Month: December 2005

Save the Colt!

Wednesday, December 7, 2005, Wednesday Journal of OP

JIM BOWMAN

Remembering Colt … Talk of the Colt building these days brings back a cherished boyhood memory, when Dear Old Dad would take us on the Lake Street car to go and see it. We’d get off at Marion and walk the half block west and stop to gaze and gasp.

Dad would put his arm on my shoulder and say, “There it is, Jim, the building time forgot.” I never forgot.

“It’s art deco,” he said many times. I didn’t have the gumption to ask what that was but knew it was special.

The whole family would go. We’d take our lunch and munch it while watching from across the street. Sometimes the peanut butter would not go down easily, as a certain constriction took over the throat—constriction at construction, of a truly wonderful building.

How different today, when to stand on that spot is to witness another construction in progress, of luxury condominiums for big spenders who one day might walk the New Street to Metra—will they call it “New,” making every other street sound old?—and while they’re at it will help fund police, fire and trash-collection services beyond our dreams, not to mention schools, parks, and library.

But there are days when I could care less about that, when I look at such an ugly construction site and think that one day such would occur on the ruins of our beloved Colt.

Even today I meet or hear of visitors from abroad who have heard about our Colt and want to see it. “We came to see the Colt,” they say, and are aghast at the news that the village quibbles at spending five-plus million to buy and restore it. They return to their native lands shaking their heads.

One can only ask, plaintively, is there a Cicero in our midst who can stand up and ask, “How long, how long, Oh Taxman, will you abuse our patience with your regressive views on Colt, insisting on the letter of a contract imprudently signed by village fathers and mothers a few short months ago?”

Is there a Balzac who can sprinkle our walls with a reproachful “J’accuse!”—thus to finger the perpetrators of sacrilege in our midst? And for what? To enlarge our tax base!

Finally, is there a Patrick Henry who can tell our burgesses, as he told those of Virginia about something else in 1775, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Colt or give me nothing!”? I ask you.

Weaponry … Meanwhile, on another front entirely, a soft but persistent voice suggests to some citizens that even with excellent emergency response by police, there may be something walkers and riders can do to fend off harm. With that in mind, they consider gaps in Oak Park’s weapons ordinances.

There’s no mention of Mace, pepper spray, stun gun, or Taser. Knife and blackjack are mentioned only in connection with pawnbrokers, who must not keep either around. Air gun or bow-and-arrow or any other projectile-firing mechanism are ruled out for use, except arrows on a range supervised by the board of ed or park district—Ridgeland Commons on a slow day?—and blanks fired on stage, presumably for scary or other effect.

That leaves Mace, pepper spray, stun gun, Taser, knife, blackjack. The pepper sprays are good for eight feet, says TBO Tech-dot-com, the Taser for 15, the stun gun for no feet: you have to touch someone to stun him. It comes disguised as umbrella or flashlight or something else if the citizen wishes. Years ago on the West Side, a friend of mine in the projects said she had a friend who had to wait at night for a bus at Halsted and Lake. In her muff she hid a small pistol. The man who asked her for a match was a dead man. Maybe a spray or Taser shot would do it now, even in Oak Park.

Today’s state of state, village, nation

Here’s David Diersen on Topinka et al.  Rather good.

GOPUSA ILLINOIS
— Questions concerning the gubernatorial race – Dave Diersen
As of 7:30 AM today, the Illinois Republican Party (IRP) platform was still not posted on the IRP website.  Blagojevich and Topinka reject many important planks in the IRP platform.  Many of the people who support Topinka reject many important planks in the IRP platform.  Brady, Oberweis, and Rauschenberger support all the planks in the IRP platform.  Because Topinka rejects so many important planks in the IRP platform, to support Topinka is to reject the IRP platform.  Is someone who says they are a Republican really a Republican if they reject many important planks in the IRP platform and would rather see Blagojevich reelected than see Brady, Oberweis, or Rauschenberger elected?  What do you say to those who believe that Edgar almost ran and Topinka is running to stop Brady, Gidwitz, Oberweis, and Rauschenberger from being elected?
 
=================================
Plus good letter in Sun-Times taking on Andrew Greeley and other Bush-lied people, from Steve J. Ciszewski, in Lake View. “Is Andrew Greeley serious?” he asks.
To say that Bush lied is to say that he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but proceeded to war anyway.
But the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Silberman-Robb Commission both found it a case of bad intelligence (not presidential dishonesty).  Neither found “evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities,” he writes, quoting the Senate committee.  Greeley et al. know better?
======================
Plus Sun-Times on Oak Park as suspected burial place of serial killer victims.  425 S. Kenilworth is the apartment where David Maust would have put the bodies, under flooring.  I know the block.  It’s rather densely populated, between Washington and Madison, with condo buildings much in evidence and a new one going up.  Michael Shields is quoted as former resident of the building with recollections that point to victim disposal.  I remember him from school-related parents’ meetings as apparently sincere and earnest guy.  Nothing in his reported remarks works against that impression I had of him.  He lives elsewhere in Oak Park, in a house, the S-T story says.
========================
Plus Dennis Byrne in Chi Trib with common sense on profiling (a nice corrective to Dawn Trice’s quite skewed commentary of 11/28, already archived and not free).  Byrne says:
Paying more attention to people who look and act like they might be terrorists is sensible, not racist. I had hoped that this would have been accepted by now, but judging by the recent number of people who have been “deeply offended” by the idea, I guess it hasn’t.
I especially like this, about reactions to Rep. Mark Kirk’s defending heightened scrutiny of “some” Arab men:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she was “deeply offended” by Kirk’s remarks, and I’m deeply offended that she’s deeply offended, so she should apologize to me.
This is good because more of us should be deeply offended about others’ playing to various audience by saying they are deeply offended.  I’m not quite deeply offended because more of us aren’t, but I am mildly irritated.  And wouldn’t it be nice if Rep. Jan and others would stop, count two, and then say they are mildly irritated the next time they start to say they are deeply offended.  And I certainly don’t mean to offend anyone by saying this, which would start another round, and I was tired two or three lines ago.
==================================
Finally, there’s the lesbian-insemination flareup in San Diego, where bad things are happening, such as the resignation of the bribed congressman, which you can find and read about on your own if you must.  This item is about the doctors who declined to inseminate on religious grounds and got the OK for this from a state court, which cited the woman’s being not married.  You can do that in California, that is, discriminate on grounds of marital status. 
 
The woman argued that she got turned down because of her sexual orientation, which is not permitted.  Her 15–year partnership with another woman did not qualify.  So there you have a rub in the gay-marriage issue: the married lesbian can force a doctor to inseminate her, the unmarried one cannot.  Is it not unlikely, however, that there was no way in San Diego, a city of 1,223,400 in 2000, to be inseminated except by these two doctors who refused on religious grounds?  The suit appears therefore to be a skirmish in the war for gay marriage.

Today’s state of state, village, nation

Here’s David Diersen on Topinka et al.  Rather good.

GOPUSA ILLINOIS
— Questions concerning the gubernatorial race – Dave Diersen
As of 7:30 AM today, the Illinois Republican Party (IRP) platform was still not posted on the IRP website.  Blagojevich and Topinka reject many important planks in the IRP platform.  Many of the people who support Topinka reject many important planks in the IRP platform.  Brady, Oberweis, and Rauschenberger support all the planks in the IRP platform.  Because Topinka rejects so many important planks in the IRP platform, to support Topinka is to reject the IRP platform.  Is someone who says they are a Republican really a Republican if they reject many important planks in the IRP platform and would rather see Blagojevich reelected than see Brady, Oberweis, or Rauschenberger elected?  What do you say to those who believe that Edgar almost ran and Topinka is running to stop Brady, Gidwitz, Oberweis, and Rauschenberger from being elected?
 
=================================
Plus good letter in Sun-Times taking on Andrew Greeley and other Bush-lied people, from Steve J. Ciszewski, in Lake View. “Is Andrew Greeley serious?” he asks.
To say that Bush lied is to say that he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but proceeded to war anyway.
But the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Silberman-Robb Commission both found it a case of bad intelligence (not presidential dishonesty).  Neither found “evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities,” he writes, quoting the Senate committee.  Greeley et al. know better?
======================
Plus Sun-Times on Oak Park as suspected burial place of serial killer victims.  425 S. Kenilworth is the apartment where David Maust would have put the bodies, under flooring.  I know the block.  It’s rather densely populated, between Washington and Madison, with condo buildings much in evidence and a new one going up.  Michael Shields is quoted as former resident of the building with recollections that point to victim disposal.  I remember him from school-related parents’ meetings as apparently sincere and earnest guy.  Nothing in his reported remarks works against that impression I had of him.  He lives elsewhere in Oak Park, in a house, the S-T story says.
========================
Plus Dennis Byrne in Chi Trib with common sense on profiling (a nice corrective to Dawn Trice’s quite skewed commentary of 11/28, already archived and not free).  Byrne says:
Paying more attention to people who look and act like they might be terrorists is sensible, not racist. I had hoped that this would have been accepted by now, but judging by the recent number of people who have been “deeply offended” by the idea, I guess it hasn’t.
I especially like this, about reactions to Rep. Mark Kirk’s defending heightened scrutiny of “some” Arab men:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she was “deeply offended” by Kirk’s remarks, and I’m deeply offended that she’s deeply offended, so she should apologize to me.
This is good because more of us should be deeply offended about others’ playing to various audience by saying they are deeply offended.  I’m not quite deeply offended because more of us aren’t, but I am mildly irritated.  And wouldn’t it be nice if Rep. Jan and others would stop, count two, and then say they are mildly irritated the next time they start to say they are deeply offended.  And I certainly don’t mean to offend anyone by saying this, which would start another round, and I was tired two or three lines ago.
==================================
Finally, there’s the lesbian-insemination flareup in San Diego, where bad things are happening, such as the resignation of the bribed congressman, which you can find and read about on your own if you must.  This item is about the doctors who declined to inseminate on religious grounds and got the OK for this from a state court, which cited the woman’s being not married.  You can do that in California, that is, discriminate on grounds of marital status. 
 
The woman argued that she got turned down because of her sexual orientation, which is not permitted.  Her 15–year partnership with another woman did not qualify.  So there you have a rub in the gay-marriage issue: the married lesbian can force a doctor to inseminate her, the unmarried one cannot.  Is it not unlikely, however, that there was no way in San Diego, a city of 1,223,400 in 2000, to be inseminated except by these two doctors who refused on religious grounds?  The suit appears therefore to be a skirmish in the war for gay marriage.

Gay Chi priest

Sun-Times’s Cathleen Falsani got a heck of a quote, at the expense of attribution, from a gay Chicago priest commenting about the Vatican’s banning of deep homosexuals from the priesthood and seminaries.  The Vatican said bishops “cannot admit . . .  those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’ .”

Bunk, says the gay priest.

“In a nutshell to say, ‘It’s OK to be homosexual as long as you don’t think like a homosexual, talk like a homosexual, act like a homosexual, hang out with homosexuals, or go to places that are known to be hangouts of homosexuals,’ well, that’s ludicrous on its surface. And I don’t say that flippantly. Sometimes the cardinal says, ‘Oh, that’s flippant.’ This isn’t flippant. That’s what the document says,” the priest said, adding that he believed the “right wing” of the Catholic church had decided to make homosexuals “their scapegoats and whipping boys.”

Chi Trib’s Margaret Ramirez and Manya A. Brachear in the meantime got one anonymous quote mild in comparison — “I find it kind of sad” — but scored a first as regards a working Chicago pastor if not for any Chicago priest ever in their quoting a gay pastor by name.

Rev. Michael Herman, a gay priest and pastor of St. Sylvester Church in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood, recently joined with other priests to form a group called Catholics Affirming Homosexual Leadership.

“People who have a sense of bigotry or have sense of hatred toward people who are gay, these documents give people a chance to get on their soapbox,” Herman said. “My desire to speak out is to say `Wait a second. Is this a fair thing to say? Is it fair to isolate one group of candidates when these issues of maturity and integration are true of all candidates?”

Herman was ordained in 1989.  His consenting to be identified is a milestone in public discussion of gay priests.  It’s in sharp contrast to my experience eleven years ago in Oak Park, at the old Kroch’s & Brentano’s on Lake Street, where I was talking up my book Bending the Rules: What American Priests Tell American Catholics — available now as Priests at Work: Catholic Pastors Tell How They Apply Church Law in Difficult Cases — when I reduced a storeful of people to churchly silence with the mere mention of gay priests.

Gay Chi priest

Sun-Times’s Cathleen Falsani got a heck of a quote, at the expense of attribution, from a gay Chicago priest commenting about the Vatican’s banning of deep homosexuals from the priesthood and seminaries.  The Vatican said bishops “cannot admit . . .  those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’ .”

Bunk, says the gay priest.

“In a nutshell to say, ‘It’s OK to be homosexual as long as you don’t think like a homosexual, talk like a homosexual, act like a homosexual, hang out with homosexuals, or go to places that are known to be hangouts of homosexuals,’ well, that’s ludicrous on its surface. And I don’t say that flippantly. Sometimes the cardinal says, ‘Oh, that’s flippant.’ This isn’t flippant. That’s what the document says,” the priest said, adding that he believed the “right wing” of the Catholic church had decided to make homosexuals “their scapegoats and whipping boys.”

Chi Trib’s Margaret Ramirez and Manya A. Brachear in the meantime got one anonymous quote mild in comparison — “I find it kind of sad” — but scored a first as regards a working Chicago pastor if not for any Chicago priest ever in their quoting a gay pastor by name.

Rev. Michael Herman, a gay priest and pastor of St. Sylvester Church in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood, recently joined with other priests to form a group called Catholics Affirming Homosexual Leadership.

“People who have a sense of bigotry or have sense of hatred toward people who are gay, these documents give people a chance to get on their soapbox,” Herman said. “My desire to speak out is to say `Wait a second. Is this a fair thing to say? Is it fair to isolate one group of candidates when these issues of maturity and integration are true of all candidates?”

Herman was ordained in 1989.  His consenting to be identified is a milestone in public discussion of gay priests.  It’s in sharp contrast to my experience eleven years ago in Oak Park, at the old Kroch’s & Brentano’s on Lake Street, where I was talking up my book Bending the Rules: What American Priests Tell American Catholics — available now as Priests at Work: Catholic Pastors Tell How They Apply Church Law in Difficult Cases — when I reduced a storeful of people to churchly silence with the mere mention of gay priests.