If you come to Chicago there are three facts you need to know:
The Lake is always east.
Never put ketchup on a hot dog.
You can't be a Cubs fan AND a White Sox fan. *
Last week one of our city's favorite events, the "Crosstown Classic", a series between Chicago's two Major League Baseball teams took place at Rate Field (I think that's what they call it these days), on the South Side. Part two of the series will take place at Wrigley Field, on the North Side in August. From what I could tell, Cubs and Sox fans came together and stayed without their profound differences getting in the way of having a good time for all, although there was one ugly incident involving a player and a fan. The fans even found something they could all agree upon, NFL football and Chicago's team, the Bears.
But they didn't outwardly express their love for the hometown team. Instead of roars of "Bear Down", the chant heard 'round the ballpark was "Green Bay Sucks", referring of course to the Chicago Bear's chief nemesis, the Green Bay Packers.
Nothing brings people together more than mutual hatred.
The Bears/Packers rivalry goes back to the origins of the NFL as both teams are charter members of the league. It's a heated rivalry as both teams compete against each other in the same division, their two cities are geographically close and their states border each other.
The Cubs and Sox represent the same city, but they compete in different divisions of different leagues, meaning that unless they are playing each other, the fortune of one team does not adversely affect the fortune of the other. However, the two teams can actually help each other in the standings by defeating division rivals, so for example if the Cubs are playing the Tigers who are in the same division as the Sox, or the Sox play say, the Brewers, in the Cubs division, it makes sense for a Chicago fan to root for their hometown rival against one of their teams' own divisional rivals.
But that doesn't always happen.
Sox fans are fond of saying that their two favorite teams are the White Sox and any team (presumably even a division rival) playing the Cubs. While there is similar animosity on the other side of town, I've never heard a Cubs fan say their second favorite team is any team playing the Sox. The reality is most Cubs fans don't care who's playing the White Sox on any given day unless of course, it's the Cubs.
What the White Sox and Cubs also represent are two distinct parts of the city, the South and the North Sides respectively. South Siders have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to the North Side, as that part of the city tends to get most of the attention, as does its baseball team. It's much like the rivalry between the old Brooklyn Dodgers and the other New York City teams before the Dodgers and the Giants moved to California in 1958. When the Dodgers were founded, Brooklyn was still an independent city. In 1898 when Greater New York City was established uniting the five boroughs, the team (who wasn't yet known as the Dodgers) proudly kept their association with Brooklyn, which has often been treated as the poor step brother of its swankier neighbor across the East River, similar in a way to the relationship between the South Side of Chicago and the North Side.
My son, a Cubs fan, happens to work at Rate Field (what a silly name). He's told me how on many occasions, late in the season when the Sox are out of contention, which in the last few years has been after the Fourth of July**, the fans in the stands, well some of them anyway, openly root against the Sox if they happen to be playing one of the Cubs' division rivals, just to spite their hometown rival.
What dawned on me when he told me that was that these folks' hatred of the Cubs was greater than their love of the White Sox.
It's an old cliché to say that sports are a microcosm of life, but in this case I have to agree.
To put it simply, hate is a stronger, more easily stoked emotion than love, for some people anyway.
It's true in sports, in our relationships with other people, and especially true these days with political ideology.
I recently read a question and answer in an online site. The question was: "Why are we MAGA folks considered idiots by the other side, after all didn't we win the election?"
The answer I read didn't concern itself with the "considered idiots" part, but directly addressed the "we" part.
The responder began by saying: "You, (emphasis mine) did not win the election, the candidate(s) you voted for won the election."
His response didn't include a sports analogy but I will. Voters identifying with a political party are much like fans identifying with a sports team. While I contribute nothing of substance to any sports team, except occasionally paying money to see a game, I still identify with the teams I root for. I may not agree with the choices the front office makes, or the way the team is managed, or the way the players perform on the field, but I still root for them as they are my team win or lose.
While I love my city, from Howard Street on the north to 138th Street on the south, I identify myself as a White Sox fan and not a Cubs fan, thereby declaring my camaraderie with other Sox fans, even though I live a mere three blocks from Howard Street, go figure.
Rivalries are what make sports fandom exciting and fun, and second only to betting, they are the reason why spectator sports exist in the first place.
It's human nature to associate with people who share our values, who think like us, and are "on the same page" in sports as well as in politics.
So I don't have a problem with folks identifying with a political party or ideology.
The problem begins when the hate part comes in.
In sports, as much as we may claim to "hate" our rivals, any sports fan with half a brain knows that without rivals, there would be no game. Without them, our team would have nobody to play. What would be the point of that?
However in politics, especially in the recent several years, the hate is real for so many of our fellow Americans who believe, (thanks in part to politicians who stoke fear and hatred) that the people on the other side are trying to destroy our country. Therefore they are the enemy, and should be put down by any means possible.
Sports fans who understand the true nature of "hating" a rival team, whether they admit it or not, are fans of the game first, followed by being fans of a particular team. Win or lose we root for them, but if our team does something to hurt the game, as the 1919 Chicago White Sox did by having members of that team throw the World Series for money, it is perfectly reasonable to stop supporting them, at the very least until they clean up their act.
What the responder to that online question was getting at is that in American politics, we may identify with a party, movement or ideology, but it's important to remember that we are Americans first. And when the party or movement you identify with does something to hurt our country such as wage insurrections and illegal wars, making a direct assault of the free press, declaring that everyone on the other side is an "enemy of the republic" just to name a few, it is incumbent on the movement's followers as Americans first, to step back and say no.
There is certainly room for debate on some of the issues I bring up, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone, even the most self-interested voter, could be oblivious to the rampant inflation caused by this president's dubious and illegal war with Iran, never mind the unconscionable suffering this war has brought to so many people.
If the party and ideology I identify with did all that, I would have gotten off the bus years ago.
To use another metaphor, it would have been enough to make a Cubs fan out of me.
* OK I know some of you will get on me for these "facts" so here are a few clarifications:
The Lake is always east unless you are in the extreme southeast neighborhoods of Eastside, Hegewisch and South Deering in which case the Lake is north. And also east.
Yes it's a free world so you can put whatever you want on a hot dog in Chicago, even ketchup. But local food culture is a serious thing here as it is anywhere in the world. Try ordering a pizza with a topping of ham and pineapple in Naples.
Here's a link to a post I wrote in 2011 about a film which centered around perhaps the most important speech ever delivered by a British monarch. The film was appropriately titled The King's Speech and the speech in question was the address delivered over the radio to the people of Great Britain on September 3, 1939 by King George VI, immediately after Britain declared war on Germany, officially marking the start of the Second World War. You can find a recording of the actual speech on that post.
In the last few weeks, I've been obsessing over perhaps the most important speech NEVER given by an English monarch. If you've been following my posts this year, you probably noticed that I'm on a bit of a Shakespeare kick, more than a bit actually. And if you know your Shakespeare, you might be able to guess which speech.
It's a speech you've probably heard in one form or other at some point. If you haven't heard it within its original context of the play King Henry V, you may have heard the St. Crispin's Day Speech performed on its own in any number of other contexts, including several films which feature a character reciting it. Or you may have heard a speech directly influenced by it, perhaps a scene set in a locker room where a coach at half-time motivates the team who is trailing by a seemingly insurmountable lead, or before a battle where a commander encourages the troops to fight on in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Perhaps such a speech was even addressed to you at some point in your life.
In short, Shakespeare's St. Crispin's Speech is the mother of all inspirational/motivational speeches.
Here is a link to the speech from Lawrence Olivier's filmed version of Henry V. That film was made in Britain in 1944 and released to coincide with the Allied invasion of Normandy, intended to boost the morale of the English people.
In the scene, Henry V, affectionately referred to in the play as King Harry, is about to lead his vastly outnumbered army into battle against the French. One of his commanders the Earl of Westmoreland, in conversation with the other commanders, bemoans the uneven sides and wishes for more troops.
This catches the attention of King Harry inspiring his speech. He begins:
If we are marked to die, we ae enough
To do our country loss, And if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.
This is very powerful because right at the outset, Harry tells it straight to his men, he accepts that the odds are not good and they may die. If that is our destiny he says, so be it, we'll die for our country which is honorable in itself.
On the other hand, if we are destined to win the battle against the odds, fewer men means more honor for everyone who participates. I'm not quite sure if honor really works that way but it's a good mental image.
Then he goes on to say what really matters to him:
By Jove I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost...
But if it be a sin to covet honor,
I am the most offending sole alive.
The guy really doesn't care about all the trappings of being a king (or so he says), he's just in it for the honor.
In the first half of the speech, much of which is edited out in the Olivier version, Harry asks Westmoreland three times not to wish for any more men to join the battle. In fact he says, maybe they should wish fewer:
He who hath not the stomach in the battle,
Let him depart...
We would not die with the man in whose company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
The key idea here is fellowship and camaraderie, themes which keep ratcheting up as the speech builds to its climax. Given the choice of Harry's words, I doubt that many took him up on the offer.
Now it starts to get interesting:
This day is called the Feast of Crispian,
He that outlives this day and comes safe home
Shall stand a tip-toe when this day is named
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
The speech is fiction but the battle and most of the characters depicted in the play are real. The scene revolves around the famous Battle of Agincourt which took place on October 25, 1415. Every day of the Church calendar is devoted to a particular saint, and October 25 happens to be the feast day of the two saints and martyrs, Crispin and Crispinian, the latter shortened to Crispian by Shakespeare to better fit into the scheme of his verse.
He that shall see this day and live old age
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors
and say:"Tomorrow is St. Crispian".
Then shall he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say: "These wounds I had on Crispin's Day"
And the honor from participating in this battle will the participants take to their graves.
Old men forget yet all shall be forgot
But he shall remember with advantages
What feats he did that day...
Here Shakespeare throws in a little humor: "he shall remember with advantages", which is sometimes missed by audiences depending on the way the lines are delivered.
This story shall the good man teach his son
and Crispin Crispian shall na'er go by
From this day to the ending of the world.
Not only will their honor endure through their lives, but the battle will grant them immortality. It should be noted that the Battle of Agincourt is indeed remembered in England today, and not solely because of Shakespeare's play.
Now comes the pièce de résistance:
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers,
I've heard many veterans of war say that what they were really fighting for was not God, their country, or some noble cause, but rather for their comrades fighting beside them, their brothers in arms. More than 400 years after it was written, Shakespeare's work as always rings so true to life.
If that weren't enough:
For he that today sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother, be he na'er so vile
For this day shall gentle his condition.
The King himself being part of your band of brothers, how cool is that? Do we really believe that after the battle Harry considered all his brothers-in-arms, vile as they may have been, his equals? Unlikely given the way he is portrayed in the rest of the play and in the two previous plays (Henry IV parts one and two) where he is featured as a main character, but there's always the chance.
By the way, there are two possible meanings for that last line above. "Vile" could refer to the way we think of the word today, and in that case the last line suggests redemption. More in keeping with Shakespeare's time, vile could also mean social status, and the "gentling of his condition" could refer to an elevation of rank in society. Double meanings like this run through all of Shakespeare's work. Neither one is wrong.
Finally, the coup de grâce:
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
Who fought with us upon St. Crispin's Day.
Ouch.
I don't think even ol' Pete Hegseth would be that direct and crude. What Harry's saying in contemporary speak is that compared to us, the guys back home are just a bunch of pussies.
With all due respect of course.
Westmorland's response to the speech is this:
God's will my liege, would you and I alone,
Without more help, could fight this royal battle.
Not only are he and the rest of Harry's army inspired, but so too is the audience of the play. One commenter I read said that even though he is a pacifist, every time he hears that speech his soul is stirred and he wants to go out and fight somebody.
Same goes for me.
Here's another, more contemporary interpretation. This is from the Globe Theater in London with Mark Rylance in the title role. Notice how Rylance draws out the humor in the part about the old soldier recounting his story. For my money this version without the histrionics and the uplifting (and overbearing) background music is every bit if not more inspirational than the Olivier version.
But truth be told, Shakespeare's words are so powerful I dare say even a non-actor terrified of speaking in public such as myself could pull it off, with advantages of course.
-----
I'm no expert so I don't know exactly where King Charles III's speech to a joint session of Congress in Washington last week ranks in greatness with all the speeches of the Brritish monarchs. But as it was given directly to American lawmakers and by extension the American people, I can compare it to other important American speeches and honestly, I'd say it's right up there.
King Charles addressing a joint session of Congress April 28, 2026 Photo by Elizabeth Frantz, Reuters
In saying that, distinctions have to be made. Some speeches such as the "St. Crispin's Day Speech" are timeless and could be plugged into virtually any time and situation. I'd place Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech" in the timeless category as well.
Other speeches like King George's September 3rd speech belong to a singular moment in history. The impromptu speech Robert F. Kennedy Sr. gave in Indianapolis on the evening of the assassination of Martin Luther King would also be in that category.
Charles' speech is interesting because it could fit into both categories. If that exact speech had been given before November, 2016, it would have been regarded as powerful and well-crafted, extolling the virtues of American democracy and the values of the American people, expertly delivered by a man who was literally born for the job.
Ten years ago and before, there would not have been a bone of contention as the American political leaders of the day, and the vast majority of the American public would have agreed with every word of the speech. And because it would not have been controversial, the speech would have been forgotten as soon as its news cycle had expired in about a week or less.
However, as the speech was delivered late in April of 2026 (God what a month that was), it will never be forgotten.
Why? Because King Charles told the American people as politely as he could, but without the slightest hesitation, that we have lost our way.
It began innocently enough with Charles acknowledging the ties between our two nations. In doing so he threw a bone to the current POTUS:
This, I believe, is the special ingredient in our relationship. As
President Trump himself observed during his state visit to Britain last
autumn, ‘The bond of kinship and identity between America and the United
Kingdom is priceless and eternal. It is irreplaceable and unbreakable'.
That would be the one and only mention of the president by name, but his spirit would remain in the rest of the speech like the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Charles went on to remind us with bits of cheeky British humor and a "by jove" thrown in for good measure (where have I heard THAT one before?) how much our system of government owes to the British:
Two
hundred and fifty years ago, or, as we say in the United Kingdom ‘just
the other day,’ they declared Independence.... (The Founding Fathers) ... carried
forward, the great inheritance of the British Enlightenment – as well as
the ideals which had an even deeper history in English common law and
Magna Carta...
Then Charles snuck in his first jab:
... the U.S. Supreme
Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at
least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of
the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.
One can imagine that the president was so smitten by the shout out from Charles that he may have missed this little detail. It's a little harder to imagine what was on the minds of the Republicans on the House floor, as they are the ones who daily forgo their responsibility of providing checks and balances on this president. Strangely enough, they responded by giving the King a standing O along with their Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle when he delivered that line.
The Christian zealots on the floor wholeheartedly loved the following:
And, Mr. Speaker, for many here – and for myself – the Christian faith
is a firm anchor and daily inspiration that guides us not only
personally, but together as members of our community...
Oh how they ate that one up. But Charles started to sound like the current Pope when he said this:
It is why it is my hope – my prayer – that, in these turbulent times,
working together and with our international partners, we can stem the
beating of plowshares into swords.
Mr. President any comment? How's that war of yours going by the way?
One might think the following would have rubbed some of the more fervent Christian Republicans in the crowd the wrong way, especially the last phrase:
I am mindful that we are still in the season of Easter, the season that
most strengthens my hope. It is why I believe, with all my heart, that
the essence of our two nations is a generosity of spirit and a duty to
foster compassion, to promote peace, to deepen mutual understanding and
to value all people, of all faiths, and of none.
But most of them stood and cheered anyway.
Then Charles brought up 9/11 and once more, that brought the house down. But it got complicated again:
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when NATO invoked Article Five for
the first time, and the United Nations Security Council was united in
the face of terror, we answered the call together – as our people have
done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder, through two World
Wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan and moments that have defined our
shared security.
According to our president, NATO hasn't done shit for us.
The King begs to differ.
Then came this:
Today, Mr. Speaker, that same, unyielding resolve is needed for the
defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people. It is needed in order
to secure a truly just and lasting peace.
Here you could start seeing cracks in the Republican armor. J.D. Vance seated right behind the King, didn't applaud for that one. Next came this:
So as we look toward the next 250 years, we must also reflect on our shared responsibility to safeguard nature, our most precious and irreplaceable asset.
I suppose that since the King didn't mention the words "climate change", you know, that big hoax we keep hearing about, the MAGA Republicans let that remark slip through the cracks. Nevertheless, the VP sat on his hands for that one too.
King Charles didn't mount a constant barrage of jabs, uppercuts and left hooks, he let up every once in a while, rope-a-doping on occasion to mark some achievement or other regarding our two countries cooperating with each other. But the punches kept coming...
I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values, with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, and across the world, and that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking.
That one landed.
Now for the pièce de résistance...
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice-President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, America’s words carry weight and meaning, as they have since Independence.
The actions of this great nation matter even more.
...and, finally the coup de grâce, delivering a knock out punch using no less than a quote from the greatest of all American speeches:
President Lincoln understood this so well, with his reflection in the magisterial Gettysburg Address that the world may little note what we say, but will never forget what we do.
The Reverend Al Sharpton himself could not have delivered as scathing an attack of this administration as King Charles did last week, "a rapier wrapped in ermine" as The Guardian called the speech.
The King formerly known as Prince Charles (a change I have yet to wrap my head around), knows a thing or two about Shakespeare. That's why I couldn't help thinking about Shakespearean double meanings strategically placed into the speech that underscore his and I might add much of the rest of the world's disdain for this administration.
There were a few, but the following came immediately to mind. At the beginning of his speech, King Charles brought up the incident that took place at the White House Correspondent's Dinner a few days before:
We meet, too, in the aftermath of the incident not far from this great
building that sought to harm the leadership of your nation and to foment
wider fear and discord.
As the timing of the incident involving a potential would-be assassin was so close to the event, it certainly deserved a mention but there was something in what the King said next that made me think he may have also had another incident in mind, one of vastly greater significance and horrific consequences:
Let me say with unshakeable resolve: such acts of violence will never succeed.
He's right, such acts of violence, whether they be committed by an individual, or by a mob following the illegal orders of the President of the United States, will never succeed, hopefully.
Whether Charles and his speechwriters made a conscious connection in that remark to the events of January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol Building or not, once you see it, you can't un-see it.
Charles' speech was a schooling, a master class in hardball diplomacy.
But did it make a difference enough to change people's minds?
Probably not. Certainly not the president who was too busy in awe of being in the presence of a real king to notice that he was being taken to the cleaners. Probably not the Republican congressmen who don't seem to be effected in the slightest by having their cowardice and hypocrisy on full view for all to see. And most importantly not to the millions of MAGA faithful who seem to be unmoved by anything coming out of this administration, even matters that personally affect them like the crippling inflation caused by this president's clueless handling of the economy.
In the magnificent St. Crispin's Day Speech, King Harry is speaking to men who are already on his side and prepared to go to battle for him. His words make a difference in that they give his army hope despite the odds, courage, and a sense of purpose. Did I mention they would go on to win that battle?
Likewise, King Charles III's speech last week give those of us who despair at the loss of American values, the virtues of our Democratic Republic, and perhaps most of all, the loss of common decency in our country, the message that hope is not lost and above all, those things are all worth fighting for.
,