A tough choice is better than no choice

     My wife had to leave the house early Tuesday—4:48 a.m., to be exact—because she's an assistant attorney general, and thus half of one of the 170 teams that Lisa Madigan scattered across Illinois to keep an eye on polling places.
     She would, she told me, vote when she got back. But she didn't know the issues in Northbrook. Neither did I. Don't worry, I said. "I'll find out and brief you."
     So I did some digging. Very quickly identifying the key issues and races to be resolved in the old leafy suburban paradise:
     Nothing.
     No candidates running opposed. No referenda. There is one school district with four candidates running for three slots, but that is district 31 and we're in 28.
     Given the epic slugfest in Chicago, with class, race, ethnicity and economics all rumbling the pillars of democracy, that's just sad. Though not unique to Northbrook: Cook County Clerk David Orr says 63 percent of candidates ran unopposed in suburban Cook County.
     Which left me wondering, for the first time in my life: Why vote at all? It's tough enough to pretend your vote has meaning during a presidential race. This is empty symbolism.
     Are people in Northbrook contented or just apathetic? I phone Sandy Frum, the village president of Northbrook, and ask.
     She laughs.
     "I would prefer to believe that things are going well, as they tend to do in our community," she says. "I hate to think people are indifferent or complacent."
     Controversies have emerged in the past. "I'm a challenger to the status quo," Frum says. "I didn't like the direction the sitting president was taking the village, and I decided it was time to step up. Six years ago, there were three of us running."
     I tell her that my readers treat our village with sneering contempt, as if our lives were handed to us on a silver platter and all we have to do is decide which petit four to pluck off the tray while smiling fate dabs crumbs from the corners of our mouth with a perfumed napkin.
     "It's not true, people do struggle," she says. "We have our share of issues. I have to admit, its easier to deal with issues from a position of strength."
     Good fortune isn't just a matter of money.
     "I think it's good management versus a wealthy community," she says. "Wealthy communities have issues. I would prefer to say we are well managed."
     My issue is whether to cast a ballot.
     Who am I fooling? I dutifully trot off to the polls—through my backyard, over a pine-needled berm past the public vegetable garden and into our red brick Village Hall. It is just past 7 a.m. No voters.
     "Get in line," says Jill Shakian, an election judge, gesturing to the three empty voting booths and two empty electronic ballot stations. She says there has been exactly one voter since the polls opened at 6 a.m. I'm the second.
     Normally a traditionalist, I pick electronic voting. I like making the big fat green check mark. As I go through the ballot, unexpected controversy pops up. The Oakton Community College District 535. "Not more than two" the ballot instructs, and there are five names. I do what voters always do in this situation, choose the names I like: the regal Theresa Bashiri-Remetio and the European Benjamin Salzburg. Democracy's fierce torch, shining brightly.
     One of the great, underappreciated Dr. Seuss books is "I Had Trouble Getting to Solla Sollew." It tells of a journey toward this wonderful place where "they never have troubles, at least very few." As the book unfolds, you get the strong impression that you really don't want to be in Solla Sollew. You want to be back in the real world, where there are troubles, facing them, living life.
     Did I tell you that my youngest boy goes off to college in the fall? He does. Maybe four years from now, readers will have to come up with a better counter-argument than "You don't live here so shut up."

Polls can be wrong

     Those who wake up Tuesday thinking Rahm Emanuel has the election in the bag are doing so, in part, because the polls show him way ahead. Although polls are imperfect predictors of the future, as this Sun-Times front page from Sept. 10, 2010 reminds us. 
      Less than five years ago. Daley had just announced his retirement. What a world away. I imagine most readers don't need to be reminded what happened to these front chuckleheads, but just in case, I'll give a brief refresher:
      Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, the front-runner (to stretch the term since, given the spread is from 12 to 7 percent, it really is more of a five-way dead heat, statistically) realized he had a family and dropped out. (Code for, he got scared, contemplating the Rahm buzz saw and bolted like a frightened faun). Rev. James Meeks, who initially clung to the charmed notion he could be mayor of the city of Chicago and remain pastor of his mega-church, opted to stick with the more lucrative job. Luis Guitierrez ... well, I can't recall offhand what happened to him. Generated no heat, per usual, and stuck to his safe gig as congressman. My hunch is he never seriously considered running. Jesse Jackson went insane and was eventually sent to prison. And Rahm, taking up the tail end, diced up his opponents, the solid Gery Chico (who, for those dazzled by the "historic" nature of this race, was both a Hispanic mayoral candidate and crushed by Rahm by more than 2 to to 1). Not to forget  the hapless Carol Moseley-Braun, didn't make this cut, but did run, earning the pity vote of 8 percent. 
    Speaking of Rahm, I'd like to be the first to point out that, should he win, those postulating a kinder, gentler, V-neck sweatered Rahm are living in a dream world. Because the idea that this near-death experience somehow chastened him is based on magical thinking. I believe it's more likely the expensive annoyance of having to campaign hard will only piss him off, making him even a bigger jerk than he already is, which is saying something. And next time his campaign chest will be $50 million. 
    Assuming he wins. There is a chance that the underpolled Hispanic community really will turn out in force and elect Chuy Garcia. Stranger things have happened. And there's a chance the chilly weather keeps them home. Or keeps the soft Lakefront liberals who are supposedly Rahm's base home. Unless they've already voted because they're all in Cancun for spring break. That's why I try not to predict the future—too many variables, and why waste time balancing them all when we can find out with 100 percent certainty by employing a little trick I call "waiting." We'll know by tonight. I hope.

Chicago's mayoral cat in a box

     This is a moment to savor.
     Monday, the day before Chicago's mayoral election.
     The forces of Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, Cook County Commissioner, are energized, enthusiastic, confident they're going to pull off an historic victory.
     Or so they claim.
     And Rahm Emanuel, the powerful mayor, far ahead in the polls, saturating the airwaves with his millions in campaign cash, cruising to victory, while at the same time wiser for having had to break a sweat to keep his job.
     Or so he claims.
     Both scenarios true, or at least possible, for a few more hours.
     The physicist's son in me wants to evoke Schrodinger's cat, the famous quantum mechanics thought experiment, which postulates a cat sealed in a box with a vial of poison that may or may not have broken, the cat thus being, the strange logic runs, both alive and dead until you look into the box.
     That's the state of Chicago politics right now. We exist in a city where both scenarios are treated as inevitable, where Emanual and Garcia have both won and both not won.
     On Tuesday, Chicago looks inside the box and finds out.
     What will we see? I try not to traffic in the obvious. Let's just say whenever there is talk of a Garcia victory, I hear the voice of Sydney Greenstreet, as Signor Ferrari, "Casablanca's" fat, fez-wearing club owner, in my head: "It would take a miracle to get you out of Casablanca, and the Germans have outlawed miracles."
     The newspaperman in me wouldn't mind a Chuy victory, just for its pure drama. The surprise, the civic joy. Democracy in action. The eyes of the nation transfixed on Chicago. The boost it would give a segment of the population who have not yet taken their proper seat at the table of government. That would be the good part. Then the bad part would come. Power hates a vacuum. With Chuy Garcia wandering the 5th floor of City Hall, looking for the washroom, the City Council roars to life with a snarl. Springfield, which has already told Chicago to go pound salt, will become even more intransigent. So a vote for Chuy Garcia becomes a vote for Ed Burke and Mike Madigan.
     To me, that's a dead cat.
     Sure, there is a depressing, we-can't-go-to-the-circus-because-we-have-to-stay-home-and-do-chores aspect to an Emanuel victory, not just for his abrasive personality, but for his clear-eyed view of Chicago's terrifying, complicated economic problems which are literally against the law to solve. What fun is that? Garcia prefers to talk like he's living in fantasyland: 1,000 new cops paid for with change dug out of city sofas, every school kept open with money earned by putting on a play in the City Hall basement. He either hasn't looked hard at the situation, or doesn't understand, or is just lying.
     Look at the closing of 49 schools, the central crime laid at the mayor's feet. If you think the mayor closed them because he doesn't care about kids, then sure, vote for Chuy Garcia. But if you think, "The city's broke. The schools were half empty. The kids transferred to schools as good as or better," well, vote for Rahm Emanuel.
     Garcia says he would have held more hearings, talked to more parents before closing those schools. Which sounds great, until you think about it. Held more hearings, talked to more parents until ... what? He found the parents who wanted to close their own schools? Who wanted their kids to walk the extra five blocks to a different school? He was never going to find those parents. Someone had to come in and ram the change through. To make the unpopular choices. That's what a mayor is for.
     Enough bickering. Time to open the box and look inside.

Happy Easter (really)

     Near midnight, driving home from the second Seder, it occurred to me that Sunday is Easter, that today's posting, below, letting some religious zealot hang himself with his sputtering intolerance, probably wasn't the nicest holiday treat for my Christian friends. 
     The timing is unfortunate, and believe me, isn't intentional. I was focusing on my own holiday, Passover, thus Easter, which doesn't sit in my consciousness much, snuck up on me. I've never celebrated it, but unlike Christmas, with its occasional tree trimming party or snatch of caroling, I've never even tangentially been around Easter celebrations, no slipping into a friend's family Easter dinner, no visit to church, no Easter parades. My mother, when we were very small, had pity on us, and bought some Paz egg dyes at Woolworth's, and we colored eggs, once, but it all seemed very clandestine and pointless, even to a child, and we never spoke of it again. Though I remember the blue and green and red eggs being quite pretty. 
      My only deep knowledge of Easter comes from having read Dante's The Divine Comedy, which takes place over Easter weekend, 1300. And I realize that's kind of a skewed portrayal of the Easter holiday. Not a lot of chocolate bunnies in that, however, and more lakes of fire and winged demons than are common this time of year. Besides, it's a little late in the evening to start writing about Dante. So I'll only point out two things about the work.
     First, despite its deservedly grim reputation, with souls suffering in hell, there are parts that are quite funny—my favorite when Dante deals with Pope Bonifice VIII, who condemned Dante to death in real life, exiling him from his beloved Florence and seizing his property. Dante obviously wanted to slur Bonifice—the University of Chicago's Dante scholar calls The Inferno "an infamy-making machine" in his new book Dante and the Limits of the Law—and forever tarnish his name.
    But Dante faced a creative challenge, a structural problem: Bonifice had not yet died in 1300, when the story takes place. Kinda hard to put him in hell in 1300 when everybody reading it knew he didn't die until 1303. A problem that Dante solved with a twist of breathtaking creativity: during his tour, his guide points to a smoldering pit and says, in essence, "And THIS is the hole where Bonifice will go when he gets here." 
    Genius.
    The other thing I want to point out is ... spoiler alert ... how The Inferno (the first of the three books of the Commedia —ends. Dante gets out of hell and "rivader la stelle"— He sees the stars. The last lines, in Robert Pinsky's beautiful translation, are: 

                                                                             I saw appear
                         Some of the beautiful things that heaven bears,

                         Where we came forth, and once more saw the stars.

    Each of the Divine Comedy's three books ends with a mention of the stars, which have been particularly beautiful this past week, and I noticed tonight, even in the light-polluted, orange black sky of Skokie, where we attended our second Seder.  So just as Passover is about escaping slavery, whatever that means to you, so Easter, to someone only vaguely familiar with it, seems about rebirth, about finding your way out of your hell, whatever that is, a spiritual resurrection, escaping the clutches of death, to where the sky is clear once more, where you can see the spangled perfection of heaven. Or some such thing. Anyway, Happy Easter.

"You liberal nuts never cease to amaze."

     Being biased against people without valid reason is wrong. 
     Still some people cling to the practice, so much so that if they lose the right to be horrible to one group, they keep plugging adjectives in, seeing if they can somehow get away with it when dealing with someone else. How about being biased against black people? Also bad? Okay, how about being biased against Muslim people? That good? Nope, still wrong. How about being biased against handicapped people? Better? What? Still wrong? Even if you find them unsettling? No? Not a valid reason?
     Hmm...how about: being biased against gay people? That has to be okay. What? Also wrong? But what if your religion says it's okay? That must be okay, right?
    That used to work. True. But it doesn't work so well anymore. Times change. More Americans now see it as morally wrong now. They finally get that there is no non-religious reason to be biased against gay people. None whatsoever. And what a refreshing miracle that is, to see the intake of breath in revulsion as Indiana passed a small-minded bill designed to afford small businesses legal protection should they decide that being a place of public accommodation doesn't apply to gays because, well, God hates them.
    Fearful revanchists decided to cast this fight as a struggle for their "religious freedom," in their mistaken notion that if they put a positive-sounding name on their moral lapse, and frame the question so it focuses on their supposed rights to harm people and not the people being harmed, that it would work.
    It didn't.
    Which made for a very interesting week last week, particularly after my Wednesday column "We're not on the savannah anymore" pointing out the long decline of tribalism, being replaced by the modern world, thought not so much in Indiana. 
     I don't usually get into discussions with wrong-headed readers. I'm not the Idiot Police. Too many of them, not enough of me. Usually I brush off obvious haters with Samuel Johnson's wonderful line, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." 
    But this past week I found myself drawn in, sparing with people, well, because their insular worldview is so maddening. You just want to crack that stuck window open and let some fresh air, finally, into that stale mind of theirs.
     I'll share a single exchange—this with one Robert Chernik, which kept me engaged, because it was such a queasy-making glimpse under the rock of bigoted thinking, I kept toeing at the mess, rapt.  I'm including the entire email exchange, from April 1 to April 3, when I shrugged, bored, and gave up. Re-reading it, I assume you'll get tired and drop off much sooner, and there is no shame in that. But if can get through, notice his intense focus on self: me, me, fuckin' me. My remarks aren't polished legal arguments either—I'm firing them off, on the fly. But I think I make the case in a way I'm not too embarrassed to share. It might be easy to sneer at a guy like this, but remember: lots of people agree with him, which is another reason his thoughts deserve dissemination. Sunlight is a disinfectant. 

Robert: You liberal nuts never cease to amaze. Have you even read the Indiana religious bill? Apparently not, because that's too much work for libatards. This bill is in essence the same bill signed by President Clinton while he was in office, if you morons just tried to do some research you would have known that! The bill simply reaffirms religious freedom guaranteed in the first amendment of our constitution, nothing more. But as usual facts just escape you people when the truth doesn't fit into your ridiculous agenda!

Me: As a matter of fact, yes, I did. Just one of your many mistaken assumptions. Time doesn't permit me to list them all. But just one observation that seems to have flown past you: from what you said, Bill Clinton seems to have become your moral compass. That's a new development, is it not? When did that start? I should also point out, it's not 1993 anymore. Or 1953. I'm sorry if I'm the one to tell you. Thanks for writing.
NS

Robert: Clinton was never a moral compass for me, but having our rights protected is!
Our rights under our constitution can not be compromised to satisfy a few or of any group. If a business does not wish to meet your needs then go on to another that will. It's called shopping, probably a concept you haven't heard of!  People should not lose their lively hood adhering to their religious doctrine. Talking about intolerance and hate, just who is being discriminated against here?

Me: Gay people are. Do you really not see it?
So if God tells me not to rent my hotel to black people, the Constitution protects that? Really? There is no religious doctrine that says you can't bake a cake for a gay wedding. The whole thing is an artificial dilemma constructed by haters to trumpet their hate. I'm not sure why. Why do you do it? Myself, I would be ashamed. Perhaps it's the sexual aspect that you find compelling. That must be it. Thanks for writing.
NS

Robert: I didn't realize you were gay!
Why are you bringing blacks into this conversation? You have to bring up the race card comparing gays to blacks?? You can't make your point so go off target on to another subject and bring race into it.
The media has turned into a Circus, not reporting the news but creating the news. Just like the lie of Ferguson Mo. "Hands up don't shoot", you ignore the facts and report lies and innuendos! You all knew you were reporting misinformation on Ferguson after all the evidence was in but continued with the lies to stir that racial pot!
This bill does not discriminate or encourage people to. Your hero Clinton signed the exact bill and it wasn't in the 50s or 80s it was in the nineties but where was you indignation then??

Me: Just trying to use a simple metaphor you might understand. I'm not arguing with Bill Clinton fans -- you guys think you can smooth talk your way out of anything. Thanks for writing.
NS

Robert: I'm not a Clinton fan!!!
But hey, let me put it to you this way
I walk into a kosher Jewish deli and order a pork roast and a pound of bacon
But the counter man tells me it's a kosher Jewish deli and they don't carry those products, but I demand he supply me with my order order. Finally a Rabbi comes in and says it's contrary to the Jewish faith to carry and sell pork products and asks me to try another non Jewish deli to fill my needs.
I go to my attorney and file a discrimination suit and demand the deli be closed and the owners pay a hefty fine and lose their lively hood.
Do you understand this?

Robert II (I lingered responding, and he must have so admired the beauty of this metaphor he rephrased it a second time): Not and never have been a Clinton fan!
Let me try simplifying this for you
I walk into a kosher Jewish deli and tell the counterman I wMt a pork roast and a pound of bacon, the counterman explains they are a kosher Jewish deli and don't carry pork products due to their religious beliefs and suggest I try. Non-Jewish deli for my request
I go directly to my attorney and file a discrimination law suit demanding a hefty fine and that the deli be closed for refusing me service!
Do you understand now????

Me: Sure, I understand you can't tell the difference between trying to order something that a place of business doesn't sell and that store not serving you because they hate you.
Thanks for writing.

Robert: Not wanting to cater a gay wedding because of ones religious belief is NOT hate! Why should ones beliefs be compromised to satisfy someone else? By Doing do you are in essence violating their first amendments rights of freedom of religion
That being the case then, just go to another business that will satisfy your needs, it's called shopping!!!!
You said you read the Indiana bill (which I doubt you did) show me the section if the bill that allows hate
or racism as a deciding factor!!
Illinois also passed the same law and your hero obama actually voted for its passage!

Me: Maybe you should be talking to all the Indiana businesses complaining, all the states banning travel to Indiana. They seem confused by what is clear to you. Though you are saying that if my sincere religious beliefs dictate that black people can't use my lunch counter, then the First Amendment protects that, which of course is just wrong. See, your argument is based on the idea that gay people are a shunned class of sinners, and that isn't true anymore. If, like the Amish, your religious dictates require you to withdraw from society, than that of course is always an option in a free country. But you can't pretend to be a place of public accommodation while dismissing those who don't meet your constantly shifting religious tests. No need to write back, as I really don't expect you to understand. But yout kids will. This is in many ways a generational issue. Though if you wondered who would show up at a school and scream at black kids trying to enroll, look in the mirror. It's you.
NS

Robert:  Again talking about blacks and not using a lunch counter. Go off subject because you can't make your point, typical liberal!
The states so called boycott of Indiana probably don't do business in Indiana any way plus it's not that large of a segment of the population, you liberal media guys do that, blow everything out of proportion to meet your agenda, what ever that is!
Just what are you libs hiding that your jumping up and down about a law that is already part of many states, including Illinois and the federal government?
Could it be the nuclear deal with Iran??? Because it's sure something you're all trying to divert our attention from!
I asked you what part of Indiana's law calls for racial and homosexual discrimination and you couldn't pin point it, just the usual lies and innuendos, admit it, you didn't read the legislation, you just jumped on the misinformed liberal band wagon and commented on something you didn't read or understand'
You should be removed as a reporter, talk about abuse of the first amendment! Freedom of the press does not give you free reign to lie!!
You are an mature

Me: One last time. Blacks aren't "off subject." The subject is your inability to view gays as human beings. I'm assuming that you are familiar with that view being used toward blacks, and you no longer feel that way. Maybe you don't understand that either. It's not my job to hold your hand while you try to understand common human decency. Goodbye.
NS

Robert: How dare you assume to even know one iota about me and my family
Standing up for and defending our constitution is not anti-American, hateful or racist
You and your liberal ilk are what is destroying our American freedoms and our way of life!
This particular legislation just affirms all of our rights and really didn't need to be enacted except for the liberal attack on Christianity.
You should be ashamed but we all know your too ignorant for that.
Comparing the black struggle for equality to that of homosexuals is demeaning and shameful.
No One cares what one does in their bedroom and I certainly don't want to know, except for people like you, apparently ones sexual preference is what defines an individual in your eyes! Apparently you have never taken the oath to defend and protect out constitution but you're ready to destroy at the drop of a hat!
You disgust me!! And that's my constitutional right as well!!

Me: Thank you for writing. Happy Easter
NS

We were slaves, now we're free, or at least reasonable

     The second night of Passover is a bit more informal than the first in our family—the Seder not quite as long, not quite as thorough.  Jews don't always hold two Seders a year, but we do, for obscure religious reasons too uninteresting to be worth explaining. The second night is still pretty much a reply of the first. We gather around the Seder table to eat and drink—well, everyone else drinks, I take it sober, as is my fashion: in fact, Saturday will be my 20th Seder lubricated only on grape juice. 
     So stop whining about how long the meal is; it could be worse. Though to be honest, I think I have a better time now than I did back then. Four cups of wine were never enough.

    I wrote this piece just before my first on-the-wagon Seder, and I think it set the proper tone for the ones to come. If Jews ran TV commercials for the faith—and we should, everyone else does, maybe people wouldn't hate us so much—the one for Passover would mimic those "What's in your wallet?" TV commercials, except the punch line would be "What's enslaving YOU?" Because we all are enslaved by something, trying to strike our chains off, or keep them off. Anyway, here's hoping you have a happy holiday, free of whatever it is you need to free yourself from. 

     Much of religion is rote -- going through the obligatory motions, mumbling prayers you neither understand nor believe (oh no, I don't mean you -- you of course are the alpha and omega of sincerity, speaking from your heart with a perfect faith, pausing only to note the murmurs of approval from a grateful Lord God Almighty . . .)
     Where was I? Most religion is rote. Which is why I love Passover so much. Passover -- which begins tonight -- is no dry routine, no hazy abstract construct. The Exodus was real. We were really slaves in the land of Egypt,* and now we are free.
      Nor have the centuries dulled its timeless message -- look up from your muddy brick-making, cast off your chains, whatever they are, turn your face toward grace. Ask yourself: what in my life enslaves me? Who are my task masters? And where is the wrong that, as a free man, I can help correct?
     Seders adapt to the times, or should -- in the 1970s, we included the Jews imprisoned in the Soviet Union. This year, there is a big effort to recognize the genocide in Darfur, because even though the victims aren't Jewish, they are victims, and as such warrant our prayers and our action. Because so few cared when it was us.
     I'll bring the Darfur material tonight -- there's a ton of it on-line if you are interested. Nobody will roll their eyes or tap their watches. I'm lucky, because at our Seder, people actually pause to ask questions, to discuss, and generally behave as if there were a purpose to the gathering beyond just dropping their snouts into the chow.
     If you are not so fortunate, then you must lead the way. Just this once, as an experiment, slow down. Listen to the Exodus, one of the most thrilling and beautiful tales ever written. The food won't go anywhere. Take time to remember how you -- yes, you Mr. Harvey Finkleman -- were once strangers in a strange land. . . .

    ——Originally published in the Sun-Times April 12, 2006

* Readers pointed out, after this ran, that there is no historical evidence whatsoever, outside of the Bible, that the Jews ever were enslaved in Egypt, never mind that they exited in such a dramatic fashion. Which is curious because the ancient Egyptians were crazy for record keeping. Maybe the evidence is slumbering among the wall rubbings tucked away in some back drawer at the Oriental Institute. But nobody has found it yet. 

Saturday fun activity: Where IS this?

     Last year, you guys really impressed me by nailing the location of a certain horsy bookshelf. Here, I'll reprint the photo. I'll delay saying where it is, so those who missed it the first time can see if they'd have any idea. Someone did.

    
I was researching a story in another office last month, and noticed some similarly distinctive books from a vastly different field. Take a look.

    And since, at heart, I'm pulling for you guys to solve this, and these books could be more places than the ones atop, which were ... here it comes ... at Wagner Farm in Glenview, I'll post a better look at that lower shelf, to help narrow the location.

    Okay, that should do it. This is obviously a medical facility, but which one? Where IS this?  
     The winner receives one of my ultra-collectable, beautifully-designed-if-I-say-so-myself, official signed and numbered blog posters, which look like this, and are also for sale, for the reasonable price of fifteen dollars, if you despair of ever winning, or just want to throw some money my way. 

   Please place your guesses below. Good luck.