Commenter Tom B. chides me in the comment thread underneath today's column:

Well, actually, I don't find the low turnout absurd, I find the low percentage of the vote likely to be won by the winner in the 12-candidate Democratic primary to be absurd --  that person is almost certain to become our next congressman and serve in Washington as long as he or she wishes to.

That's why I believe a run-off election is called for here, and an instant run-off voting system is the way to provide that.

But to Tom's main point -- that I live right in the heart of the 5th U.S. Congressional District an didn't write so much as a blog entry on the race.  The reason for that is that, with such a large field, the only fair thing for an opinion columnist is either to write comprehensively, covering all the main candidates in the field and looking at issues and incidents that bear on their candidacy, or leave it be.

I might have done otherwise if I'd felt that one particular candidate stood out as the obvious choice of decent, right-thinking people. But in this case -- in the Democratic field, anyway -- I saw four candidates whom I know personally and think highly of, another two whom I don't know but have heard good things about from people I trust, and six I don't know enough about to cast in some lesser light.

If readers are disappointed that I didn't choose to ride a particular horse or choose a few of the allegations slung back and forth to referee, I apologize.  (UPDATE, I should have written "To readers who are disappointed..."  I eschew "if..." apologies in general, and slipped up here)

My prediction, for what it's worth, is that in a very low turnout special primary, State Rep. John Fritchey's support from key aldermen and ward committeemen will help him get out just enough of the vote to beat out State Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (her calls to our house have been relentless) and County Commissioner Mike Quigley. (UPDATE, Quigley's victory was a minor surprise to me; it looks like the ward committeemen and aldermen didn't show much strength getting the vote out)

Please send me your predictions via e-mail before 7 p.m.. I'll post them after the polls close. (UPDATE -- turnout in the e-mail primary was too low to bother with).

Why not put them in comments? Because long experience tells me that campaign trolls think they can help their candidates by skewing click polls and surveys to make others believe their candidate can or will win, and I find their efforts tedious and annoying. Give me your honest take and I won't post it until after it wont' make any difference.

Speaking of trolls, today is "Hobbit" test day for my 6th graders and, indirectly, me. I've been their "Hobbit" coach for the last two months as they've been reading that annoying fantasy novel in school -- reading the book along with them, discussing the themes over breakfast and during carpool, quizzing them on vocabulary and plot points and otherwise trying to Hobbitize their thinking.

I bought the BBC's audio adaptation of author J.R.R. Tolkein's 1937 fantasy tale (it's incomprehensible if you don't already know the story) and rented the exceedingly mediocre 1978 animated film version, all to help familiarize and underscore.  I went online to the Cliff's Notes and Spark Notes just to be sure I wasn't missing anything.

My belief is that any book, any subject in school is more interesting if you can immerse yourself in it, and that parents are particularly well situated to encourage that kind of immersion.

So not only did we spend lots of time drilling on "Hobbit" trivia
 -- which dwarf falls into the water in Mirkwood Forest? -- but we also talked about the overall significance of such quotes as Thorin's dying expression, "If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.” 

Even though I don't care much for the book -- I know it was groundbreaking in its time, but today it reads like a parody of fantasy novels -- I'll miss being the family "Hobbit" coach and take very personally the scores from today's exam. (UPDATE -- the essay portion of the exam may have done us -- I mean them --  in, we'll see)

Speaking of books, I, for one, am looking forward to reading Rod Blagojevich's upcoming opus.

An extensive Q&A and reference section on this topic is posted here.

How dizzying is Tuesday’s special primary election?

Saturday night, a Chicago newspaper columnist who writes frequently about politics had a chance encounter at Northwest Side social event with a prominent Chicago Democratic office-holder.

The columnist, whom I will not name so as to avoid embarrassing him, confessed sheepishly that he wasn’t even sure how many Democrats were running to succeed Rahm Emanuel in the 5th Congressional District.

The big Dem, whom I will not name for the same reason, confidently assured me—I mean him—that it’s 11.

In fact it’s 12. Along with six Republicans and five Green in their parties’ primaries.

History suggests that the winning Democrat will win the general election. And mathematics tells us that a small plurality—as low as 8.4 percent of the vote, but probably closer to 20 percent of the Democratic vote—will be enough to prevail in such a crowded field and launch the winner to Washington.

That’s not just dizzying, that’s absurd. Elections, even primaries, ought to be about measuring the will of the majority. And there is a better way.

My column for Tuesday says that the multi-candidate Congressional primary in the 5th District is a good argument for experimenting with instant-runoff style voting (IRV). I've put together this supplemental Q&A/reading list for those who are interested.

I'm just sayin'. If I had the acting skils and a little time on my hands today, I know I'd be working up a Roland Burris-themed parody of Chris Crocker's famous "Leave Britney Spears alone!" plea.

The staunch supporters of our temporary senator -- those who  want us to overlook his disgraceful lack of candor and simply move on  -- richly deserve mockery on the order of:

At the New Republic online, Paul Starr of Princeton University explains at great length "why American politics and society are about to be changed for the worse" by the crisis in the newspaper industry:

See also: "Under Weight of Its Mistakes, Newspaper Industry Staggers," by Howard Kurtz in Sunday's Washington Post.

Josh Marshall, whose Web site, Talking Points Memo, has six reporters -- and plans to hire more -- does not minimize the loss of dailies. "If all the big papers disappeared right now and we replaced them with 50 TPMs, it wouldn't come close to doing the job," he said.

 "Problems, promise for papers predicted," Sunday's column from our Phil Rosenthal:

What's remarkable in hindsight is how accurately both the problems and potential awaiting papers had already been identified 30 years ago.

Chicago Reader blogger Whet Moser has a smart and lengthy reflection on the Chicago Journalism Town Hall:

Reporting, even stenographic reporting, is logistically difficult. It has to be your job--even the most SOP report from City Hall has to be filed from City Hall by someone who had to be there during City Hall business hours. This means you have to find an amateur who works weekends or hire someone. As far as actually doing the reporting that someone like John Conroy does, that has to be a job (in Conroy's case it was part-time). There's no way around that, unless you can find someone who's both talented and independently wealthy.

Reader media critic Michael Miner has taken note of my epic epistolary battle with Steve Rhodes.

(It's) the sort of riveting colloquy about journalism and where it's going that requires two smart people who don't like each other much. Must reading if the future of news is something you've been wondering about yourself.

Marc Fisher of the WaPo wrote on Sunday, "Bloggers Can't Fill the Gap Left by Shrinking Press Corps."

"Just look around -- it's dismal," says Bob Lewis, the Associated Press's veteran Richmond (Va.) correspondent. A decade ago, he had twice as many colleagues covering state government. "And it's not just the bodies that are gone -- it's the institutional memory and knowledge."...A similar emptying is evident in Annapolis(Md.), where the number of reporters covering Maryland's legislature has "declined by a good half in the last two years," says Tom Stuckey, who covered the State House for 42 years before retiring from the Associated Press in 2007.

So gather `round and raise your blessed voices
And enjoy that gospel bluegrass while you live.
It's hard to find a banjo player up in heaven,
There's some things even Jesus won't forgive

           Austin Lounge Lizards

See also:

• BluegrassBanjo.org's Canonical List of Banjo Jokes
• Banjo Jokes (Benachally Ceilidh Band)
• Twangin's Banjo Jokes
• Blackwater Bluegrass Festival Banjo Jokes
• Aha Jokes: Banjo Jokes

A YouTube commenter contends that Keith Whitley's version of Lefty Frizzell's "I Never Go Around Mirrors" is "so sad it would bring a tear to a glass eye."

A Google search for that expression led me to Spinner's playlist of 25 Most Exquisitely Sad Songs in the Whole World, where that song does not appear. That list looks like this:

Hearst to Begin Charging for Digital News

Newsday rethinking free Web site

I use countdown timers all the time at my desk either to maintain my focus as I attack certain tasks --- OK,  I'm going to do background reading on this topic for 20 minutes -- to be sure my work breaks don't get too long -- I'll give myself 10 minutes only to check Facebook, Twitter and e-mail -- and to remind myself of appointments -- in 45 minutes I'm supposed to call Bob.

I've used digital wristwatches, kitchen timers and desktop widgets for the task as well as timer websites such as online stopwatch.

I think today I've found the best system: E.ggtimer.com.

Here's how it works:

Into the address line of your browser, type http://e.ggtimer.com/(desired length of time). This creates a permanent URL (internet address) that you can bookmark and put in a handy spot in your various menus for instant access. 

For example (or for click-and-use functionality), try these:

• http://e.ggtimer.com/10minutes
• http://e.ggtimer.com/15minutes
• http://e.ggtimer.com/20minutes
• http://e.ggtimer.com/30minutes
• http://e.ggtimer.com/45minutes
• http://e.ggtimer.com/1hour
• http://e.ggtimer.com/1hour30minutes

The Reader's Ben Joravsky takes a hard, skeptical look at the city's Olympic bid and notes that, among other astonishing outlays, Chicago intends to spend $10.5 million to come up with a suitable Olympic mascot.

Chicago 2016 spokesman Patrick Sandusky says this isn't quite true -- the line-item referred to is the $10.8 million to be spent for  communication, marketing and promotions for the year 2014 when the mascot will be rolled out.

There is no line-item yet broken out for the creation of the mascot, Sandusky said.

Still, the history of such mascots is inglorious and comical, and if we can't come up with something better than Sam the Eagle (left, LA, 1984) or Izzy (right, Atlanta, 1996) for oh, say, $5,000 tops, then we are truly pathetic.

Folks, let's help out.  Come up with some concepts, themes and names for an appropriate  mascot for the 2016 games.

See also

Top 10 Worst Olympic Mascots

The Top 10 Coolest Olympic Mascots

Swifter, Higher, Cuddlier --Stop picking on Beijing's Olympic mascots.

Olympic Mascot history

Second City Cop apparently beat us to the idea of Chalkie.

UPDATE: Quinn's in!

Earlier--

Many Republican lawmakers argued (Gov. Pat) Quinn has the constitutional authority to order a special election, which could force (Temp. Sen. Roland) Burris from office. But Quinn said Friday he doesn't feel he has the constitutional authority to order a special election....Saturday's Tribune

I began asking Quinn's office early yesterday afternoon to elaborate on his views regarding a special election --I don't see anywhere in the law where he would be able to call such an election unilaterally, but he could easily get behind legislative efforts for such an election. (legal backgrounder)

This does seem like exactly the kind of issue where strong gubernatorial leadership could make the difference between an idea dying a quiet death in committee and becoming law.  Quinn has waffled on the issue of special elections and now, at least for the last 24 hours, he's been ducking it.

From Clout Street just minutes ago:

Gov. Pat Quinn today said “the time is fast approaching” for U.S. Sen. Roland Burris to step down from office because he can no longer be effective in serving Illinois. Quinn, however, stopped short of saying whether he and state lawmakers should rely on a provision of the U.S. Constitution to call a special election for the Senate seat that could force Burris out of the post.... Quinn said he still favors legislation he previously called for: allowing a governor to name a temporary senator until a special election is held. That legislation, however, wouldn’t apply to Burris if he continues to reject calls from Quinn and others to resign.

I've updated this post.

Rocky Mountain News to close, publish final edition Friday.

Rats! I'm afraid we're going to see quite a few more headlines like this in the coming year.

 Here's a fine idea:

Members of the Illinois General Assembly should stop their futile wait for Temporary Sen. Roland Burris to resign. Instead they should call a special election this spring so voters can choose a permanent replacement for Barack Obama.

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) endorsed this idea in a statement last week, and state Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Palatine) is advancing it in a bill now bottled up in committee in Springfield.

Would it stand a chance in court?

UPDATE --- 9 p.m. Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan has just issued an opinion that a special  election to replace Roland Burris would be legal (see below)

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) has joined those calling on the Illinois legislature to order a special election so that the voters of Illinois can choose a permanent replacement for former senator, now President Barack Obama.

Roland Burris, as we know, is Obama's temporary replacement. Here is how the Illinois Election Code puts it at  10 ILCS 5/25-8.

But here is key language from  the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that Schakowsky cited in her statement:

Italics mine.  State law clearly says this "temporary" appointment is supposed to last until the next Congressional election. Such elections are held in Novembers of even numbered years, and in this case the next Congressional election will be in November, 2010.

But the U.S. Constitution is also clear that the legislature "may direct" when the election should be held to elect a permanent senator.

The question, therefore, seems to be whether the legislature's power to move up the date of  a special election expired, in the present case,  the moment former Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris under the existing state law or when Burris was sworn in last month.

 Or does the legislature's authority outlined in the 17th Amendment continue as long as Burris is still technically a temporary replacement?

State Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Palatine) is behind legislation in Springfield (SB 285) that will move the date for such an election to April 7.

If that bill became law (doubtful),  and sent to Washington a replacement for Roland Burris, the question would then become, who would remove Burris from the seat he now holds and into which he was duly and unconditionally sworn? Article I Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution says

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. 

There is no provision I can find for a state -- its voters or its legislature -- ousting a senator once that senator has been sworn in.

Also intriguing is the question of whether yanking Burris would violate Article I Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

"Ex post facto" means "after the fact," and "bill of attainder" is defined here as "a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial."  The idea/question here being whether removing Burris from the Senate would constitute punishment or depriving him of something of value that he obtained under existing law.

READ ON FOR EXPERT VIEWS: