1. Why do violent-crime stories always emphasize the victim and not the culprit? They usually know the victim right off, but the culprit only later, if ever. But the culprit is usually more interesting. We want to know who the s.o.b. is, where he lives, what else he’s done. We are often told this, but rarely are regaled with detailed accounts such as we commonly read about victims.
2. What’s to keep a cranky person more or less in line?
A head-trip mass on Sunday with bad music and holy reverie interrupted by vaious handshaking and eye contact with priest at makeshift altar who mimics Johnny Carson (or Leno or Letterman) with wireless mike on neck for sermon and intersperses rubrics with his own personalized comments?
Or a tried and true Catholic traditional mass with bells, book, candle and quietude normally associated with dwelling on and trembling and/or delighting in God’s presence?
3. What’s this separate but equal approach in the Sun-Times, with Mitchell column for blacks and Cepeda for Spanish-ethnic? Word is, do not look for nuances in either place.
Blithe Spirit 