Jun 21
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers, Politics
Koman Coulibaly, the ref that called it wrong in the U.S.-Slovenia World Cup match, has fallen in love with a wonderful guy:
“I am now sitting in my hotel room in Pretoria, South Africa, thinking about adversity. And how Nelson Mandela and I have faced so many similar struggles,” he writes on his blog.
How so?
1) We are both African. [So are lots of refs who don't blow championship calls.] Both Nelson Mandela and I suffered under the imperialist yoke of countries like Great Britain and America. And colonialism.
Ah. That imperialist yoke. And colonialism. Surefire recipe ingredients for bad calls and subsequent refusal to explain them.
2) We are talented soccer experts. I heard Mandela considered playing left mid for Bafana Bafana before becoming an activist.
Highly irrelevant, one might say. Mandela, for instance.
3) We are both kept from achieving our full potential because of racism. Mandela had apartheid. I face the racist Americans and FIFA. Do you think there would be so much doubt about my call if I was from Melbourne, not Mali? I don’t.
I do, somehow. One hoped against hope that he would not talk that way. Question: If U.S. were not imperialist, colonialist, and racist, would he have made his call?
4) We have both been imprisoned under horrible hardships. Like Mandela, I am a prisoner. Though there are no physical bars or concrete separating me from freedom, I have had to stay indoors since the US vs Slovenia game for fear of my safety. I guess apartheid whites and some American soccer fans also have things in common.
He guesses? Why so tentative? Will he elaborate on his fear? We think not. He does not elaborate. Suffering from imperialism, and racism, he just calls them as he thinks them. Why can’t we understand that?
Later: Reader D sees “a possible job opening in the White House as our Soccer Czar. He’s got the one necessary ingredient — a desire to cut the USA down to size.”
Jun 16
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers, Politics
The Big O. is “yet another president elevating personal quirks into a management style,” says the personal-quirk-oriented Maureen Dowd, picking on him for not coming up with her version of a good manager.
She bemoaned predecessors GW Bush, Clinton, LBJ, and Nixon’s acting out in and from the White House — no Carter, note — but expected of this “psychologically healthy” Obama (this from a book she read).
He was “dazzling” as a politician but is “obdurately self-destructive about politics.”
He is guilty of
failing to understand that Americans are upset that a series of greedy corporations have screwed over the little guy without enough fierce and immediate pushback from the president.
So this leftist commentator wants a tough guy in the White House. I do too, but toughness is for beating back the many-tentacled bureaucracy that a president inherits. Forget about it: he’s one of them. He loves power.
But as I have said before, God writes straight (sometimes) with crooked lines, and the Dowd critique is quotable even allowing for her crookedness. In his speech last night:
He appointed a “son of the gulf” spill czar and a new guard dog at M.M.S. and tried to restore a sense of confident leadership — “The one approach I will not accept is inaction” — and compassion, reporting on the shrimpers and fishermen and their “wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.” He acted as if he was the boss of BP on the issue of compensation. And he called on us to pray.
A new last refuge for scoundrels here: prayer.
The rest is to the point, that he’s over his head in spilt oil, crying over it when he should . . . What?
Waive the union-protective Jones Act, say people who also want action, among other things. God, after all, helps those who help themselves, said B. Franklin (not God) in his 1736 version of Poor Richard’s Almanack, but Jewish wise men, Sts. Augustin and Ignatius Loyola and others have told us to pray as if all depended on God, act as if it all depended on us.
Assuming you really want that oil mopped up and do not approach it as an opportunity to rail at big business.
May 24
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers
Here’s an excellent case of media fudging because they can’t resist making a point even if it’s not there to make.
It’s Rand Paul with Rachel Maddow, saying “uh-yeh” as an apparently meaningless vocalization after he and Maddow had been briefly talking over each other.
But the transcript sent out by MSNBC-Maddow has Paul saying “Yes” to her question whether a private business had the right not to serve blacks. NYTimes and many other outlets skipped the tape and went with the misleading transcript. Here you have libs making news fit to print, that is, to fit their template.
Get not a story, but the story, I remember Mike Royko saying a long time ago. I was new in the business but got the point, which is crucial to credibility.
This rebuttal is on Maddow’s network, by the way.
May 16
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers
Must beg to disagree with Chi Trib’s John Kass today. His column is devoted to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, whom he praises, making a case that I buy.
But distinguishing him from other Republicans, he cites Sarah Palin as one of “a parade of Republicans sucking up to the tea party movement in some symbolic washing of its own past sins” whom he finds “nauseating.”
She is moreover “the erratic conservative now favoring leather tops [who] seems to be campaigning for tea party house mom, brazenly eager to appropriate it as her auxiliary.”
Not boldly? And leather tops? What’s that got to do with it?
Thing is, can you imagine the admirable Daniels defining national debate as Palin did with her “death panel” Facebook phrase? Or coming up with this line in Arizona:
“It’s time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say, ‘We’re all Arizonans now,”‘ Palin said. “And in clear unison we say, ‘Mr. President: Do your job. Secure our border.”‘
Reading that in the Trib, I yelped to see the references to John F. Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” and Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” — each in Berlin, a city under siege, which is how most Arizonans feel, to judge from their support of their current much-discussed law.
A line is a line is a line, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, but in a continent-wide democracy, the ability to make people take note is crucial. And whom would many if not most Republican candidates want plumping for them, Palin or Daniels?
That said, Daniels talks sense about the Tea Party movement, which he said “must be authentically separate and spontaneous,” not to be “tainted by too close of a relationship to either party” and whose “creative hell-raising on behalf of freedom” he considers “a good thing.”
So does Palin, if in more overtly encouraging fashion, and I don’t see what the problem is. One can be too conservative, that is, too cautious, in these matters. Or too readily put off by style and dress.
May 10
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers
The strangled shoplifter was doing his own strangling of the social contract, but that cuts no ice with his ex-wife and others who knew him, who concentrate on what he lifted from the drug store — toothpaste — and not on the lifting, which undercuts the social fabric.
May 06
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers, Religion
Comment yesterday, Margaret, about Colorado man’s experience at Loyola Academy in ‘80s:
Sorry, that doesn’t ring true to me at all. He . . . should have confided in his own confessor or another priest about the situation and asked for advice (assuming that there was some normal priest available).
Etc. Followed by comment, Daniel T:
Margaret–interesting thought. However, it’s very clear that you didn’t spend any time at the Academy during those years and are not in the mindset of a young man attending Loyola in the late 80s.. Unfortunately, you have to be there to know it.
What of the ‘60s?
Wilton Skiffington — Chicago Tribune – Thursday, November 20, 2003:
A former student at Loyola Academy in Wilmette filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Jesuit religious order, which runs the school, accusing a teacher of molesting him in 1962.
Lou Franchi, who said Rev. Wilton Skiffington repeatedly abused him when Franchi was an upperclassman at Loyola, is the third former student to file suit since August over alleged abuse at Loyola. The incidents allegedly took place at least 30 years ago. . . . .
Franchi said that while the abuse was taking place, his parents found an explicit letter from Skiffington on their son’s dresser. Franchi said he has no recollection of the letter but was told it referred to “my beautiful body.” He has incomplete memories of the abuse, he said.
His parents turned the letter over to school officials, and Skiffington was immediately transferred to a parish in San Diego, Franchi said. . . . .
Donald McGuire — Chicago Tribune, February 24, 2006:
A jury found Rev. Donald McGuire, a well-known Chicago Jesuit, guilty late Thursday of molesting two teenage Loyola Academy students in Wisconsin in the 1960s. . . . .
During closing arguments Thursday, defense attorney Gerald Boyle tried to paint the two accusers as opportunists who were trying to cash in on a civil lawsuit filed in Illinois against the Jesuits.
“They want money,” Boyle said repeatedly. . . . .
Skiffington was besotted with his adolescent, as was Archbishop Weakland with his somewhat older loved one.
The reasons are many, but one is that these fellows are starved for love, which goes sexual at the drop of a hint. Mind over matter has its uses, we can’t just go with the flow. But warmth of relationship is something most (almost all? all?) people need, though not always genital. You just have to find it in the right places. You have to look for it in the right places. Go looking for it in the wrong places, you cause trouble.
=================
While we’re at it, yesterday’s Chi Trib story quoting the Colorado man had “he said,” but not to whom he said it. Not to the Trib, we presume. So to the Jesuits whom he called up about it? Which Jesuit or which office? And who told the Trib? I object strongly to this careless rendering.
====================
Oops. Re-examined the piece and found this at the end:
The man contacted the school Tuesday.
After receiving a phone call from a former student, the school notified the Cook County state’s attorney’s office and the Office of Victim Advocacy at the Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus and also referred the former student to the society’s Office of Victim Advocacy, according to a statement.
Still, whose statement? Worth saying, I think.
Apr 29
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers, Religion
Time, I say, to distringuish between the U.S. Catholic Conference, not to mention “the church,” as this AFP story does not:
WASHINGTON — The US Catholic church on Tuesday condemned Arizona’s “draconian” new immigration law, saying it would alienate immigrant communities across the United States.
“This new law, although limited to the State of Arizona, could have impact throughout the nation in terms of how members of our immigrant communities are both perceived and treated,” Bishop John Wester said in a statement issued on behalf of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Time was when “the church” was the pope and the bishops, neither of which has pontificated on the Arizona law, to use a familiar verb. Then time was or is when it is the people of God — not sure: we used to talk that way a lot when Vatican 2 was news.
In neither case did we mean the DC bureaucracy run by staffers and a bishop director and a bishops’ committee. AFP probably doesn’t know any better and/or doesn’t give a care about such inside-baseball information. But who among the bishops is trying to educated it? (That’s Agence France Presse, by the way.)
=========
Later, from a faithful reader:
Jim — I’m not the only Catholic among my friends who is about to “leave the USCCB” but stay in the church. The USCCB does NOT speak for me — in fact it speaks what I consider the language of the enemies of freedom of religion in this country. I am tired of being treated like a dumb, lowly tax payer by TWO national entities. I’m glad you are taking up this issue.
Apr 28
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers
Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin have “Why reporters are down on Obama,” loaded with info, including this:
The [White House] correspondents association recently met with [Press Secy. Robert] Gibbs to discuss, in the words of Bloomberg’s Ed Chen, “a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”
A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”
Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.
Among many beefs:
Obama. . . has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access
Compared to what?
During his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such [informal] Q & A sessions — an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University professor Martha Kumar.
Well look, it’s only right. As Rush Limbaugh regularly notes in passing, referring to his inauguration with an apt made-up word, Obama was “immaculated.” He’s Cocky-locky, as this blogger got tired of saying back in campaign days.
What he does is give interviews — 161 of them, compared to Bush’s and Clinton’s 50 or so each — as to Team O’s comrade-in-arms, NY Times, on one occasion giving “a blockbuster scoop” to a NYT favorite after tapping him on the shoulder and whispering in his ear to join several key players at an international conference.
White Housers tear into reporters by emails and phone calls if even one word is awry in their view. But
One of the most irritating practices . . . is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story — only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.
“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graph that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off-the-record, angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said.
Etc.
Tags: White+House+press+corps, Obama+as+Cocky-locky
Apr 22
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers, Politics
Public-employe unions have the answer to saving their pensions: raise taxes!
SPRINGFIELD —
Thousands of teachers and other union workers descended on the state Capitol on Wednesday and chanted “raise my taxes” to try to pressure politicians to avoid major budget cuts.
The vibe [sic] was the exact opposite of what you’d find at a tea party rally.
I’ll say.
Meanwhile, in the city that works,
Chicago taxpayers will be forced to dig deeper — and so will city workers — to bail out four city employee pension funds that will run out of money by 2030, a Mayor Daley-appointed commission has concluded.
“There is no low- or no-cost solution to this problem. . . . Deferring action is not a viable option,” said a draft of the final report, obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
It’s not easy being a tax-and-spend politician. You have to make tough decisions, like going after other people’s money.
More precisely, in view of the socialist-leaning politicos in the White House, it’s not easy promising things you, that is, other people, can’t afford.
Promise them anything, but make them pay for it, yes.
Chi Trib’s John Kass has the answer to all of it.
The Patriot Plan has two simple prongs. One prong involves Tax Day. The other prong involves Election Day.
Tax Day is when everyone writes out a check for his or her annual payment, which they owe in full because there’s been no withholding. Election Day is the one after that, when voters have the previous day fresh in their minds.
You can vote on federal, state and county offices — with the exact sum of what you’ve paid in taxes still burned into your brain — while watching your politicians chase those last-minute votes.
How many blue-state emergencies would that solve? All of them, guaranteed.
Apr 13
Jim BowmanChicago Newspapers, Politics
Saturday’s session at offices of Democratic Party of Oak Park was given to seeing what Dems can do for the troubled campaign (euphemistically speaking) of U.S. senatorial candidate and incumbent state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.
A video at Illinois Review gives “a brief history” of the troubles Alexi is seeing these days.
Watch it here. (HT the ever reliable NewsAlert)
But you have to wonder what the fuss is about if you read and believe what’s said about him at his web site. For openers:
Alexi Giannoulias was elected State Treasurer of Illinois on November 7, 2006, capping off one of the more improbable victories in Illinois politics. Opposed by the insiders from the very start, he won the support of voters by proposing bold new initiatives and turning his back on politics as usual.
Ending pay-to-play politics was Alexi’s first act as Treasurer. On day one, he issued an executive order that enacted the most sweeping ethics reforms in the history of his office by banning contributions to his campaign from office employees, contractors and banks.
Etc.
Right?
Older Entries
RSS