If you love God, blow the whistle

Good Wash Times story here about “faith-based whistleblowing”: speakers-up for safety motivated by religion hold a convention, for God’s sake, in DC.  E.g.,

Joe Carson, a nuclear safety engineer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, [who] said it was his Christian worldview that impelled him to blow the whistle 19 times since 1990 on workplace and public-safety hazards at the Department of Energy, guardian of the nation’s nuclear stockpile.  “Whistleblowers are thinking of what’s good for others, not just looking out for number one,” said Mr. Carson, 51.

And there’s the Exodus-citing Jewish lawyer, the Lutheran who quotes Matthew, the Methodist pastor, the Catholic FBI agent, and a cast of dozens more due in town Sept. 23 for a meeting of Whistleblowers for an Honest, Efficient and Accountable Government at the Watergate Hotel. 

If I were still in the business, I’d want to cover that meeting, which effort would include, I presume, some wetting of one’s own whistle in off hours.

Sad fact about Sadr story

Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood is a success story that most U.S. papers have ignored but not one Chicago paper, to go by Google, as reported by James Taranto in his “Best of the Web” Opinion [Wall St.] Journal yesterday.  The envelope, please:

A Google News search–which is wide-ranging but not comprehensive–turned up only two newspapers that have published the Sadr City story: the Chicago Sun-Times and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The story is not terribly time-sensitive, so let us hope that other papers will pick it up.

Attention, Chi Trib: There’s still time.  Sadr City is where Ma Sheehan’s son was killed, by the way. 

=========================

Meanwhile, Trib’s Jan. C. Greenberg and N. Bendavid remain hot on the trail of nominee Jn Roberts’s indiscretions.  Yesterday’s was his memo-ing White House superiors in 1984 that legislating equal pay for women is a gloss on a Marxist credo — he applied it neatly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.”  He was for the market, in other words, but that will cob leftists coast to coast.

The Greenberg-Bendavid treatment, by the way, far outscored the better focused, more tightly written Tom Brune account in Trib-owned [Long Island] Newsday.  Brune, once of the Sun-Times, boiled it down to 485 words vs. G-B’s 1,385!  Oh the joys of a broadsheet!  You don’t have to make words count!

Sad fact about Sadr story

Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood is a success story that most U.S. papers have ignored but not one Chicago paper, to go by Google, as reported by James Taranto in his “Best of the Web” Opinion [Wall St.] Journal yesterday.  The envelope, please:

A Google News search–which is wide-ranging but not comprehensive–turned up only two newspapers that have published the Sadr City story: the Chicago Sun-Times and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The story is not terribly time-sensitive, so let us hope that other papers will pick it up.

Attention, Chi Trib: There’s still time.  Sadr City is where Ma Sheehan’s son was killed, by the way. 

=========================

Meanwhile, Trib’s Jan. C. Greenberg and N. Bendavid remain hot on the trail of nominee Jn Roberts’s indiscretions.  Yesterday’s was his memo-ing White House superiors in 1984 that legislating equal pay for women is a gloss on a Marxist credo — he applied it neatly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.”  He was for the market, in other words, but that will cob leftists coast to coast.

The Greenberg-Bendavid treatment, by the way, far outscored the better focused, more tightly written Tom Brune account in Trib-owned [Long Island] Newsday.  Brune, once of the Sun-Times, boiled it down to 485 words vs. G-B’s 1,385!  Oh the joys of a broadsheet!  You don’t have to make words count!

Married Catholic priest a-coming

What a religion story in Sun-Times about married ex-Methodist pastor being accepted into St. Mary of the Lake seminary, Mundelein!  Sponsored by what bishop, we are not told.  He made his first contact with bp of Gary, currently has church-related job in Ft. Wayne.  But he has to have a sponsoring jurisdiction, and otherwise very good account by Monifa Thomas, accompanied by pic of him with wife and three of their five kids, does not tell us what.

On Father’s Day, #2 Son and I strolled in Uke Village and chatted up one of the four (4!) full-fledged Catholic priests stationed at the golden-domed structure just south of Chi Ave., block or so east of Western.  Good conversation which finally he had to end.  Had to get home to his kids, who had not seen him yet that day, which had begun for him 6 a.m.  Fully Catholic, I say, Ukrainian rite.  There’s not a Methodist rite, however; I’m dying to know for what diocese this already-Rev. Mark Kurowski will be ordained.

====================================

Same paper has badly chosen front-page color shot of J. Jackson Sr. wiping away a tear at the bier of publishing pioneer John H. Johnson, who ran an honest business that helped change the face of blacks in this country, beginning when it was respectable to say “colored” or “Negro.”  As opposed to Rev. J. Jetstream, the master of spin and co-architect of “African American” as preferred term and subject of the devastating Shakedown: exposing the real Jesse Jackson (Regnery, 2002) and a 1975 critical but largely squelched book by an ex-Trib writer who worked once for Johnson, Barbara Reynolds, Jesse Jackson, the Man, the Movement, the Myth.  Come on, S-T editors, get with it.

 

New slogan

The problem conservative critics have with modern news media is the same problem conservative critics have always had with news media. It’s not just that they despise liberals. They do. But I think the whole liberal thing is a ruse. What they really dislike is journalism. Pick your critic. — Charles M. Madigan, Chicago Tribune, July 12, 2005 (Try this one, please. — Jim Bowman)

Th-th-th-that’s not all, folks.  It’s the new top-of-page identifying slogan for Chicago Newspapers: The Blog, newly renamed, as you may notice. 

Now a look at Chi Trib-Sun-Times comparisons and contrasts, recently alluded to in 8/11 comment about “the program of turning the Sun-Times into a newspaper of columns and not much else.” 

To this shot came reply from another reader, a veteran retired newsie (VRN), who says Sun-Times is out-staffed by the Trib “by at least 2 to 1, and everybody has at least two jobs.” 

This VRN recalls a Trib editorial staff in the late 80s of 495 souls, “most of these . . . master’s degree J-School grads” for whom “being a reporter meant working [merely] 9-to-5.” 

Meanwhile, S-T people who rejected juicy Trib offers to ‘come across the street’” were  “pros and [still are and] their product shows it.” 

It’s stuff like this that makes horse races, of course. 

more more more more

New slogan

The problem conservative critics have with modern news media is the same problem conservative critics have always had with news media. It’s not just that they despise liberals. They do. But I think the whole liberal thing is a ruse. What they really dislike is journalism. Pick your critic. — Charles M. Madigan, Chicago Tribune, July 12, 2005 (Try this one, please. — Jim Bowman)

Th-th-th-that’s not all, folks.  It’s the new top-of-page identifying slogan for Chicago Newspapers: The Blog, newly renamed, as you may notice. 

Now a look at Chi Trib-Sun-Times comparisons and contrasts, recently alluded to in 8/11 comment about “the program of turning the Sun-Times into a newspaper of columns and not much else.” 

To this shot came reply from another reader, a veteran retired newsie (VRN), who says Sun-Times is out-staffed by the Trib “by at least 2 to 1, and everybody has at least two jobs.” 

This VRN recalls a Trib editorial staff in the late 80s of 495 souls, “most of these . . . master’s degree J-School grads” for whom “being a reporter meant working [merely] 9-to-5.” 

Meanwhile, S-T people who rejected juicy Trib offers to ‘come across the street’” were  “pros and [still are and] their product shows it.” 

It’s stuff like this that makes horse races, of course. 

more more more more

St. Edmund is the Church of the Comparatively Cramped Pew. It’s a situation I have recognized at the local Presbyterian church turned Latin-mass Catholic, where pews have been shoehorned in. Not cramped, however, is St. Catherine of Siena, a mile to the east of St. Edmund. It’s also about twice the overall size of St. Edmund and has wider aisles. God fits in anywhere, of course, but what about us worshippers?

Conveniently juxtaposed

Chi Trib’s “Civil rights groups go slow: Leaders say they are withholding judgment as they study Roberts” on p. 13, is basically puffery for those groups; there nothing in it that could not serve as a press release.  And it’s cheek by jowl on the page with “MEMOS RELEASED: On paper, praise for the right” about a 1981 (! is this reaching or isn’t it?) memo in which Roberts recommended conservatives for Justice Dept. jobs BECAUSE OF THEIR CONSERVATISM!  One can hear the “Gotcha!” all the way to Oak Park.

The civil-rights-groups story is essentially damage control for the anti-Roberts camp in the wake of the just-recalled NARAL ad that got shot down by a watchdog group.  We’re not like those people, say civil-rightsers, and WE’RE STILL MAKING UP OUR MINDS (!).  Frank James offers as unadulterated fact their claim of a “deliberate approach” to the nomination:

It’s all meant to avoid the appearance of a rush to judgment. The groups may eventually announce they’re opposing Roberts.

They claim?  Did James forget that part?  Did a copy editor forget it too?  It’s how they want to be perceived, isn’t it?  James doesn’t get that?  Between playing or being dumb is a Hobson’s choice which I would rather not face in my morning Trib, if you don’t mind.

James does close with good quotes from the groups in question in which they present or inadvertently disclose their strategy: no name-calling, press Roberts on how he will vote, get (lots of) documents.

“We do not intend to demonize this man, we’re not going to call him names,” said Alfreda Robinson, head of the judicial nominations committee of the National Bar Association, an 80-year-old black lawyers organization.  [Vs. those who say they intend to demonize him]

“But we have a view that there are some questions that he needs to answer,” said Robinson, associate dean at George Washington University Law School. “For example, his view on reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the scope of that act and whether it should be expanded [she means whether given legislation is constitutional, doesn’t she?], because … that’s one of the very important issues to civil rights organizations.”  [Or does she think Roberts is nominated as one of our supreme legislators?]

The officials from civil rights groups interviewed said one of their most pressing concerns with the nomination is transparency: The Bush administration has not provided Roberts’ entire record [memos, etc.] as an official in previous administrations.

“Without having all of the relevant documents released . . . it’s going to be difficult for any civil rights organization … to really have an informed position on where he stands,” said Aimee Baldillo, a staff attorney with National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.

Cough up the documents, we’re dying for ammo.

Conveniently juxtaposed

Chi Trib’s “Civil rights groups go slow: Leaders say they are withholding judgment as they study Roberts” on p. 13, is basically puffery for those groups; there nothing in it that could not serve as a press release.  And it’s cheek by jowl on the page with “MEMOS RELEASED: On paper, praise for the right” about a 1981 (! is this reaching or isn’t it?) memo in which Roberts recommended conservatives for Justice Dept. jobs BECAUSE OF THEIR CONSERVATISM!  One can hear the “Gotcha!” all the way to Oak Park.

The civil-rights-groups story is essentially damage control for the anti-Roberts camp in the wake of the just-recalled NARAL ad that got shot down by a watchdog group.  We’re not like those people, say civil-rightsers, and WE’RE STILL MAKING UP OUR MINDS (!).  Frank James offers as unadulterated fact their claim of a “deliberate approach” to the nomination:

It’s all meant to avoid the appearance of a rush to judgment. The groups may eventually announce they’re opposing Roberts.

They claim?  Did James forget that part?  Did a copy editor forget it too?  It’s how they want to be perceived, isn’t it?  James doesn’t get that?  Between playing or being dumb is a Hobson’s choice which I would rather not face in my morning Trib, if you don’t mind.

James does close with good quotes from the groups in question in which they present or inadvertently disclose their strategy: no name-calling, press Roberts on how he will vote, get (lots of) documents.

“We do not intend to demonize this man, we’re not going to call him names,” said Alfreda Robinson, head of the judicial nominations committee of the National Bar Association, an 80-year-old black lawyers organization.  [Vs. those who say they intend to demonize him]

“But we have a view that there are some questions that he needs to answer,” said Robinson, associate dean at George Washington University Law School. “For example, his view on reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the scope of that act and whether it should be expanded [she means whether given legislation is constitutional, doesn’t she?], because … that’s one of the very important issues to civil rights organizations.”  [Or does she think Roberts is nominated as one of our supreme legislators?]

The officials from civil rights groups interviewed said one of their most pressing concerns with the nomination is transparency: The Bush administration has not provided Roberts’ entire record [memos, etc.] as an official in previous administrations.

“Without having all of the relevant documents released . . . it’s going to be difficult for any civil rights organization … to really have an informed position on where he stands,” said Aimee Baldillo, a staff attorney with National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.

Cough up the documents, we’re dying for ammo.

Correct!

If Illini and Illiniwek are out for U. of Ill. teams, per NCAA correctors, so is Illinois out for the whole damn state, says Bill McClellan in St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who suggests “Fighting Jews” for the team name, arguing that “Jews are not known for being drunken brawlers,” like the Irish, and won’t be offended.  He has other ideas but concludes with “Fighting Corrupt Pols,” with a nod to past secretaries of state Paul Powell and George Ryan.  May I humbly add that Powell and Ryan mascots would not be out of order.

=====================================

Meanwhile, local talent will out, as in Rick Morrissey in Chi Trib bringing to bear all the controlled, saddened but not  angered, school-marmish prudery he can muster on the irrepressible Ozzie, the winningest manager maybe in all Chicago history.  Ozzie greeted a friend vulgarly, effusively, insultingly as “a homosexual . . . a child molester,” IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY — Morrissey, that is, and other writers. 

No, no, no! said Morrissey.  You can’t say that!  It’s not true!  Homosexuals are not child molesters!  Stop, stop!  But Newsday beat him to it, without giving Ozzie a chance to defend himself!  So Morrissey, patient, longsuffering, a born teacher (yes!), reads a version of the riot act to our Winningest Manager:

In a vacuum, the insinuation in his words is that being gay is bad and, worse, that it logically follows that homosexuals are child molesters. I know people who are gay and I can’t imagine their seeing anything playful in that. But Guillen says he meant nothing hateful by what he said and that was my immediate impression. But I did roll my eyes. What if someone in the group were gay?

Morrissey knows people who are gay?  Egad, where did he meet them?  Hey, patient schoolmarms spell things out.  You readers be patient too.  It’s a Tribune writer working his way through something.  It’s worth it.  He elicits THE APOLOGY:

“I have no problem with [homosexuals],” Guillen said Wednesday. “I don’t deal with that. To me, everybody’s the same. We’re human beings created by God. Everybody has their own opinion and their own right to do what they want to do. You have the right to feel the way you want to feel. Nobody can take that away from you.”

There.  Morrissey feels better already.  He still has to work things through, however, slogging his conscientious way:

If an Italian came to this country and used ugly words about blacks, would it be explained away so easily? But Guillen says he comes at it from a Venezuelan perspective.

A little cultural awareness, ok?  There’s more, but Morrissey finally lets the whole thing go with a peroration:

Guillen acknowledged he “said the wrong thing at the wrong time,” but it’s more than that. There’s no right time for what he said. The clubhouse and the locker room might be the last place where men can be men, but Guillen has to live in the bigger world. He’s the manager. He’s not Don Rickles.

“I don’t worry about losing my job,” he said. “I just worry about respecting people. I worry about respecting the integrity of people. I represent a city and a team. I have to be careful what I say and when I say it. But I don’t say anything to offend anybody.”

Did ever Father Morrissey impose such a penance?  Finally, he takes a crack at being Aesop but taking three times the space:

In Ozzie’s world, life is to be lived fully, people are to be embraced and jokes are to be made. Problem is, not everyone gets them.

True!