Thin Ice

I type this on the eve of Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals between the Chicago Blackhawks and Philadelphia Flyers. The Blackhawks have a 3-2 lead and if they win on Wednesday night, in Philadelphia, they will capture the Stanley Cup, for the first time since 1961. This is a pretty big deal.

The competition between the two teams has been quite heated at times -- the two teams have been playing very scrappy, tough hockey, leaving quite a bit of blood and sweat on the ice.

One of the more renown players on the Flyers is Chris Pronger, a well-traveled NHL player, who is tough, (some might say dirty), scrappy, and smart; the sort of player who gets away with a lot because he is nice to the officials, and who fans of every other team hate, but they'd take him on their club in a second.

During the last game, at the United Center in Chicago, Blackhawks fans showed their displeasure with Pronger by booing every time he touched the puck. Silly, maybe, but harmless, really.

Not so harmless was the Photoshopped poster of Pronger in Tuesday's Chicago Tribune. The poster referred to him as "Chrissy" and the Tribune "artist" who produced the picture put Pronger in a pair of women's figure skating tights -- all together, it insinuated that Pronger was a sissy, or a woman, or a fag, or somehow not a real man. That's the impression that I got, and as much as the people at the Tribune might deny it, that's the impression many got. This is the "journalistic" equivalent of shouting, "Pronger, you fag!"

I was instantly infuriated once I saw this poster. So infuriated that when I got home from work I didn't just put it up on my Facebook page or e-mail it to a bunch of people, I called the Tribune Sports department because I had one question, above all else: What was the point of this poster?

To their credit, the folks at the Trib seemed to be expecting my call (I wonder how many calls like mine they got on Tuesday). I was put on hold briefly, then a polite gentleman (I did not get his name) answered and after I told him about my objections to the poster, he said, "The point was just to try to have a little fun with who Chris Pronger was." he talked about Pronger's reputation and how Hawks fans hate him, and I told him that I am aware of that, because I am a Blackhawks fan, but that the poster was really offensive. He apologized and said that it was not their intention to offend women or gays or figure skaters or anyone else beyond Mr. Pronger (well, you failed at that, didn't you, Mister?). He then thanked me for calling and said they appreciated that I called and that I read the paper and that I listened to him. He did not give me the brushoff -- maybe that was because I did not get angry at him and I tried to be polite, though my voice was shaking at times. I then told him that I appreciated that he took the time to explain it to me and answer my question, though I still did not like that poster.

Not only is this in poor taste, but it only emboldens the meatheads who yell stuff such as "Pronger (or Crosby or Ovechkin or Thornton, et al) you fag!" at Blackhawks games. I know this because I have been there for games when, after scoring on the Blackhawks, these players have been treated to the above cries. (As if it makes it easier for one team's fans to deal with if they call the player that just scored on their team a fag.)

The good news is that most of the comments I saw on the Trib's website, as well as on some other blogs, really gave the Tribune hell for this boorish, stupid, juvenile, homophobic, misogynistic poster. The bad news is that it ever saw the light of day in the first place. I hope the sounds of the phone calls from angry readers are still ringing in the ears of the Tribune's sports editors.

'Royko Was a Prick'

I don't quite understand the fascination and reverence that many people of Chicago, whether they are journalists, would-be journalists, or media junkies, have for Mike Royko. Royko is the legendary Chicago newspaper columnist who got his real start in Chicago reporting at the City News Bureau of Chicago, then worked for the Daily News, Sun-Times and Tribune, writing some 7,000 columns over a 30-year career, exposing government corruption, taking on City Hall, and writing about other passions, such as the Chicago Cubs and 16-inch softball. His book, "Boss," about Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago, is a classic, and showed the mayor as corrupt and racist, and I treated that book as a bible of sorts when i was in high school and college. He's also famous for drinking at the also legendary Billy Goat Tavern.

People speak of Royko as a Catholic would speak of the pope or President Kennedy, as some speak of Sinatra, as basketball fans speak of Michael Jordan, as boxing fans speak of Muhammad Ali -- he was the greatest, there will never be another like him, you all could learn a thing or two by watching him, etc. People name their dogs after Royko. When some get pissed off at a present day newspaper reporter or columnist, they sometimes resort to saying things like (I paraphrase), "Royko was the last great reporter in this town, the rest of you suck." People still are drawn to the Billy Goat, as they were when he was alive, because they want to be in the place where he spent so many thousands of hours drinking, getting into scuffles and hitting on other guys' wives and girlfriends.

He may have been a great newspaperman, but by some accounts, the guy was a first-class prick. A year or two ago, when I heard a radio interview with Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg, who has had his own obstacles to deal with in his personal life (which you can read about in his book, "Drunkard"), in which he was asked about Royko, someone whom he spent some bar time with at the Goat, and Steinberg stated, "Royko was a prick." And by all accounts, Royko was an unpleasant person to encounter. (Maybe someone who knew him will disagree, that's fine. I never met him and can't say I regret that.)

Then, while bouncing around on the Internet today, I found that Jerry Pritikin, aka "The Bleacher Preacher," has a blog (he doesn't update often, but it is a blog nonetheless). Pritikin, now in his 70s, is a lifelong Cubs fan, a photographer by trade, and is also gay. In a piece he wrote (with photos which you should take a look at) for the Beachwood Reporter in 2008, Pritikin wrote of something he saw one summer day in the 1970s on Chicago's North Side lakefront (then and now, a place where gays liked to gather).

Pritikin saw a handful of police cars and bunch of cops "raid" the beach all because a young blond man in a Speedo was selling sandwiches on the beach, without a license to do so. Yeah, selling sandwiches without a license got nine cops to respond to the beach that day and arrest the guy.

Pritikin, who was visiting from San Francisco (he's lived in SF and Chicago) at the time, found a pay phone nearby and called the Daily News, where Royko was working at the time, and asked to speak to Royko, "who I had heard was always willing to go to bat for the little guy.

"I was connected to him and he listened my story and when I was finished Mike Royko said to me loud and clear:

'They should arrest all the faggots!'

And then he hung up."

So, you know, forgive me for not genuflecting at the altar of Royko the next time he is brought up in conversation or I remind you of how much of a prick this guy must have been when you ask me if I want to be like Royko or you assume that I ask St. Royko for journalistic guidance every day when I leave for work.

With Friends Like These ...

The California Supreme Court Thursday ruled that according to the state's Constitution, same sex couples cannot be denied the right to marriage. The arguments for and against the decision are predictable, in that gays and lesbians in California, and perhaps the rest of the nation, now have some degree of acknowledgment that they are human beings with the same inalienable rights as anyone else, and those who are against equal marriage rights will rail against "activist judges" and whatnot, and will simply redouble their efforts to somehow knock equal marriage off the books in California, as well as dig in and do whatever they can to prevent it from ever happening in the other 48 states (Massachusetts excluded for the time-being).

One arena, however, where the reaction is a surprise is among certain "liberals" and "progressives." A prime example of supposed liberals ready to throw the gays under the bus should the Democratic party blow another presidential election this year is The New Republic's Josh Patashnik.

Writing in TNR's blog "The Plank," Patashnik, a "not that there's anything wrong with that" sort of liberal, opens his ridiculously uninformed post by sighing, "Another Year, Another Gay Marriage Ruling." As if to say, "ho hum, big deal, yadda yadda yadda, there goes the annual gay parade again."  

Essentially, what Patashnik, who quickly tries to dispel any notion that he is not enlightened by stating, "as a Californian, I'm quite pleased that my state now recognizes gay marriages," believes, is that this is a matter that should not have been decided by the court, but by voters. Does this not sound like the argument that people like George W. Bush, John McCain, et al, say when talking about "gay marriage"? (Oh, and by the way, Josh, it's not "gay  marriage." It's just, plain, "marriage." There is no such thing as "black marriage," "atheist marriage," "elderly marriage," or anything like that. It's just marriage.) The Republicans and others against equal marriage twist and shout about "activist judges." But these Supreme Court judges were elected by the voters! This is why, in a republic such as ours, we elect people to serve us in the courts and legislatures -- to represent the people who elected them to serve, and the judges in California have done just that.

I paraphrase here, but the argument among these types seems to be, "Can't you just wait until the old people who hate gays die off and the enlightened population votes to make 'gay marriage' legal?" This is really easy to say -- if you're not gay or lesbian and if you already have the option of marriage (as well as the associated health care and tax benefits) available to you. Why do they even dare to suggest this? What are they afraid of? Could it be ...  

Patashnik, as well as some of the folks who have commented on his column, also are already polluting the waters of defeat by suggesting this could fuel the energies of otherwise uninterested and nearly defeated Republicans, evangelicals and other social regressives by propelling them into the streets and voting booths this year, leading, eventually, to a Republican presidential victory in November.  

Ah, so there we are. These spineless, frightened "liberals" are so insecure and unsure of the ability of a Democrat to win presidential election in November that they have already started to blame the gays for the loss. Stop the presses, we need to add a new chapter to "Profiles in Courage." 

Patashnik's defeatism is astounding. Throughout his piece he is of the opinion that (and I paraphrase again) "it'll all be voted down anyway" or "the evil conservatives and god-believers will just get angry and try even harder to deny you what you want." You know what, Josh, they hate us now, they hated us for awhile, and marriage or no marriage, they're gonna hate us for some time to come. Have you seen any of those stories from places like Pennsylvania and West Virginia about the Democratic primaries, and how people shout things like, "Hang that darkie from a tree!" and they believe that, according to the Bible, when a Muslim -- they're talking about Obama here -- becomes president of the United States, the world will end in an apocalyptic war? This, a good 150 years after slavery was ended and blacks were freed. But there are white people who still hate them, who will still vote against them, and who are only stopped from hurting them, killing them, or denying them a job or a home because of their color because there are laws against such things. (That's right, ours is a society based on law, not voter referendum.) 

Aside from those misgivings, Patashnik also believes that this judicial action just won't feel right to anyone who wants equal marriage. He says, "My fear is that judicial involvement here will always taint a victory that might otherwise have been achieved through democratic means." That's the way to stand up for what's right, Josh! Hooray for you! Just imagine if President Lincoln had told the nation that he believed slavery was wrong, but he didn't want to taint the freedom of African-Americans by getting the executive or judicial branches involved, so the repeal of slavery should just be left up to voters in each of the states. And when did the big national referendum on Black-White and Christian-Jew marriages take place? Must have been before I was born -- I don't remember that. Of course people like him can say "just wait" -- because they don't have to!

No doubt Patashnik, who says he's soooo happy that California now has "gay marriage" on the books also claims some "gay friends," but my, what a timid friend he must be.