Today’s column from the Kankakee Daily Journal and The (Ottawa, Ill.) Times …

Jest a lot of problems with Blago’s retrial

The WISCH LIST

Sept. 25, 2010

Mayor Daley is stepping down. Jesse Jackson Jr. has been stepping out. And the rest of Illinois’ politicians are stepping up their game – or, at least, their antics – as the Land of Lincoln prepares for the onset of its silly season.

Otherwise known as election time.

The state’s silliest pol of them all, however, has been conspicuously (and blissfully) silent during the past several weeks.

And, you know, Rod Blagojevich could stay that way.

If only we’d let him.

Come January, though, our ex-governor – and his ego – will return to the spotlight as the Feds again attempt to cook his goose after their legal recipe failed the first time around.

The thing is, though, it wasn’t the prosecution’s recipe that was the problem during Blagojevich’s mistrial this summer. Rather, it was their ingredients.

They were rotten.

And even fresh material, such as potential testimony from convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko or this week’s news that Indian-American businessman Raghuveer Nayak told federal investigators that Rep. Jackson asked him to raise millions for Blagojevich in hopes that he would appoint Jackson to the Senate seat vacated by President Obama, doesn’t really change that.

Last month, JoAnn Chiakulas – the so-called “holdout juror” who refused to convict Blagojevich on all but one of 24 counts – explained that the government simply didn’t convince her beyond a reasonable doubt that the ex-Guv was guilty.

Many media types found her refusal to convict Blagojevich ridiculous, but I didn’t. And that’s not saying I think he’s innocent. I don’t. But proof of guilt is a high burden, and if Chiakulas didn’t feel that the government met that burden, then she didn’t.

That was her prerogative.

To convict someone in a criminal trial in the United States, the prosecution needs to convince every juror of the defendant’s guilt. In the case of Blagojevich, the Feds simply did not.

I don’t, however, fault U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald & Co. for that, because I truly don’t believe they had the legal ammunition necessary to eliminate reasonable doubt in every juror’s mind.

Fact is, there was no “smoking gun” in the whole Blagojevich saga. Rather, there was a lot of talk by an egomaniacal governor that seemed to perhaps be conspiratorial, but also seemed to just be all over the place.

I can see how a juror might lean toward the latter.

And I don’t believe that Blagojevich’s media blitzes and reality TV appearances had anything to do with that. The true reality is that the moment Blagojevich was arrested before a Senate seat – or anything else – was “sold,” the case against him was left with a whole lot of holes.

And that’s why I believe the government shouldn’t try him again (even though they’re going to), because with no “smoking barrel,” I easily could see another mistrial taking place.

I think we might need to just be satisfied that Blagojevich is out of office, was denied the opportunity for even greater corruption and was found guilty on at least something (lying to federal investigators).

He’s also currently out of our hair.

But once the retrial begins, his won’t be.

From the get-go, Rod Blagojevich was a flawed case, but a good arrest that benefited Illinois by leading to his removal from office. I’d prefer to just let it be at that. Because, if the Feds don’t recognize that during a retrial one out of 12 jurors (at least) could see things the same way Chiakulas did, then they’re fooling themselves.

Let’s hope that in court come January, we don’t see Blagojevich making fools of us yet again as its Jester.

Jest don’t be surprised if he does.

Today’s column from the Kankakee Daily Journal and The (Ottawa, Ill.) Times …

Arrested developments: Chicago Police vs. City Hall

The WISCH LIST

Sept. 18, 2010

I live in Chicago, where the taxes are outrageous, the politics crooked and the parking tickets plentiful.

And I live in Chicago, where the streets are clean, the public transportation convenient and the downtown as beautiful and vibrant as any I’ve visited.

For the former, I blame Mayor Richard M. Daley.

But for the latter? Well, I credit him.

Not unlike the city itself, Chicago’s longtime emperor, er … mayor – who last week stunned the state with the news that after six terms he’s turning in his scepter – is a mixed bag.

He’s the savvy politician that still mangles his words. He’s often maddening, yet almost always engaging. And while he’s transformed his hometown into a world-class showpiece, he’s also turned it into a financial boondoggle through countless sketchy city contracts and questionable deals.

With a budget crisis, a number of unfinished construction projects and the trick of navigating a political labyrinth that Daley has laid out like a Minotaur over the past two decades, Chicago’s next mayor undoubtedly will have his or her hands full.

But, for the sake of Chicago’s citizens, visitors and reputation, its next boss should make no issue more important than making peace between the Chicago Police Department and City Hall.

From July 2005 to July 2007, I worked full-time as a news reporter in Chicago and found myself (all too) regularly dispatched into violence-plagued neighborhoods on the South and West sides following yet another tragic murder or senseless shooting.

It was my job to interview the neighbors and relatives of victims, and what I always found in the worst areas of the city were so many good people living there. Worn down by the violence of their environment, they were desperate for assistance and answers. But as a young reporter armed only with a notepad, a pen and a deadline, all I really could provide were more questions.

I still don’t have answers, although to be fair, Mayor Daley has provided at least a few during his tenure. In 1989, when he first took office, Chicago had 747 murders. Last year, there were 458. Today, most of Chicago is very safe. But still, based on the ratio of crime to population, it remains more violent than either New York or Los Angeles.

This summer, three Chicago police officers were among those killed in the city, placing a brighter national spotlight on a problem already well known to locals.

I’m not sure that the intensity of the city’s violence is actually increasing – again, overall murders have dropped sharply the past 20 years – but it’s clear that the tension between Chicago’s rank-and-file police officers and their bosses certainly is. And that’s a situation that not only doesn’t help those living on the gang-ridden South and West sides, but also threatens the safety of residents and visitors citywide.

On Wednesday morning, a few hundred officers gathered at Chicago’s police headquarters to protest the leadership of Superintendent Jody Weis and call for his resignation. The officers’ discontent with Weis (whose contract runs through March 1), as well as with Mayor Daley (who saw more than 2,000 officers protest City Hall last year over labor negotiations), stems largely from the budget woes that have led to manpower shortages in the police department.

During the demonstration, officers toted signs reading, “More Police, No Weis” and “Simply Resign,” while at least one donned a T-shirt bearing Daley’s likeness and the message: “Worst Mayor Ever.”

That statement is debatable. The importance of a mayor resolving this worsening rift between the city and its police department, however?

It’s not.

Due to Caller ID, the Age of Cranks Calls is over. But the Age of Crank Texts is now upon us, thanks to this guy who has a lot of time on his hands so he sends texts to random numbers. Some respond.

Today’s column from the Kankakee Daily Journal and The (Ottawa, Ill.) Times …

Chicago Baseball: Win, Lose … and Draw?

The WISCH LIST

Sept. 11, 2010

The Bears open tomorrow. The Fighting Illini home opener is tonight. And next weekend, the Blackhawks already have a sell-out at the United Center … for a practice.

But here, baseball is still in season – even if the Cubs are done and the White Sox just barely hanging on. Last week, after dissecting 90 years of Chicago baseball attendance figures, I asked readers for explanations on why the Sox have served as the city’s Second Fiddle since the ’60s and even lost ground during the 2000s, a decade in which they won a World Series.

Their theories were many, and here are a few …

It’s the money

“Sox fans pay the fifth-highest ticket prices in all of baseball,” Jason Bauman writes. “Why? I don’t know. I believe the Cubs charge the second-highest prices behind Boston. What do the Red Sox and Cubs have in common? They have a tourist attraction for a ballpark …

“Thus, the Cubs and Red Sox can get away with charging people through the nose. The White Sox, not so much.”

It’s the math

“As a lifelong die-hard Sox fan, I have always been somewhat embarrassed and bewildered by the perpetual attendance problems on the South Side,” writes John (no-relation-to-Jason) Baumann.

“I think the reasons for the Cubs popularity are pretty simple. I’m only 26 years old, but from what I can gather it all started with the ’84 Cubs and Harry Carry arriving on the North Side, which established Wrigley as party central in Chicago …

“As for the reason the Sox have failed to draw in the past, I think a huge reason is that there simply just aren’t that many Sox fans. On top of that, most Sox fans live a good distance away from the Cell, as most old-school Sox fans long ago relocated to the South and West suburbs.

“I guarantee if the Sox played in Naperville or Tinley Park their attendance would surge. I might be wrong, but it seems like most Cubs fans are either young, single people who live near Wrigley, tourists from Iowa, or retirees, while the Sox cater more to families. That’s why the Sox draw extremely poorly on April, May, and September school nights.”

It’s television

“The biggest influence, I think, regarding Sox vs. Cubs attendance is WGN,” David Rigg writes. “The Sox also used to be broadcast on WGN until they moved to Ch. 32 in the ’70s, and then to the absolute television sewer of Ch. 44 where nobody watched them!

“Remember Sportsvision? That was another fiasco that lost TV fans. For $50 you bought a converter box to unscramble the TV signal from Ch. 44. Nobody watched. [The Sox] weren’t even televised at all in the early ’80s. You could only get them on radio until they had clinched in ’83, and TV broadcasts were renewed.

“They could only be seen on cable (still new to Chicago) or Ch. 32 until they returned to WGN in the early ’90s. But, they lost a generation of Chicago fans while the ‘Cubbies’ held the limelight. Cubs games broadcast for free on a superstation drew not only local fans’ attention, but tourists from far and wide, making Wrigley Field a destination and helping fill up the park no matter what’s happening on the field.”

It’s the location

And, finally, Dick Kazlausky writes, “My one regret, even today, is when the Sox decided to build a new Comiskey. I wonder how things would’ve changed if they built it right next door to Soldier Field, where you could hit a home run into Lake Michigan.

“If they had built an indoor stadium to the likes of Miller Park a stone’s throw from the Loop … Attendance problems? Hmm, I wonder …”

Today’s column from the Kankakee Daily Journal and The (Ottawa, Ill.) Times …

A Game of Numbers

For the Cubs and White Sox, attendance figures tell a tale. But what’s their story?

The WISCH LIST

Sept. 4, 2010

Like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and Area 51, some things in life are just meant to remain a mystery.

And that appears to include U.S. Cellular Field, otherwise known as the Bermuda Triangle of Major League Baseball – a place where good White Sox teams enter, only to watch their fans disappear.

Conversely, on the North Side of Chicago, the Cubs seemingly can pack Wrigley Field during a Depression (they did, in fact, more than doubling the White Sox’s attendance in the 1930s). Or during depression, as 86 million fans have bought Cubs tickets since the Lovable Losers’ infamous flop of 1969 – nearly 18 million more than the Sox.

During the Summer of 2010, Chicago’s baseball fans have been particularly moody. For the White Sox’s games Aug. 10-12 against Minnesota, an average of only 32,057 showed up at 40,615-seat U.S. Cellular Field for a series in which both teams entered in a tie for first place.

Meanwhile, with the Cubs running in reverse, even Wrigley die-hards are fed up. For Tuesday night’s game against Pittsburgh, attendance at the Friendly Confines tumbled to an unfriendly low of 29,538, although the Cubs still remain on pace to draw nearly 900,000 more fans than the Sox this season.

In the Windy City, the attendance disparity between teams has been a hot topic for as long as I can recall. And from the economy to demography to apathy, the list of fans’ explanations (or excuses) for it is even longer.

I’m sure you have your own theories, which I want to hear. But I don’t know that any one of them tell the full story of why the Cubs draw, while the White Sox don’t. The truth is murky at best. And who knows why the Sox couldn’t sell out even one game during the Twins series, their biggest of the season.

As I said, some things are meant to remain a mystery.

However, in an attempt to at least shed some light on when – if not exactly how – the Cubs became baseball’s Big Dog in Chicago and relegated the Sox to Second Fiddle, I’ve spent the past week crunching historical attendance figures. Beginning with 1920, the dawn of the first full decade in which both Wrigley Field and Comiskey Park were in use, I compared numbers from nine decades through 2009.

And what I found is interesting. Because, the Cubs weren’t always dominant, you know. No, once upon a time, the White Sox held the Windy City in the palm of their glove. But then it all changed, before it changed again. And again.

When Chicago put its Sox on

From the 1920s to the ’40s – a stretch in which the Cubs made five World Series appearances, and the Sox none – it’s true that, just like today, Chicago’s baseball fan base heavily favored the North Side.

During the ’20s, 56.6 percent of the 14.4 million total fans that attended baseball games in Chicago did so at Wrigley. In the ’30s, that number rose to a whopping 68.1 percent.

During the 1940s, however, the White Sox gained ground, capturing 44.1 percent of the city’s 16 million total fans. And then, beginning in 1951, when the Sox outdrew the Cubs 1,704,984 to 894,415, Pale Hose Fever took the city by storm – and reigned for 17 consecutive seasons.

In the 1950s, the Cubs posted zero winning seasons, and the Sox attracted 56.5 percent of the city’s 20 million total fans. Then, using the “Go-Go” mojo from their 1959 World Series appearance, the Sox rolled in to the ’60s with eight straight winning seasons (1960-67) and enjoyed 55.2 percent of the city’s 19.6 million total attendance for the decade.

Cubdom comes back

In 1968, however, the city’s passions again began to tilt northward.

That season, the Cubs outdrew the Sox at the gate 1,043,409 to 803,775 – their first such victory since ’50. Then, during 1969, the Cubs reeled in nearly three times as many fans (1,674,993 to 589,546) and turned the table for the 1970s, attracting the exact 55.2 percent of the city’s 24.7 million total fans that the Sox enjoyed a decade before.

When 1980 arrived, however, the Cubs (1,206,776) and White Sox (1,200,365) actually stood neck and neck in fandom, before the Sox once again took control. From 1981 through 1984, the South Side outdrew the North each year, including by a 650,000-fan advantage during the Sox’s AL West-championship season of ’83.

In 1985, however – the year after the Cubs came within one win of reaching the World Series – the North Siders outdrew the Sox 2,161,534 to 1,669,888, and then proceeded to do the same for the next six seasons.

By 1989, the Cubs were more than doubling the Sox’s attendance (2,491,942 to 1,045,651). But then New Comiskey replaced Old in 1991, enabling the Sox to outdraw the Cubs for two straight seasons. Since 1993, however, the Cubs have been King, topping the White Sox in attendance for 17 straight seasons (2010 will make it 18).

But, here’s what’s interesting.

2000s sock it to ’em

In every decade since 1970, the Cubs have drawn a higher percentage of Chicago’s total fans. However, you might be surprised to learn that during the 1980s and ’90s the White Sox actually gained ground.

For the ’70s, the Sox drew 44.8 percent of the city’s total fans, followed by 45.6 percent in the ’80s and 46.3 percent in the ’90s.

But then came 2000-09, a decade in which the White Sox won a World Series, yet somehow lost 4.3 percent of the city’s fan base, as the Cubs attracted 58 percent of the city’s 52.3 million total fans, compared to 53.7 percent in the 10 years before.

Why?

Well, I have my theories, but what I really want to know are yours. Write me at wischlist@gmail.com or comment on my Facebook page at www.facebook.com/wischlist to tell me why you think the Cubs gained so much attendance ground during the 2000s, why the White Sox have served as the city’s No. 2 attraction since the ’60s and why The Cell couldn’t even sell out for August’s Minnesota series.

Armed with your answers, we’ll take another swing at things next week.