Yesterday, the beloved Chicago Cubs did something really classy -- the offered a special, engraved World Series ring to Steve Bartman.  

Bartman, you will likely recall, is the Cubs fan who reached out to grab a baseball during a 2003 playoff game and was believed at the time to have interfered with the Cubs outfielder at a critical point in the game, with only five outs left to get to the World Series, and the team ultimately lost, of their own accord.  The outfielder later acknowledged he didn't think he could have caught the ball anyway, but by then it was too late -- Bartman's life was totally mucked up, not just by far many idiot fans, but even some media.  One shameful newspaper even printed his home number.  The national press chided him.  Jimmy Kimmel sent a pizza to his house.  Gov. Jeb Bush offered him asylum in Florida.  ESPN made a documentary on the story.  The result is that he basically went into hiding and hasn't even made any public statement despite several efforts by the Cubs to bridge the gap.  It's been the subject of a lot of humor over the years, but I've never found it remotely funny.  The poor guy had his life run over by a bulldozer.  And all he did was try to catch a foul ball.

But as wonderful and classy as the Cubs offering a special World Series ring to Steve Bartman is, just as  wonderful and classy is that...Steve Bartman made his first public statement in 14 years and accepted the ring -- and did so incredibly graciously.
​
Here's what the Cubs wrote in offering the special World Series ring.

"On behalf of the entire Chicago Cubs organization, we are honored to present a 2016 World Series championship ring to Mr. Steve Bartman. We hope this provides closure on an unfortunate chapter of the story that has perpetuated throughout our quest to win a long-awaited World Series. While no gesture can fully lift the public burden he has endured for more than a decade, we felt it was important Steve knows he has been and continues to be fully embraced by this organization. After all he has sacrificed, we are proud to recognize Steve Bartman with this gift today."

This is that gift.
​

But all the better, as I said, here is how Steve Bartman responded to the Cubs giving him the ring.  It was his first public statement since 2003.
​

That's a fine statement.

It even went on a little bit further, as Bartman also expressed his thanks to the entire Ricketts family, the Cubs president of business operations Crane Kenney, and the team president Theo Epstein, as well as the entire Cubs organization for the gift and "for providing the City of Chicago and Cubs fans everywhere an unforgettable World Championship in 2016."

And he closed with. "I am happy to be reunited with the Cubs family and positively moving forward with my life."

The Cubs first World Series in 108 years keeps getting better.  A joy to Cubs fans and an added pleasure for how annoying this must be to St. Louis Cardinals fans that it just keeps going on and on...

Today was "Go to a Cubs game at Wrigley Field Day."  I always judge a visit to Wrigley as a success by one of two criteria.  The first is if the Cubs win.  They didn't, they lost 5-3 against Colorado, but it was a fun game, down to the Cubs having the bases loaded in the ninth inning.  The second criteria is if I don't splash mustard on my pants and shirt.  I didn't -- so at least in part it was a successful day!

The thing that I especially love about Wrigley Field is not the grace and Old World charm of the architecture, which I do love, but it's location.  In most of the world, cities build their stadium in some out of the way location where they can clear a lot of land, not just for the structure but also for parking.  But Wrigley Field is in the middle of a residential, tree-lined neighborhood of brownstones.  You're wandering along the sidewalk, turn a corner and then suddenly this ballpark sprouts up in front of you..
​

​This is behind the ballpark, and that ahead is Sheffield Avenue, which borders the park behind right field.  Heading off to tiyr right would be Waveland Avenue behind the left field bleachers.  Up in the right corner you can just barely see the edge of famous manual scoreboard.

However, going to the ballgame wasn't the only treat of the visit to Wrigley -- or even the best.  The other day, I wrote here about my cousin Diana Leviton Gondek and how she had been commissioned to do a painting for the 50th anniversary of the Special Olympics.  And I mentioned she had recently be commissioned by the City of Chicago to make another Honor Horse sculpture as a tribute to fallen policeman, her third.  They had a ceremony for it at the 19th Precinct.

Well, it turns out that the 19th Precinct is at 850 Addison -- and Wrigley Field is 1060 Addison!  So, I took the L in early -- it stops a block from the ballpark -- and walked a couple blocks to the precinct station.  I proudly introduced myself as "cousin of the artist," and they were all gracious, and told me to make sure to tell my cousin how much they love the sculpture.  

As I told Diana, I would bring a painting of oats for it.  It was most appreciative.

​The elves taking care of the homestead were very disappointed they couldn't be there, too, because they wanted to take a ride on the horsey...

Usually when I head downtown into the city when I come to Chicago, I go to the Art Institute which tends to preclude me going to one of the restaurants I like.  I tend to get to the museum in the late morning, and it's just too inconvenient to leave mid-visit for lunch and then return back afterwards to the rest of the paintings.  This time, though, I decided to change my schedule a bit and took the L in to arrive around 11:15 so that I could go to The Berghoff for a very early lunch, and then go to the Art Institute after, which is only about two blocks away.

The Berghoff is a Chicago classic in every true sense of the word.  It's been there on Adams Street for a long time.  No, seriously long.  For 119 years, since 1898.

It's a German restaurant, and you really feel a sense of heading back into time when you walk in, though there's nothing musty about the place.  It's just Old World.  They keep it as fresh as reasonable, although walking back in -- I haven't been there in decades -- was totally family.  The only surface differences I noticed is that they now have women waitresses, and all the waiters were under the age of 60.

 
(Yes, it's empty here, but remember -- I said I got there a little after 11:15.  The place was much more full by the time that I left...)

The Berghoff makes its own beer, so I got a couple of samplers of the Original and the dark.  They also make their own bread, of give you a sort of "snifter" of pumpernickel, rye and some other.  And I othered the bratwurst, which I love.  It was all delicious.  

​Great to be back.

And then on to the Art Institute.  It's quite an amazing place, as I've mentioned.  Not just for the collection, which is remarkable, but how meticulously and thoughtfully it's all laid out.

When I was there last time, one of their famous paintings, American Gothic, was touring on loan.  I was hoping it would be back by now, but I was told I was three days too early, that it wasn't due until June 11.  However, when I got to the American Paintings of the early 1900s area...it was there!  Huzzah.  

But the real treat was that they have another famous American painting on loan right now, that I had no idea was there.  It's owned by the Paris Museum, and rarely seen in the U.S. -- in fact, it hasn't been at the Art Institute in 60 days.  But when I walked up the stairs to the American section, I saw a big sign for it.

I think there's a good chance you'll probably recognize it.  (Please excuse the reflection.) --
​

In the little description for "Whistler's Mother" next to the painting, there's a a great quote from James MacNeil Whistler.  It turns out that he acknowledged it was probably his best painting, not just his most famous, and he was pleased by it.  The quote was something like.  "When you're going to do a painting about your mummy, it's such a good thing when it's so nice."

​All in all a good day.

And it's rare when the elves taking care of the homestead ever get jealous, but they did today.  In large part, though, that's because they really love pumpernickel.

Big congrats to my cousin Diana Leviton Gondek, who was commissioned to do a painting for the Special Olympics on the occasion of the organization's 50th anniversary. About a month ago, she presented the work to the national chairman of the Special Olympics, Timothy Shriver.  And it's on its way to Washington, D.C.  (I think it's taken a while for them to find enough bubble wrap.)

She's a unique artist, and you can see her work here (and can even contact her from her website. She's very friendly... )  No, this below is not the commissioned work for the Special Olympics.  It's from the homepage of her website.
​

I've mentioned one of her brothers here a few times in the past, Peter, most notably for his picture in a hard hat on the field at Wrigley Field during remodeling construction before last season began, which has prompted him to suggest that he's responsible for the Cubs winning the World Series after 108 years.  However, Diana insists that he has the story all wrong.  After all, she notes that she was commissioned in 2015 (the year before the World Series season) to design one of her "Charity Horses" for the Chicago Police Department's 19th district station, which is only four blocks from Wrigley Field.  And after the artwork was presented to the station, which is situated in the Cubs' own precinct, the Cubs on the World Series, which is why she claims that she is the person responsible for the victory.  

(That's her to the left of Ald. Tom Tunney -- who commissioned the work -- at the presentation, substantiating her claim as evidence that the victory horse replaces the cursed goat.)

Another of her stable of three Honor Horses (made on behalf of fallen Chicago police officers) sits in Mayor Rahm Emmanuel's office.

I'm planning a trip to back Chicago in next month, so I wanted to check what theater is going on in the city, since it's usually so vibrant.  There are some interesting productions, including the Lyric Opera putting on a My Fair Lady (which is probably a wonderful stage, though I thought it was an odd choice when they announced it last year), and the Court Theatre putting on Harvey, one of my favorites.  And two of their companies that have won Tony Awards for Best Regional Theaters have interesting productions -- the Goodman Theatre has Pamplona with Stacy Keach as Ernest Hemingway and the Lookingglass Theatre is putting on Moby Dick.  (This must be their year for doing adventure shows about the ocean, since later in the season they have a stage version of, of all things, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.  No word yet if they will be providing the audience scuba gear.)

But it's another of the city's Tony winners for Best Regional Theatre, the Chicago Shakespeare Theater which has a play that most intrigues me.  Not just for what it is, but that it's an ideal venue for it.  A stage adaptation of the Oscar-winning film, Shakespeare in Love.  This isn't a premiere -- it opened in the West End of London, and played at the Ontario Shakespeare Festival in 2014.  But as far as I know it's the first production in the U.S.  The stage version was adapted by Lee Hall, whose many works include the films War Horse and Billy Elliot, which he adapted for the stage musical.

I don't know if I'll be able to make it to any of these shows -- or elsewhere -- since my schedule isn't all worked out yet.  But here's a trailer of sorts of Shakespeare in Love, which got a very nice review by the Chicago Tribune's , critic who had also seen the show in Canada and hadn't liked the staging there but found this version much more lively.  

Mark Evanier has a very good piece here that looks at pressures that could lead to either Trump's impeachment or resignation, observing the similarities and differences between the current crises and Watergate.  He talks about Republicans in Congress and how, during Watergate, it was their concern at getting re-elected which was a critical point in pushing them to supporting impeachment hearings.  This has been my wholehearted belief, as well, and I've felt so since the beginning of the Trump Great Unraveling.

He has one passage, though, which -- while making complete sense -- I'm not sure sure if I agree with, though purely because of personal experience.  He writes -- "It may not play out quite that way with Trump because due to gerrymandering and polarization, more Republicans are probably in 'safe seats' and less afraid of losing them." 

While I do fully agree with that in theory -- and in some reality, since he's quite right that gerrymandering and polarization have both definitely increased in the intervening 40 years -- my own personal perspective says otherwise.  Let me explain:

I grew up in an extremely Republican Congressional district, in the northern suburbs of Chicago.  There were several liberal patches, but mostly it wasn't just Republican but conservative.  Very conservative.  No gerrymandering was needed to make it more so.  It was conservative Republican, period.

How much so?  When I was a kid, our Congressman was Donald Rumsfeld.  Yes, that Donald Rumsfeld.  (It was the 13th District, as appropriately-numbered as could be.)  The only reason he left the office was because he was hired by the Nixon Administration to head the Office of Economic Opportunity (can you imagine?!), which was Cabinet rank. While you would think it would be a joy to finally have him gone -- no, no, you have forgotten that this was, is a very conservative district.  And so, worse -- if that would seem possible -- to replace him the district next elected a fellow named Philip Crane, a man so right-wing he made Rumsfeld look semi-moderate. (Really.  I've talked to people from elsewhere in the country who, 30 years later, remembered hearing of Crane and how profoundly conservative he was.)  Redistricting fortunately moved him into an even more conservative district.  I'd say that this was a relief, but then openings for Congressman got us Phillip Crane after Donald Rumsfeld, so one didn't inherently look forward to such things.

The point is that this was a deeply Republican and conservative district.  Almost as safe a red district as you could imagine.  And that meant that with its House seat now open, it was easy pickings.

But then Watergate hit, all the Republican scandals followed, Administration officials went to jail, Vice President Agnew had resigned, and Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace.

In the midst of this highly-conservative district, the very liberal and quite wonderful Abner Mikva ran for this 13th District opening to the House of Representatives.  And (are you ready?), he actually won the profoundly red district in a squeaker.  In fact, he was so well-regarded that he even won re-election two years later. But it was another intensely-close race, decided again in the hundreds of votes I think, and it being such a conservative area, he knew it would never be a safe seat, so when new President Jimmy Carter offered him a federal judgeship -- a lifetime appointment -- he wisely took it.  It was a loss for our district's loss, but a good thing for the American judicial system.

(Actually, you probably know of Abner Mikvah.  Some people I've spoken to three decades later remember him on purely political  grounds.  But there's another reason.  As I wrote here a while back -- If you've seen the movie, Dave, with Kevin Kline as a look-alike to the president, you will no doubt recall the final scenes that come after the real, and crooked president has passed away.  And so, the admirable Vice President is sworn into office on the White House lawn by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  It's a tiny moment in the film -- but the Chief Justice is played by...Abner Mikvah!)

The point here is that, while I agree with the assessment that gerrymandering and polarization has made seats much safer today than during Watergate, I always remember that during Watergate that 13th district was as safely Republican and conservative as a Republican could wish.  And it not only voted for a Democrat during the GOP scandal meltdown, but for an especially-liberal Democrat.  That's how outraged the public was.

That may not happen in today's landscape.  But if I was a Republican, I wouldn't count on it.  Besides, it's important to remember this, too:  there are 24 Republican districts that are considered "at risk," not remotely safe.  If only those 24 change and go Democratic, then the House of Representatives switches to Democratic control.  And there are 214 other Republican seats at the moment, on top of those 24 at risk.  The Senate only has to flip three seats.  It's true that more Democratic Senate seats are up for election than Republican, but then Democrats aren't facing massive political scandal...

So, who knows.  But it's important to remember the Lesson of Abner Mikvah.  And that lesson is not just that a very liberal Democrat won in a deeply conservative Republican district the last night a president's entire administration was embroiled in massive scandal, leading to resignation, but that in Hebrew, a "mikvah" is a ritual bath of cleansing.

Back in October, 2013, I saw an offbeat production at the Writers Theatre in Glencoe, Illinois which was one of their rare shows brought in from an outside company.  It was from The PigPen Theatre Co. called, The Old Man and the Old Moon, and I thought it was wildly inventive, joyously clever and wonderful, writing a long review of the show.  (Several months back, I also wrote here about PigPen's newest show, The Hunter and the Bear, which they put on at the Writers Theatre new venue, and it was a joy, as well.  Not as much as The Old Man and the Old Moon, but still a total pleasure.)

The good news for people in Southern California is that The PigPen Theatre Co. is bringing The Old Man and the Old Moon to the Old Globe Theatre in San Diego.  In fact, it opened a few days ago, on May 13 and runs until June 18.  It's a bit of a drive or train trip from Los Angeles, though people do it all the time, about 2-1/2 hours.  And this isn't a play that you're likely to see other people do.  It's probably PigPen or nobody

Here's the preview trailer for the Old Globe's production, which uses live action, shadow puppetry, offbeat stagecraft and music.  You can get ticket information here.

And here again is that original article I wrote about the show back in 2013 (before the Writers Theatre had built its new, impressive theater center with two stages and an auxiliary arena).

I had lunch with a friend today at the Taste Chicago restaurant in Burbank.  That wouldn't mean much to most people, but it's probably the most low-key celebrity restaurant in the world -- co-owned by actor Joe Mantegna and his wife Arlene.  It's a little joint that seats about 50 people and serves (as the name implies) Chicago food -- Italian beef sandwiches, Chicago-style deep dish pizza, and Chicago hot dogs, and more.

While there, Joe Mantegna showed up -- as he apparently does on Fridays, if he isn't filming.  (As do other Chicago actors on occasion.)  And since my friend had directed him in an episode of Criminal Minds, he stopped by for a chat.  I kept quiet for the most part, but since I knew he was a huge Cubs fan (the place has a lot of Cubs memorabilia on the wall, and a big Cubs blue W on the side wall outside, along with other items from Chicago sports), I mentioned often hearing him on Cubs broadcasts when he shows up in the booth.  He smiled and said that in fact he was going to be in the booth and lead the crowd in "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" next Friday, when the Cubs play the Yankees.

​You have your scoop.

I was going out to dinner with a friend the other day, trying to figure out where to eat.  And I started to pine for a place I dearly love in the Chicago suburbs nearby where I grew up, called Charlie Beinlich's.  It's not that there isn't a Charlie Beinlich's in Los Angeles, it's that there isn't a place I know of that's even close to it.  And so I must do without -- but always go there when I return to Chicago.  I've wrote about the place earlier in the year when I was last there, but realized that it deserves more than just a description of lunch -- though for Beinlich's that a fine starting point.

Beinlich's (or to put it properly and in full, Beinlich's Food and Tap) is even a bit odd for Chicago, though it's very Midwestern, and so there are places that are at least somewhat similar.  But Beinlich's is idiosyncratic.  It began life as a truck stop probably at least 60 years ago, probably longer.  (That alone, a 60+ year old restaurant is uncommon.)  Indeed, it's the kind of place that reinforces the cliche that if you want to find the best food in a town, follow where the trucks go to.  (I don't know if the cliche is true, but it sure holds at Beinlich's.)  They actually close for two weeks in the height of summer, during August, so that they can go fishing.  Really -- there's a sign they put out front that pretty much says, "Gone fishing."  For that matter, they're also closed on Sunday, the busiest day of the week for more restaurants.  But like their August closing for fishing, they want their Sunday's off.  Monday's too -- they want their two-day weekend.  And they don't take credit cards.  And Beinlich's being Beinlich's, they don't even list their phone number on their website.  Hey, they've been there for over 60 years.  People know them, there's not much of a reason to call.  But if you do and want take-out, they're in the phone book, look them up.  Or you probably wrote their number down decades ago, it hasn't changed.

The place isn't in Chicago proper, but the northern suburbs, in Northbook on Skokie Highway, not from the the oft-mentioned here Chicago Botanic Gardens and Ravinia Music Festival.  Next door to the town where I grew up, in Glencoe.

Beinlich's is basically a pine log cabin, with mounted fish covering the wall, lots of electric beer displays, and a wall-to-wall oak bar, along with maybe 20 tables at most.  There is a sign when you enter that says, "Food is served for the convenience of our alcohol-drinking patrons" -- in other words, if you're going to eat here, please get a beer.  There are no menus, just a small sign in the corner, but that's all they need because there are only about 10 items they make.

​Beinlich's even still has some staff who I remember from when I first went there when I was eight years old, though at this point it may be down to Andy, who began as a waiter, and is either the general manager at this point, or a part-owner now.  But there are about 3-4 "new" guys which at Beinlich's means they've been there for probably 20 years.  There are also now a couple of actually-recent servers.  And the waiters, bartenders, and bus boys have always, for over half a century, always and only been men.  But the last time I was in they had, for a very first time -- a young woman busing tables.

Lunch usually isn't a big problem, though the place is always full.  But if you show up for dinner too late -- like much past 6:30, the tiny waiting area and tiny enclosed porch is going to be jammed.  That's more of a problem than you think -- remember, this is Chicago.  If you get there too late at night in the winter, you're going to be standing outside in sub-freezing weather.  But people will do just that.  But ultimately, it's not a huge problem, because Beinlich's is fast.  They zip you your food, and when you're done -- whoosh, it's gone.  But somehow magically, you never feel rushed.  It helps that everyone who works there, even when they're in a bit of a hurry, has always been Midwest friendly, and will give you time and chat if you need to.  And if you want to linger a bit, that's okay.  But because there's so much movement around, and a long line, people tend to be polite to others and empty their table.

No, there isn't anything like Charlie Beinlich's in Los Angeles. Or most anywhere.