I finally finished "Mad Men"...

...and I have to say I prefer this commercial for Coke made by the Fortunes.

The Game of the Week...

...is obviously Lincoln-Way East at Maine South on Friday night in Park Ridge. Both squads are undefeated, with the home team Hawks ranked No. 1 in the Tribune and the Sun-Times, and No. 3 in MaxPreps. The visiting Griffins, meanwhile, are ranked No. 2 in the Trib, No. 3 in the Times and No. 15 in MaxPreps. (Did Mike Clark at the Sun-Times deliberately rank the two programs Nos. 1 and 2 this week to gin up interest in the game? Or did they just leapfrog two other teams that lost last week?)

As far as I can tell, the two schools have only met twice since 2004. I think that's because while Maine South is always in 8A, Lincoln-Way East has straddled the line between 8A and 7A. Last year the Griffins competed in 8A, and they won the 8A championship in 2005 over the Hawks in double overtime. (Home team in CAPS.)

2016: Maine South 34, LINCOLN-WAY EAST 31
2005: Lincoln-Way East 30, Maine South 24 (2OT)

(By the way, while tomorrow night's athletes were watching Sesame Street in 2005, Rob Zvonar and Dave Inserra were still the head coaches in that game.)

My prediction: the Hawks are just too strong for the Frankfort squad, especially at home.

In other news, Loyola, who hosts Bishop Amat of California, is in danger of beginning the year at 0-2. (Have the Ramblers ever gotten off to an 0-2 start?) Also, Glenbard North at Waubonsie Valley, and Brother Rice at Crete-Monee, are two more contests that will result in a perennially winning team beginning the season at 0-2. But take heart, guys, Maine South dropped its first two games in 2010 before roaring back to win the 8A title.

I was going to expand...

...on the postscript to my last post sometime in my procrastinating future, but then I read another piece by Damon Linker in The Week (I have to read this guy more often) and got inspired to just get to it right away.

As I said, Donald Trump isn't the main problem in America right now; he's merely a symptom. To paraphrase an old saying: if Trump had not existed it would have been necessary to create him.

For a long time I thought the main problem in America was the Republican Party: how could they nominate someone as clearly unqualified and unfit for the office as this buffoon? (Superdelegates are sure looking smarter and smarter, aren't they?)

But then I thought, no, the Republican Party is merely responding to the right-wing media. How many times have you heard of a "moderate" Republican being afraid of a primary opponent? The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and now Breitbart have handcuffed these otherwise well-meaning individuals.

But then I thought further that Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and the like couldn't exist without a market to support them. While I used to think that the right-wing media created Trump's voters, there had to be some sentiment for all this extremism in the first place. After all, the U.S. is a capitalist country and the market just supplies what the consumer already wants. (Or, as in Apple's case, what the consumer will surely want.)

But that brings us to the real problem in America: about half (probably more) of all white people are just plain bigots who don't like people of color, immigrants, Muslims, uppity feminists, LGBTs, etc. (Have I forgotten anyone?)

Don't believe me? Polls show that not only do most Republicans (who make up about half the country) approve of Donald Trump but they also approve of his response to the events in Charlottesville.

Yesterday David Brooks wrote that "race was the issue that created the Republican Party and that race could very well be the issue that destroys it." And I disagree. I don't think the Republican Party is going to be destroyed; I think it's merely been transformed. And the way it changes is to become a more overtly bigoted party.

Or you could argue that it changed a long time ago and has finally been revealed to be a bigoted party. Brooks argues that:

Most of the Republican establishment, from the Bushes to McCain and Romney, fought bigotry, and racism was not a common feature in the conservative moment.

Really? What about Nixon's Southern strategy? Or Reagan's use of the terms "welfare queen" and "young buck"? What about George H. W. Bush's Willie Horton ad? What about McCain's tolerance for his running mate's bigotry (you know, Obama's "shucking and jiving")? And Romney's embrace of the birther Donald Trump in 2011? Need I go on?

Brooks writes:

In that time, I never heard blatantly racist comments at dinner parties, and there were probably fewer than a dozen times I heard some veiled comment that could have suggested racism.

Well, I know how whites talk about blacks when none are around. And there's still plenty -- plenty -- of racism in America. Is he serious?

Sorry, but Republicans like David Brooks and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are out of step with Trump and the modern-day Republican Party, not the other way around. Brooks writes:

Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not.

Too late. As I argued in my last post, Republicans will vote for Trump and Trumpism rather than any Democrat. Brooks concludes by saying:

It may someday be possible to reduce the influence of white identity politics, but probably not while Trump is in office. As long as he is in power the G.O.P. is a house viciously divided against itself, and cannot stand.

Again, too late. The war is over; the bigots have captured the Republican Party. It will now be an overtly, not just covertly, bigoted party from now on. Is Brooks really so myopic?

Damon Linker has a piece...

...in The Week which warns of something I've been thinking about for a while now: Donald Trump could absolutely win reelection in 2020. In fact, I'd say it's more than likely.

How do we get there? In his piece, Mr. Linker mentions "the combination of polarization and negative partisanship." And he's right. Just think of any Republican that you may happen to know: your Fox News-watching uncle, that co-worker in the next cubicle, etc. They would rather vote for a candidate backed by Russia than one from the Democratic Party. (Remember, Britain sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. Don't you think Southerners would have been more partial to the British than to the North?)

Consider my own brother-in-law. I ran into him in the hotel lobby on the morning of his son's wedding recently and decided to buy him breakfast. (And there was no one else around to eat with.) He and my sister are pretty typical establishment Republicans. I'm sure they liked candidates like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich (not necessarily in that order) in the 2016 primaries. But I have to admit I was a little surprised to hear how anti-Trump he was. (He -- and my sister, I assume -- voted for Gary Johnson.) It kind of conformed with what I already knew about them, and yet they fit the demographic for Trump's voters: although they both graduated from college (and have prospered), they are retired white seniors who mainline Fox News all day long. Oh, and not only do they live in the uber-suburb of Naperville (sorry Ed C.) but they live in a gated community in Naperville. (I always want to ask them what they are so afraid of but I already know the answer: Those People, as Paul Krugman puts it.) Anyway, the point of all this is that even though I didn't argue with him (I've learned that there's simply no use), what I really wanted to ask him was -- under truth serum -- Given a binary choice, who would you have voted for, Trump or Hillary? (Or, who would you vote for today?) But, alas, I already know the answer. Just as the Southerners would have allied with aliens from Mars during the Civil War, so would today's Republicans vote for any Republican -- including someone as unqualified and unfit as Donald Trump -- rather than Hillary or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any Democratic candidate for president. (Yes, Tom T., even Joe Biden.)

But let's walk through my 2020 scenario. Assuming Trump is still around (and I do -- I think he'll fire Mueller eventually and pardon everyone involved in the Russia investigation) he'll enjoy the benefits of incumbency and, let's assume for the sake of argument, a decent economy. Even if Trump gets primaried -- as I expect he will -- he'll still win the Republican nomination. (Who's going to beat him, John Kasich? Please. Trump will crush him like a bug just as he did last time. What's Kasich's big issue, a Balanced Budget Amendment? Good luck finding any economist who will support that.) No, Trump will defeat any hapless primary opponent or opponents just like he did that supposedly "deep bench" in 2016.

So then Trump gets to the general election and faces -- who? Who cares? As Linker writes:

We won't be able to answer that question with great precision until we see which Democrat ends up running against him.

And I say: Baloney! Linker goes on to support my argument (my emphasis):

The Trump campaign (and the RNC, and Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart, and the rest of the right-wing media complex) will work to convince Republican-leaning voters that however much they dislike (or have ambivalent feelings about) Donald Trump, they should hate and fear his opponent far more. "Come home, Republicans!" will be the message. "Yes, it's been a messy four years, but at least Trump isn't one of them!"

That will be the game plan: Demonize the other side so completely that just enough people vote not so much as Republicans but as Anti-Democrats.

Remember, the country is about half Republican, half Democratic. And, just like the last election proved, Republicans come home on Election Day. (Almost the identical percentage of Republicans voted for Trump as did Mitt Romney in 2012.) Finally, from Mr. Linker's piece:

Combine that push with targeted acts of voter suppression in heavily Democratic districts of key swing states, and the effort just might deliver a second term to Donald Trump.

Now one last thought of mine that I think may seal the deal: I always assumed Trump's voters would get wise to him one day, but I've since changed my mind on that. I've been saying that Trump's downfall will come when his voters wake up one day, look in the mirror and say, "Hey, where's that good, high-paying blue collar job that Trump promised me?" Or, "Why hasn't the GM plant in Janesville reopened? Is Trump a -- gulp -- con artist? Have I been had?"

But I don't think that's going to happen anymore. After watching Trump at these rallies (like the one in Arizona recently), I think his voters are going to stay conned. They just have too much invested in him. And Trump's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and they'd stick with him. If GM doesn't reopen that plant in Janesville it will be Paul Ryan's fault, not Trump's. And if they don't get The Wall (which they most certainly won't), it will be Mitch McConnell's fault or the fault of the liberal media or some other convenient scapegoat.

Look, I'm as appalled as anyone at the thought that Trump could win reelection in 2020 and serve two terms as president. But I'm at least getting mentally prepared for it. I'd say it's a better than 50/50 chance.

P. S. What does that say about the United States? That's the subject of another post, but the gist of it is that Trump is a symptom of what's wrong with our country, not the main problem.

Michael O'Brien of...

Bishop Amat.

...the Sun-Times is unhappy about the state of interstate football play. He wrote on Sunday:

Speaking of the difference between basketball and football, take a look at where and who the Super 25 football teams are playing in Week 2.

No. 5 Loyola is hosting a California team. No. 7 Homewood-Flossmoor is playing in North Carolina. No. 8 Marist will be in Indiana and No. 12 Stevenson is hosting a Michigan team.

That just isn’t good for the sport. As Week 1 showed, nothing is better than the best local teams playing each other.

Football scheduling is a mess. Athletic Directors and coaches have numerous problems getting schedules worked out. Sometimes it is a conference issue. Powerhouse programs have trouble getting games because teams need their five wins to get into the playoffs. That leads to scheduling out of state games.

The number five is meaningless. The IHSA needs a new formula to determine which teams make the playoffs, a way to reward teams for playing the best competition. Mount Carmel should have made the state playoffs last year, who cares about five wins. Fix it.

I have no idea about that last paragraph, but as for interstate play, I'm all for it. I for one am curious as to how Illinois football stacks up against other states. Having said that, here's a quick take on those opponents Mr. O'Brien alluded to in the second paragraph.

Bishop Amat (La Puente, CA) at Loyola. The Lancers are 0-1 after having lost, 31-7, last week to Mater Dei. (The Monarchs are ranked No. 1 in the state of California by MaxPreps.) Bishop Amat was 7-4 last year and ranked No. 33 by MaxPreps; the Lancers are currently ranked No. 20.

Homewood-Flossmoor at Southern Durham (Durham, NC). The Spartans are 0-2 and ranked No. 193 in the state of North Carolina by MaxPreps. Last year Southern Durham was 7-5 and ranked No. 125 in the state.

Marist at Mishawaka (Mishawaka, IN). The Cavemen (Cavemen?)* are 1-1 and ranked No. 52 in the state of Indiana by MaxPreps. Last year Mishawaka was 10-3 and ranked No. 23 in the state.

Muskegon (Muskegon, MI) at Stevenson. The Big Reds are 1-0 and ranked No. 6 in the state of Michigan by MaxPreps. Last year Muskegon went 12-2 and also No. 6 in the state.

So whaddaya think for this weekend? I'd say Loyola and Stevenson are underdogs, H-F should be favored with the Marist game a push. If the Illinois teams finish 2-2 that wouldn't be so bad. But if they should happen to go 3-1 or even 4-0 that would have to say something about local football, wouldn't it?

* Isn't the whole state of Indiana populated by cavemen? (Sorry; couldn't resist.)

The Name of the Day...

...is a tie (so far) between Gail Mellow (above), the president of LaGuardia Community College, and Gabriel Tallent (below), a talented young author.

Waubonsie Valley, Glenbard West...

...and Loyola all lost over the weekend, while Prairie Ridge won by only a run point. Other than that, the rest of the top teams in Illinois took care of business in Week One. In the new polls, Maine South took over the top spot in the Tribune and Sun-Times based on its "statement" win over Glenbard West (I was there). Prairie Ridge, meanwhile, kept its No. 1 ranking in MaxPreps.

Glenbard West and Loyola remain in the Chicago papers' top ten due to their "quality" losses (the Ramblers fell to Phillips, 20-14), while Waubonsie dropped out after losing to Lake Park -- who? (The Lancers finished 2-7 last year and were ranked No. 83 in MaxPreps' preseason poll. Ouch!)

Here are the top ten in the three polls I follow, beginning with the preseason rankings. (All teams undefeated unless otherwise noted.) I like to compare the current polls with the preseason ones not to "show up" the pollsters but rather to demonstrate how the rankings -- and teams -- evolve over the course of the season.

WEEK ONE

Tribune:

1. Glenbard West
2. Maine South
3. Waubonsie Valley
4. Lincoln-Way East
5. Prairie Ridge
6. Loyola
7. Lyons
8. Homewood-Flossmoor
9. Naperville Central
10. Lake Zurich

Sun-Times:

1. Prairie Ridge
2. Maine South
3. Loyola
4. Waubonsie Valley
5. Lyons
6. Glenbard West
7. Lincoln-Way East
8. Phillips
9. Homewood-Flossmoor
10. Marist

MaxPreps:

1. Prairie Ridge 
2. Loyola 
3. Marist 
4. Maine South 
5. IC Catholic Prep 
6. East St. Louis
7. Sacred Heart-Griffin 
8. Rochester
9. Lyons
10. Waubonsie Valley 

WEEK TWO

Tribune:

1. Maine South
2. Lincoln-Way East
3. Prairie Ridge
4. Naperville Central
5. Phillips
6. Homewood-Flossmoor
7. Lyons
8. Glenbard West (0-1)
9. Loyola (0-1)
10. Lake Zurich

Sun-Times:

1. Maine South
2. Prairie Ridge
3. Lincoln-Way East
4. Phillips
5. Loyola (0-1)
6. Lyons
7. Homewood-Flossmoor
8. Marist
9. New Trier
10. Glenbard West (0-1)

MaxPreps:

1. Prairie Ridge
2. IC Catholic Prep
3. Maine South
4. Sacred Heart-Griffin 
5. Rochester
6. Marist
7. East St. Louis
8. Lyons   
9. Huntley
10. Benet

P. S. Yes, I stole that picture of Maine South running back Fotis Kokosioulis at the top of this post from the Sun-Times because it's an incredible shot. (And I remember that play -- it was also incredible.) Kudos to photographer Allen Cunningham.