, Florida made it legal for adults to carry concealed weapons; since then, more than 20 states have followed suit. And while the subject is hotly contested, research by the University of Chicago suggests that states that adopt those laws reduce their murder rates by 8.5%, rape by 5%, and aggravated assault by 7%.

What's my point? I haven't made up my mind. I've been musing about it since I returned, and it's had me swinging back and forth. So I thought I'd throw it out for discussion, see what you all had to say.

If you could, would you get rid of all our guns? Or would you go the other way, and allow regular civilians to conceal and carry in order to protect themselves and their loved ones?

And have you ever fired a gun?

Ever want to?