Moral debates: July 2008 Archives

Hey Swami:

How bout that Sox fan getting whipped on by a couple of Cub fans -- isn't that story usually the other way around? Should Cub fans be on the lookout for some kind of retaliation?

Mordecai Brown

Dear Three-Finger:

What story could you be referring to? You mean the vicious beating of a Gurnee man at the hands of not one or two but three men? At a toddler's birthday party? Fascinating how this became a Cubs-Sox thing.

But headlines don't lie, do they?

"Cubs Fans Accused of Beating White Sox Fan"

"Cubs-Sox Dispute Turns Ugly, Man Loses Eye"

"White Sox Fan Takes One for the Team; Loses Eye in Rivalry Brawl"

"Rivalry Brawl"? If we were honest about this -- in other words, if the facts got in the way of a good story -- the headlines would read much differently:

"Beer-Muscle Arguments Escalate All Day, End In Felony Charges"

"Trailer-Trash Behavior Glamorized by Media"

"Binge-Drinking Produces the Expected Results"

"Battery Story Moves From Page 18 to Page 1 Thanks to Minor Detail"

As to your question about whether or not this will produce a retaliatory response somewhere south of Madison Street, the crystal ball tells us that ... hmmm ... headline writers are going to be busy before this long, hot summer is over.

Dear Swami:

I'm planning to head out to the Chain Saturday to check out the Sand Bar Party, because I read where "Girls Gone Wild" is filming out there. Anyways, now my girlfriend is all mad at me. I tried to tell her it's all in fun, but she whipped a plastic cup at me. What should I tell her?

Ducking in Deerfield

Dear Duck:

You seem to have confused The Swami for Miss Lonelyhearts, but your topic is too good to kick aside. When it comes to "Girls Gone Wild," the world seems to be of two minds:

1) There is nothing wrong with a display of the adult female form if it is done willingly,

or 2) People who participate in this stuff are dumbing us down to the Stone Age.

The truth of the matter, as we all must admit, is that this is a classic case of both sides being 100 percent right. As an experiment, run that one past your girlfriend, and see if any more cups get whipped at you.

P.S. If you do go out there, try not to stare.

Today's news: Waukegan to renew bid for 10th casino license.

Tomorrow's news, via the crystal ball of The Swami: Waukegan will be awarded the vacant casino license by the Illinois Gaming Board ... hmmm, let us see ... sometime between Halloween and Thanksgiving.

This forecast is based on, well, the visions seen in the crystal ball. But also on a logical process of eliminating the competition.

Rosemont won't get the license for the same reason it's up for grabs four years after Rosemont was (almost) awarded the license -- everyone from unpopular Gov. Rod Blagojevich to your next U.S. Senator from Illinois, Lisa Madigan, doesn't want Rosemont to get it. If they did, slot jockeys would be bleeding nickels on River Road as of this moment.

Country Club Hills, Summit and everyone else south of the Ike/Ron Reagan won't get a casino for five reasons -- Aurora, East Chicago, Gary, Hammond and Joliet, which between them have seven casinos to serve the Chicago Southland, as they call it down there.

Communities outside the Chicago metropolitan area? Don't even come to the table. The last time the license went up for auction, three companies put up a total of $1.5 billion worth of bids to put a casino north of I-80 and east of the Tri-State. The state is banking on more of the same action.

This brings us to Des Plaines, the sleeper candidate that, technically, finished ahead of Waukegan in the Great Casino License Fiasco of 2004. What will put Waukegan ahead this time around? Two things: First and foremost, Illinois has been leaking gamers into Milwaukee, and the Prairie State power brokers want this to stop.

And two, because this 11-year melodrama -- complete with court battles and multi-million-dollar auctions and allegations of mob ties -- has to have a more exciting ending than Des Plaines.