Before yesterday's announcement about the 16 new associate judge selections, I was working with the overflowing comments box, trying to figure out a way to get more comments in and trying to keep the conversation civil.
Unfortunately (for me), upon reflection I have to agree with this anonymous commenter:
And I also agreed with Anon 5/21 @6:35 a.m. who commented on last Friday's civility post, in pertinent part:
And if the tone here sometimes is 'pompous windbag,' I'm sorry for that, too.
On mornings like this, I'm also sorry I didn't convert this blog into one chronicling the White Sox rebuild.
You see, as much as I thought the comment box was full of difficulties before the AJ announcement came out, things really got challenging after.
Once again, I'm faced with the question of weighing the 'news value' of comments against their venom content.
There's news value, I believe, in a comment like this one (part of a longer comment I passed through this morning):
This was also part of a much longer comment passed through --
But let's look at some additional facts.
Some of the African-American finalists may have encountered difficulty with some 'progressive' interests. The former head of IPRA didn't make it? Well, IPRA is now COPA because, in some circles, including among many African-Americans, IPRA was too lenient in cases of alleged police misconduct. And the candidate in question was head of OPS, not IPRA, anyway, but that distinction seems to have been lost.
And, yes, two of the four appointed judges who did not get selected are African-American. But the very progressive Injustice Watcharticle on yesterday's AJ results dredged up -- again -- that one of those candidates had a prior (prior, meaning in the past) problem with one bar group rating, while the other had a decade-old censure on his record -- one fully disclosed and vetted by every bar group, which found that candidate qualified or better.
Also, while only one African-American male will be included with this class (the winner of the runoff), the class includes two past presidents of the Asian American Bar Association; at least two Hispanics, one of whom was formerly president of the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois; and one openly gay person.
This Tweet was posted yesterday afternoon by the Diversity Foundation:
There are a number of other comments you won't be reading, in whole or in part. Some person, or some people, really have it in for one of the new AJs. There are some particularly nasty anti-Burke and anti-Evans comments. Here's a fraction of one comment that ventures a prediction on the mayoral race, based on the outcome of the AJ balloting:
Unfortunately (for me), upon reflection I have to agree with this anonymous commenter:
Jack: You are partly to blame for what you perceive to be this lack of civility. Over the years you let slide plenty of snide and backhanded slights clearly targeted against candidates by opponents of other enemies. That emboldened them to continue and increase with even greater levels of toxicity. Not saying it’s right, but you set the tone of this blog. Not jerks with grudges. If you don’t like the comments, flush them. But the reality is that the comments reveal more truth about the tone and tenor of these campaigns than most people realize.I couldn't run the entire comment... because it thereafter took a left turn into a personal slam against a particular judge.
And I also agreed with Anon 5/21 @6:35 a.m. who commented on last Friday's civility post, in pertinent part:
The bottom line is, it's your blog. If you don't moderate, that's a choice and you own the comments as part of your content. If you do moderate, there's no place to hide - you have chosen to let the comment on your site. So you really do have to protect the tone and quality.I think this person has it right, as opposed to another commenter on that post who suggested that the 'problem would be solved' by either flushing everything... or letting everything in.
And if the tone here sometimes is 'pompous windbag,' I'm sorry for that, too.
On mornings like this, I'm also sorry I didn't convert this blog into one chronicling the White Sox rebuild.
You see, as much as I thought the comment box was full of difficulties before the AJ announcement came out, things really got challenging after.
Once again, I'm faced with the question of weighing the 'news value' of comments against their venom content.
There's news value, I believe, in a comment like this one (part of a longer comment I passed through this morning):
If you got elected in 2012, you'll be out of a job come the first Monday in December, 2018. We have already called the Sun-Times, the Tribune and the Defender to let them know what your did. You dissed a Blacke female AUSA, the former head of IPRA and the former CCBA President, in addition to two (2) sitting black judges. You messed with the wrong ones this time! Remember, the retention ballot is a countywide ballot -- and black folks are done being dissed by the Circuit Court of Cook County.And that's pretty typical of several of the comments I put through this morning.
This was also part of a much longer comment passed through --
Why do you think that Toni sent that notice earlier this year about submitting credentials to the party for retention slating. Yep, bingo, THIS right here, is why she did it. Toni cannot reform the Cook County Courts by just electing a State's Attorney. Nope, she needs to move on with the judges -- ALL OF THEM!So, if you scroll down to yesterday's post, you'll see some very angry comments.
But let's look at some additional facts.
Some of the African-American finalists may have encountered difficulty with some 'progressive' interests. The former head of IPRA didn't make it? Well, IPRA is now COPA because, in some circles, including among many African-Americans, IPRA was too lenient in cases of alleged police misconduct. And the candidate in question was head of OPS, not IPRA, anyway, but that distinction seems to have been lost.
And, yes, two of the four appointed judges who did not get selected are African-American. But the very progressive Injustice Watcharticle on yesterday's AJ results dredged up -- again -- that one of those candidates had a prior (prior, meaning in the past) problem with one bar group rating, while the other had a decade-old censure on his record -- one fully disclosed and vetted by every bar group, which found that candidate qualified or better.
Also, while only one African-American male will be included with this class (the winner of the runoff), the class includes two past presidents of the Asian American Bar Association; at least two Hispanics, one of whom was formerly president of the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois; and one openly gay person.
This Tweet was posted yesterday afternoon by the Diversity Foundation:
Congratulations to DSF Committee Members, Jeffrey G. Chrones, Lisette Mojica and Daniel Trevino, on receiving sufficient votes to become eligible for appointment to the office of associate judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Congrats to their families as well.
— Diversity Foundation (@DSFchicago) May 21, 2018
There are a number of other comments you won't be reading, in whole or in part. Some person, or some people, really have it in for one of the new AJs. There are some particularly nasty anti-Burke and anti-Evans comments. Here's a fraction of one comment that ventures a prediction on the mayoral race, based on the outcome of the AJ balloting:
Wow, such a strong showing of black unity amongst the IJC. Now I know how Rahm is going to win again.And, in a mark of 'success' -- I suppose that's how I have to view it -- I seem to have attracted my very own troll:
FWIW has jumped the shark folks. Jack cut a deal with the supremes to get an appointment, so no more honest comments. Time to start a new blog.Let me know when you start it up, Troll. Meanwhile, Birmingham lost again yesterday, and Eloy Jiménez went 1 for 4, but that one was his eighth homer.