In “Muslim group angered by Kirk,” Chi Trib’s Susan Kuszka (once of Chi Daily News), has a brief account of mau-mauing the congressman — Mark Kirk, North Shore Republican — for saying Middle Eastern men deserve special attention from cops and others charged with protecting us from 9/11–type destruction. 

“[W]e need intense security on applicants [for entry] from terrorist-producing countries,” he said. “Ignoring that reality would only do a disservice to our country’s security.”

 The mau-mauing is by the infamous CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations, a crafty bunch who pounce on whatever and whoever pinpoints Muslims as terrorists, as if Mexicans or Canadians, to touch on our two borders, were as suspect as one of them. 

What Kirk “spewed” out of his mouth “is a manifestation of … a classic, malicious, bigoted attitude,” said Yaser Tabbara, director of Chicago CAIR.  The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights basically agreed and called for an apology and retraction, as did CAIR.

Kirk had said he’s “OK with discrimination against young Arab males from terrorist-producing states . . . young men between, say, the ages of 18 and 25 from a couple of countries,” for security reasons.

So he got stamped on, partly because unfair discrimination has been compressed by usage to discrimination.  The issue is unfair discrimination, of course.  We keep men out of women’s washrooms fairly.  It’s OK to discriminate that way.  Kirk is right to be “OK with discrimination” in this case.

As for CAIR, it’s a blustering arrogant operation , “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect” and “has ties to terrorism.”  Or so say Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of NY respectively, both liberal Democrats.  With critics like that, why is CAIR picking on Mark Kirk?

Wuxtry, wuxtry, Depaul dustup? and No wuxtry for a reason: Churchill at DePaul again of 20 & 28 Oct. has another good reason why media were not allowed at the Ward Churchill talk at DePaul University, namely that Churchill, who is paid for appearances by administrators coast to coast, has money to make 

The Hawaii Reporter, in a “Special Report by Grant Crowell,”

has uncovered Ward’s behind-the-scenes “New Rules” for his paid speaking engagements to universities nationwide, a carefully orchestrated agenda to suppress speech of others, all in the name of his own personal greed.

Crowell’s production company, Walking Eagle Productions, wanted to film Churchill and interview him.  He talked to DePaul administrator Dr. Harvette Grey, head of its Cultural Center, who was very cordial.

Apparently she had assumed that I was a supporter of Churchill’s, and she started confiding in me how horrible the media was for being critical of her for inviting Churchill. She promised me enthusiastically that she would check with him on my request, and that she would personally get back to me soon.

She didn’t, nor would she speak to him when he called a week later.

[H]er receptionist refused to let me speak with her, stating their official line that Churchill’s event was being closed off to the media, and only available to “The DePaul Community.” I mentioned that Dr. Grey promised me that I was to receive a response directly from her, or at least some kind of explanation. To my surprise, the receptionist then blurted coldly, “Dr. Grey never spoke with you” before hanging up.

It wasn’t her idea.  She was taking orders from Churchill.

I later learned that it was Churchill himself who had demanded of Dr. Grey not to allow my documentary crew to film the event, for no interviews to be given by him or the Cultural Center, and certainly no recordings be made of his event by anyone outside of his own group. On the night of Churchill’s speaking event — the university orchestrated with Churchill its “High Security” mode, something it had very rarely done for any speaker, if at all. Anyone without a DePaul ID was to be barred from even entering the building, as extra police was hired along with campus security to prevent Churchill from being exposed to any potential protestors.

But Crowell got a boot-legged audio tape of his talk and put it on line.  Churchill emailed him — a first for him; he had refused to have anything to do with Crowell — threatening a law suit based on violation of copyright, just as he would be sued if he bootlegged “a Dylan or Steve Earle concert.”  Churchill explicitly referred to himself as a “performer.”  Among conclusions Crowell drew was that

Churchill believes that anything that comes out of his mouth is, by his decree, automatically copyrighted material. (According to this, he can never be quoted or filmed by anyone at any public or private event for any use without his express consent, and his due monies.

Moreover, Churchill aims to “control all dialogue,” “make challenges [he doesn’t] have to uphold,” “resell the same stuff” at $4,000 – $5,000 per appearance, and “threaten and intimidate others” by threatening to “sue other scholars, activists and the media . . . even his own (ex) family members.”

Crowell concludes: 

So now we have the answer: Why aren’t recording devices allowed at Churchill’s speaking events? Because Churchill himself demands they not be allowed. This is for his own attention, for his own control, for his own personal profit, for his need to bully, and for feeding his ever-increasing yet fragile ego.

All of which gives insight into Churchill, the pseudo-Indian left-wing professor who can give lessons to anyone on how to game the university system, but equally so into this DePaul administrator and the tone of this university.

Doug Elfman in Sun-Times says Fox should scrap “Stacked” as night-club stuff that clutters the airwaves tonight, but he’s picked out items from it that make the sneaky me want to see it.  He opens:

Sex symbol Pam Anderson’s Fox sitcom is called “Stacked.” Her breasts are “stacked.” She works in a bookstore where books are “stacked” up. If you’re new to long words, this is called a “double entendre,” when one word means two things, including a thing that makes you feel naughty.

And then he specifies with a shtick about Pucci as to dress but also something else.  It’s a joke that keeps on giving, up to the point of a woman’s selling her Pucci to make ends meet.  You mean the dress, I hope, says one character.

There’s even a Dylan Thomas reference, “Rage! Rage against the dying of the light!” delivered in timely fashion as Elfman tells it while unconvincingly disapproving.

Elfman agrees there’s joy in wit.  “Cheeky comedy can be great,” he says, denying such success to “Stacked.”  Hmmm.  Will have to check that one out for myself.

In the “I wish I wrote it” category is a letter in today’s Sun-Times by Nancy J. Thorner, of Lake Bluff, in which she criticizes standard MSM labelling practices: “religious right, never secular-left; right-wing, never left-wing,” etc.

In fact, I did write it, more or less, noting the dearth of “liberal Democrat” as finder in Google but wealth of “conservative Republican” – the latter often self-applied, by the way, which says something about honesty.

For whole letter, scroll down for “A news slant to the left.”

Stop the presses!  AP story about senior bloggers is in Sun-Times too, in addition to USA Today.  It’s also in Elgin’s Daily Courier-News, I am told.  And in Boston Globe or at least at its site, plus God and Google know where else. 

Writer Carla K. Johnson is on to something, I’d say, with her account of senior-citizen denizens of the blogosphere.  A fair-use excerpt of what somehow caught my attention, if you don’t mind:

“It’s easy to start [a blog] if you can connect dots,” said former Jesuit priest and retired newspaperman Jim Bowman, 73, of Oak Park, Ill. Bowman writes four regular blogs: one on happenings in his city, one a catchall for his opinions, one on religion, and one offering feedback on Chicago newspapers [this one].

A recent post from his newspaper blog praised the Chicago Tribune’s front page stories on the White Sox World Series games:

“It’s been a lovely thing, to see copy so clean and substantive enough to make E.B. White and his mentor William Strunk Jr. stand up in their graves and say Yippee,” Bowman wrote.

Bowman once had eight separate blogs, but has let some lapse. The blog topics he doesn’t keep up with anymore include ideas for sermons, Chicago history and condominium life.

“Like any other hobby, you’ve got to make sure it doesn’t take over,” he said.

I love it.