When we choose not to offend (or inform)

I was talking last week with a friend from my days as a reporter and editor at a daily newspaper. 

We talked about former coworkers and quickly moved on to what we agreed is the sad state of newspaper opinion pages and columns.

My friend left the news business more than 20 years ago and is nearing the end of a successful career in public relations. We both started in newspaper journalism in 1980 and first worked together at The Northern Star, the student newspaper at Northern Illinois University. 

I always preferred news reporting to column writing, but wrote a weekly column for several years at a weekly newspaper, where I first started as a full-time reporter. I enjoyed column writing at times, but found more satisfaction in reporting news and shooting photos. 

My friend wrote columns for newspapers, and at a public relations magazine. He now produces a blog that's popular with those in the public relations field.

Although we have different perspectives about columns, we agreed on a key point about the state of opinion writing today - most of today's columns and editorials are bland and unengaging.

I readily acknowledge we sound like two old dogs complaining that things are just not as good as they once were, and I don't fault anyone for thinking that about me and my friend. But before reaching a conclusion, please read on. 

I miss the days when most newspapers produced distinct and vibrant opinion pages, and frequently had several sharp and talented columnists. There are many good opinion writers working today, and I respect them, but I believe those few are the exceptions that prove the rule. 

My friend and I focused on columnists because we agreed at the outset that the majority of editorials appear crafted so as not to offend anyone with a viewpoint. And that's too bad, because a well-written, well reasoned editorial can be persuasive, thought-provoking, and engaging. But too many editorial boards seem more concerned with keeping the peace with their subscribers than with advancing a proposal that might spark controversy. 

I think similar comments apply to many of today's opinion writers. We see little in the way that strays from safe, mainstream thinking, possibly because many writers today fear the "cancel culture," and they're probably right to be cautious.

I offer as supporting evidence these column headlines, all published the same day and captured from the Chicago Tribune, the Daily Herald and the Northwest Herald. You be the judge. 

"Will remote learning spell the end of snow days? I sure hope not"

"In praise of good neighbors" 

"Let's be kind to one another, for it makes the world better"

"Foreign Language Study is Valuable"

"When you've got a yen for comfort there's nothing like mother's cooking"

I can't argue with any of those. Can you? 

My journalism career started in the years before the Internet and social media. Readers and society in general seemed more tolerant of those with differing opinions. There were readers who frequently wrote to the newspaper, some with pleasant comments, but mostly they were people eager to share a complaint or angry opinion. 

The key difference then was it took a bit of time and effort to write a letter, address an envelope, stick a postage stamp to it, and then put it in a mailbox. 

Not today. A guy made angry about something he read on Facebook can hammer the keyboard and post a snarky comment in a matter of seconds. There's little in the way of a cooling-off period, and the result is usually uncivil and unproductive. How many of us really want to stir up that kind of a response?

So it's understandable why columnists have lost some of their bite, but I still find it disappointing. 

And that's where we find ourselves today - afraid to share unpopular ideas or views that don't mesh with what the majority thinks. I find that sad.

-- Thank you for reading. Your comments are always welcome. Email me a kbotterman@gmail.com

The Illinoisans who voted for war against Japan

The Illinois Congressional delegation that voted unanimously to approve President Franklin D. Roosevelt's declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941 included the only African-American in the House of Representatives, one woman, a future leader of the U.S. Senate, and a future governor of the state of Illinois.

The Illinois delegation to the 77th Congress (1941-1943) consisted of 29 officials - two U.S. Senators, representatives from 25 House districts, and two at-large members of the House. (The number of at-large seats was reduced to one in 1943 and eliminated entirely in 1949. Republican William Stratton, a future Illinois governor, served as the state's last at-large representative.)

Four members of the delegation stand out as noteworthy. They are Democrat Arthur Mitchell, and Republicans Everett Dirksen, Jessie Sumner and Stratton.

Democrat Arthur W. Mitchell represented the state's 1st Congressional District in 1941. The district included Chicago's southeast side. Mitchell was the first African-American elected to Congress as a Democrat and was the only African-American in Congress from 1935 to 1943. Mitchell entered politics as a Republican, but became a Democrat to support FDR's New Deal programs. During his time in Congress, Mitchell remained a loyal Roosevelt ally. Mitchell was the plaintiff in Mitchell v. United States et al, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled black passengers on interstate trains had the right to the same accommodations enjoyed by whites. The ruling was considered a major step in the steady dismantling of Jim Crow statutes.

The delegation also included Republican Jessie Sumner, the delegation's only female and arguably one of it's most interesting members. Sumner represented the state's 18th Congressional District (Iroquois County) and was one of 10 females in the 77th Congress. Sumner was a most remarkable woman for her time. She earned a law degree at the University of Chicago and later attended Oxford. She was an executive at Chase Bank in the 1920s, was an elected state's attorney and successfully prosecuted a variety of criminals. Sumner also served as a county judge before being elected to Congress in 1938 (taking office in 1939). Sumner opposed FDR's New Deal policies. She also opposed policies she believed compromised U.S. neutralit. She joined other Republicans in voting against FDR's Lend-Lease program with Great Britain. Sumner's complete opposition to FDR's foreign policies ended with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Sumner voted in favor of the declaration of war against Japan (and subsequently for the declaration of war against Germany and Italy). However, she remained a critic of US war policy and opposed many of FDR's ideas for America's role in a post-war world. Sumner chose not to seek reelection to Congress in the late 1940s and returned home to manage the family-owned bank, which was established by her father.

William Stratton, a Republican, represesented Illinois as an at-large member of the delegation. Stratton took office in January 1941. He later served as Illinois state treasurer and served two consecutive terms as governor during the 1950s. 

The delegation also included Everett Dirksen, a Pekin native and World War I veteran. Dirksen was first elected to represent the 16th Congressional District in 1932. He supported many of Roosevelt's New Deal economic programs during the 1930s, but opposed FDR's activist foreign policies. Dirksen was elected to the US Senate in 1950 and was consistently re-elected. He served in the Senate until his death in 1969.

Dirksen became an internationalist while serving in the Senate and was an outspoken supporter of the U.S. War in Vietnam. He became minority leader in the Senate and supported of the Civil Rights Movement throughout his Senate career. Dirksen was instrumental in writing and securing approval of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (working to break the Democrat filibuster of the legislation), and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. 

Here's a list of the other members of the delegation that voted for war (Note: Federal archives have little information about some of the individuals presented here):

2nd District: Raymond S. McKeough, (D), (1988-1979) - He served in Congress from 1935 to 1943. 

3rd District: Edward A. Kelly, (D), (1892-1969) - He served in Congress from 1931 to 1947. Kelly was a World War I veteran and had played professional baseball for four seasons. 

 

4th District: Harry P. Beam, (D), (1892-1967) - He served in Congress from 1931 to 1942, and then served as a judge in Cook County. 

5th District: Adolph Sabath, (D), (1886-1952) - He served in Congress from 1907 to 1952. An interesting side note about Sabath: He was a delegate to every Democratic national convention from 1896 to 1944.

6th District: Anton F. Maciejewski, (D), (1893-1949) - He served in Congress from 1939 to 1942. He worked in the in coal industry and returned to the private sector after leaving Congress. 

7th District: Leonard W. Schuetz, (D), (1887 to 1944) - He served in Congress from 1931 to 1944. 

8th District: Leo P. Kocialkowski, (D), (1882-1958) - He served in Congress from 1933 to 1943. 

9th District: Charles S. Dewey, (R), (1880-1980) - Served in Congress from 1941 to 1945. He served in the Navy during World War I and was a cousin to Admiral George Dewey. Little information is available about his time in Congress, but he had a significant role in the banking world and had senior positions in the American Red Cross and government. Dewey led a committee that standardized the portraits and dimensions of American currency; the dimensions are still in use today.

10th District: George A. Paddock, (R), (1895-1964) - He served in the Army during World War I. Paddock served in Congress from 1941 to 1943. He resided in Winnetka.

11th District: Chauncey W. Reed, (R), (1890-1956) - He served in Congress from 1935 to 1956. Reed was born in West Chicago, he earned a law degree and practiced in Naperville. He served in the Army during World War I and was elected DuPage County State's Attorney before being elected to Congress. 

12th District: Noah M. Mason, (R), (1882-1965) - He served in Congress from 1937 to 1963. Before entering politics, Mason was a teacher and principal of schools in Ogelsby, Illinois.

13th District: Leo E. Allen, (R), (1898-1973) - He served in Congress from 1933 to 1961. Allen served in the Army during WW I. Prior to serving in Congress, Allen was a teacher in Galena. He returned to Galena after leaving Congress and remained there until his death. 

14th District: Anton J. Johnson, (R), (1878-1958) - He served in Congress from 1939 to 1949. After leaving Congress, Johnson served as mayor of Macomb, Illinois.

15th District: Robert B. Chiperfield, (R), (1899-1971) - He served in the Army during World War I, and served in Congress from 1939 to 1963. He was chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

17th District: Leslie C. Arends, (R), (1895-1985) He served in the Navy during World War I. Arends was a farmer and a banker before entering politics. He served in Congress from 1935 to 1974, and during his career served as minority whip and majority whip.  

19th District: William H. Wheat, (R), (1879-1944) - He served in Congress from 1939 to 1944. Wheat worked in the private sector prior to serving in Congress, in banking and agriculture in the Rantoul area, and returned to that work after leaving Congress. 

20th District: James M. Barnes, (D), (1899-1958) - He served in Congress from 1939 to 1943. He then served as an aide to FDR until 1945. A Harvard-educated attorney, Barnes stayed in Washington, D.C. and returned to private practice. 

21st District: George Evan Howell, (R), (1905-1980), He served in Congress from 1941 to 1947, when he resigned to become a judge. He later served a two-year stint as chairman of the Illinois Toll Highway Commission. 

22nd District: Edwin M. Schaefer, (D), (1887-1950) - He served in Congress from 1933 to 1943. He was active in business and local government in St. Louis and Belleville.

23rd District: Laurence F. Arnold, (D), (1891-1966) - He served in Congress from 1937 to 1943. Arnold was involved in banking and agriculture-related business before and after his time in Congress. 

24th District: James V. Heidinger (R), (1882-1945) - He served in Congress from January 1941 until his death in 1945. 

25th District: C.W. (Cecil William) 'Runt" Bishop, (R), (1890-1971) - He served in Congress from January 1941 to 1955. Prior to representing the district, Bishop had played professional baseball and football, worked as a coal miner, and was a local postmaster.

At Large: Stephen Albion Day, (R), (1892-1950) - He served in Congress from January 1941 to1945. Day, an attorney, returned to private practice in Evanston after leaving Congress.  

U.S. Senators in 1941

Scott W. Lucas, (D), (1892-1968) - He was an attorney and served as an enlisted man in the Army during World War I. Lucas served in the House before being elected to the Senate, where he served from 1939 to 1951. He was the majority leader from 1949 to 1950. 

Charles W. Brooks, (R), (1897–1957) - He served as a lieutenant in the Marines during World War I and was wounded several times. He earned a law degree from Northwestern University. He served in the Senate from 1940 to 1949.  

Additional sources:

The 77th Congress included 10 women

Naval History and Heritage and Command resources about the Pearl Harbor raid

The Dirksen Congressional Center

                                                                                                                                                KB

It's money that matters in political campaigns

I exceeded my healthy limit of 2020 election news and analysis the other day, but I want to offer one more comment, before stepping away from the topic (for at least a short time). 

A point that disturbs me about our current political landscape is the amount of money, special interest money in particular, involved in elections, even at the local level. 

I recently spent time reviewing the financial disclosure statements candidates for state representative in Illinois filed with state officials. I find the documents interesting, but sometimes a bit depressing. 

The documents indicate one candidate raised more than $1 million in direct financial contributions or through in-kind contributions from groups that paid for such things as campaign mailers, polls, or telephone calls to likely voters. 

Most of the money to this one candidate came from unions, attorneys, the Democrats' state party organization, current lawmakers, and longtime Speaker of the State House Michael Madigan, leader of the Illinois Democrats.

All of the contributions are legal, to the best of my knowledge, and I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing. However, I was surprised that a campaign for a state house seat (a two-year term) could raise about $1 million in special interest money. 

The Republican in the race raised about $42,000, mostly from business groups, including realtors. The Democrat won the election.

The difference in the amount of donations between the two campaigns seems ridiculous until you remember a Democrat is governor, the Democrats hold every statewide office, and Democrats have firm control of both chambers in the state legislature. In short, Democrats run the state of Illinois.

It often seems there is a disconnect between many of our elected leaders and the people they represent. I mean, is it possible for a politician to  accept piles of money from groups far removed from her district and still vote in a manner consistent with the best interests of the district's residents? 

Perhaps we'll find an answer during the next legislative session.

-- Thank you for reading. Your comments are always welcome.  KB

A few thoughts about the things I'm thankful for in 2020

I wanted to take a few minutes while the turkey is roasting in the oven to note a few of things I am most thankful for on Thanksgiving Day 2020.

I give thanks each day for the greatest and most valued blessings in my life, my wife and my daughter. I give special thanks for the good health each enjoys. 

On the topic of health, I also give thanks for the relative good health I enjoy. I experienced a health crisis in October. It was serious, but treatable and alerted doctors to a serious condition that also can be treated without surgery.

I am blessed to have five siblings and a fairly large extended family. A few of members of my extended family had Covid-19 this year, but recovered quickly and display no serious lasting troubles. We give thanks for that. The most important thing for each of us is that we all enjoy relatively good health and everyone is still with us this holiday.

I give thanks for the essential blessings God shares with me and my family - safe shelter, food, clothing, and a job I enjoy. 

I give thanks for Otto, my dog and valued companion. Otto is there with me in the mornings, before I go to work, and he greets me when I return home at the end of my. During the lockdown, when we were confined to home, Otto sat with me during the afternoons and joined me on outdoor walks. I count Otto as a member of the family and a true blessing

I give thanks that I was born in and reside in the United States of America. The year 2020 offered us unimaginable challenges, but as we near its end, we can imagine brighter days ahead. There is no other country for me, and I am blessed to be here. 

--Thank you for reading. You comments are always welcome.

 

A few thoughts about taking a few days to get it right

 

Lots of people are calling for unity these days, and that's a good thing, I think.

Unity is important in a representative democracy. Integrity, honesty, transparency, and individual responsibility also are important in a representative democracy. I contend each is of equal value in our republic, and each is necessary to make our system of government of law succeed.

I'm a bit jaded and skeptical when the calls for unity come from many of the same individuals who four years ago were marching in the streets, refusing to acknowledge the results of a national election, simply because their candidate failed to secure victory. These same people went on to do everything they could think of to undermine the elected president, demonize his supporters, and even wish death by Covid-19 on him, his wife and his children. 

The record is well documented, well remembered and doesn't inspire one to leap aboard the unity bandwagon. 

I think integrity and honesty dictate that those who didn't display unity the last four years might at least show some tolerance and patience with those seeking clarification of how votes were counted. Democrat Al Gore challenged the voting results for 37 days in 2000. I think we can take some time now to double check the results and certify that all the legal ballots were counted, while identifying the number of illegal or disqualified ballots.

I think transparency dictates we show some patience and allow the legal process to address questions and concerns. I think we will all benefit from an evaluation that clearly, firmly affirms the voting results. We can then resolve questions about vote fraud and "stolen" elections. 

I can't imagine why those calling for unity are also many of the most vocal opponents to a process that might bring clarity and certainty to the election results. It doesn't make sense to me.

I also think individual responsibility requires the process to identify and disqualify illegitimate ballots. Follow the law. If laws were broken and those responsible can be identified, prosecute them. Enforce the law. 

Our republic is worth defending, it's worth preserving, and it is worth a few days to confirm and affirm the integrity of the ballots. 

-- Thank you for reading. Your comments are welcome. 

A few thoughts about Sean Connery's films

Sean Connery was my favorite Bond, and "From Russia With Love" (1963) was my favorite Bond film, with "You Only Live Twice" (1967) a close second. 

I was discussing Connery's work with a few friends following Sean's passing. We all talked about his work as James Bond, 007, because that's the role that made him an international star. But we also discussed the many other performances in his film career.

I enjoyed many of Connery's post-Bond roles, with his work in "The Wind and the Lion" being my favorite, followed by "The Man Who Would be King", (Both released in 1975).

Director Sidney Lumet's heist film, "The Anderson Tapes" (1971) saw Connery with a solid supporting cast that included Dyan Cannon and a young Christopher Walken. 

The overlooked "The Name of the Rose" (1986) is a good murder mystery set in a 14th century monestary. Connery won a BAFTA award for best actor for his work. Connery also won an Oscar for best supporting actor for his work opposite Kevin Costner in director Brian Depalma's "The Untouchables" (1987). 

Connery was busy throughout the 1990s. His films were popular and entertaining, but not exceptional, in my view. I enjoyed "Rising Sun" (1993), despite Wesley Snipes playing opposite Connery, and "The Rock" (1996), despite Nicholas Cage serving as Connery's co-star. 

I could add a few more titles from Connery's long film career, and I'd bet readers have a few of their favorites. However, these are the Connery movies that stand out for me. 

-- Thank you for reading. I welcome your comments.

A few thoughts on Election Day plus 1

 

It is Election Day plus 1 in America, and many contests remain undecided as of noon in Illinois. 

The day after an election is usually one of elation for some and soul-crushing disappointment for others. Not long ago most understood, whether a winner or loser, it was time to accept the results and move forward. Many had a hard time moving forward in 2016, and some never made peace with the idea that Trump was president.

And now we don't know for certain if Biden won, or if Trump earned a second term. Commentators already are comparing the 2020 election to the one conducted in 2000 and say we might not know the outcome until January. I hope not.

Like many Americans, I am ready for this election cycle to be over. I consider myself an independent and try to avoid partisan politics. All of this partisan gamesmanship is tedious to me. May it all be gone.

I'm not big on political party affiliations and labels. I like candidates who try to tell me the truth and at least give me the impression they're not looking to steal public money. Yes, my bar is set rather low, but it works for me. I admit that most of the candidates I like lose their races. That's one of the many reasons why I avoid many predictions about election results or anything else. 

I'm not big on identity politics. I like elected officials who strive to work for the common good, regardless of sex, color and all that other stuff. Those kind of candidates are hard to find these days, I think.

That stated, I also have a pretty good sense of what it is beyond my control, and the outcome of elections are generally far beyond my control. I do my part, but I try not to get emotionally invested in elections.

So if your favorite candidate won yesterday, congratulations. If your man or woman lost, sorry for the defeat and better luck next time. If the contest you are most interested in is still undecided, may patience be with you.

I find peace in the thought that the outcome is part of God's big plan, and I will look for the silver linings in whatever the days ahead offer us. 

-- Thank you for reading. Comments and questions are always welcome. Post them here or email me at kbotterman@gmail.com.