Sauce for goose . . .

Oak Park columnist John Hubbuch ably defending an earlier column in which he called Hillary a “cuckquean,” feminine for cuckold:

I would hope my wife, sister, daughter or female friend, presented with this appalling pattern of behavior by their spouse, would file for divorce and stop enabling the husband and demeaning herself.

Same for other supposed stand-up feminists who stood up for their man who tomcatted around.  The sheer effrontery of these guys called for rapid response of sharpest nature from the abused wife.

Not saying divorce is required.  But some bringing to heel of the heel in public, if only by declining to do a press conference with him, is clearly in order.

Big for his britches?

AP veteran Ron Fournier has coined a potentially harmful look-out, watch-out description of Obama: He thinks he’s hot stuff.

[T]here’s a line smart politicians don’t cross — somewhere between “I’m qualified to be president” and “I’m born to be president.” Wherever it lies, Barack Obama better watch his step.

He’s bordering on arrogance

The man from audacity “can be a bit too cocky for his own good,” says Fournier. 

“To know me is to love me,” Obama said in July.  “Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama’s been there,” he said later.

True, there’s a certain amount of tongue-in-cheekiness to such remarks — almost as if Obama doesn’t want to take his adoring crowds and political ascent too seriously. He was surely kidding when he told supporters in January that by the time he was done speaking “a light will shine down from somewhere.”

“It will light upon you,” he continued. “You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack. I have to do it.”

Kidding on the square, as my father used to say?

O. and his wife “ooze a sense of entitlement.”  She recently laid it on heavily, calling him “one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics” — we should be very grateful — and we will get only one chance to elect him.

With the entitlement will come his feeling very hurt if we don’t elect him, with accompanying emotions from his supporters, especially those who seethe with their feelings of victimhood — the other side of the volatile entitlement equation.

Update: A former reporter for the Hyde Park Herald recalls O. from his state senate days, when he was prone to a hot response and willing to bully a newsman:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

Yet more interesting, in those days he was Emil Jones’s man.  Jones, senate president, became his “kingmaker,” writes Todd Spivak in the Houston (TX) Press:

“Cliff, I’m gonna make me a U.S. Senator,” Jones told former alderman, now talk-show host Cliff Kelley, an old friend.  “Oh, you are? Who might that be?” asked Kelley in a conversation both confirmed for Spivak.  “Barack Obama.”

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

O’s earmark requests were to include “tens of millions for Jones’s Senate district.” 

Back to O. as intimidating:

I was 25 and had no problem interviewing big-wig politicians. But I always had to steel my nerves when calling Obama. His intelligence was intimidating, and my hands inevitably shook with sweat.

Barack, we hardly know ye.

Oprah bailed out of Obama’s church?

The plot thickens in the matter of Oprah Winfrey’s belonging to or attending Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th St. in Chicago, as mentioned in various places, including in a Chi Trib piece in January 2007:

At least one member of Rev. Wright’s church apparently had her fill of [his] rhetoric. Oprah Winfrey, a staunch backer of Mr. Obama, began attending the church in 1984. But sometime in the mid-1990s, Christianity Today reports the superstar abruptly stopped going.

That’s John Fund in the subscription-only Political Diary of the Wall St. Journal.  He’s referring to Christianity Today’s 4/1/02 piece, “The Religion of O,” which quotes a Black Collegian magazine column in which Wright shows himself irked by Winfrey’s departure and indulges in some unseemly backbiting:

Wright mentioned Oprah as an example of African Americans who forget their roots in the church after finding success. “A lot of us do not even like the word faith anymore,” he wrote [in the column]. “We prefer the more chic-sounding word, spirituality! We are caught up in an Oprah-generated mentality and a 12-step vocabulary that prevents us from using the very words and the very bridge that ‘brought us over!’ “

He makes her out to be a cheapskate in his comments to the CT writer:

“I think it is hard for most very wealthy people to be a part of the church,” he says. “Somebody who makes $100 a week has no problem tithing. But start making $35 million a year, and you’ll want to renegotiate the contract. You don’t want to be a part of ‘organized religion’ at that point. That’s a generalized statement, but that’s what I’ve found across the years. The wealthier somebody gets, the more they pull away from the church.”

In any case, she had not attended the church for eight years, Wright said in 2002, presenting her as a backslider:

“She has broken with the [traditional faith],” he says. “She now has this sort of ‘God is everywhere, God is in me, I don’t need to go to church, I don’t need to be a part of a body of believers, I can meditate, I can do positive thinking’ spirituality. It’s a strange gospel. It has nothing to do with the church Jesus Christ founded.”

Fund speculates that she wanted “to distance herself from [Wright’s] fiery speech” and notes that Obama “took a different path,” remaining in the church.

Chicago Daily Observer | Sin everywhere you turn

This of mine is newly posted at Chicago Daily Observer:

The Vatican chimed in on the ills of the day:

This latest update on how God’s law is being violated in today’s
world comes from Msgr. [Bishop in the non-Vatican term] Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Vatican’s Apostolic Penitentiary.

He pointed to ’‘violations of the basic rights of human nature’’
through genetic manipulation, the use of drugs that ’‘weaken the mind and cloud intelligence’’ and the vast disparity between rich and poor.

’‘If yesterday sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it
has a weight, a resonance, that’s especially social, rather than
individual,’’ Girotti said in an interview published Sunday in the
Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano about what he views as the ’‘new sins.’’

I love the “penitentiary” business. Not as in Stateville, be it known,
but as in penance, which we do for our sins whether eligible for
Stateville or not.

…………………………  more more more

 

Bashing Belleville’s Braxton

This comes as no surprise to those familiar with the arch demeanor and towering self-esteem of Ed Braxton, a theology consultant who served briefly (3 years) as an Oak Park IL pastor before making bishop:

BELLEVILLE, Ill. (AP) – Nearly four dozen priests in Belleville’s diocese want Bishop Edward Braxton to step down.

A letter signed by 45 priests and sent to Braxton says his resignation would be for the good of Braxton and the diocese.

He apologized in January for spending money not his own — restricted Vatican and diocesan funds — for vestments and in general has demonstrated “lack of collaborative and consultative leadership,” say the Four Dozen, who are forwarding their letter to Cardinal George in Chicago and the Vatican’s man in Washington.

They are sure to respond promptly and affirmatively, backing up the priests’ wish for so-called Vatican 2–style governance procedures. 

But first, the Cubs and Sox play a seven-game World Series after Jerry Reinsdorf breaks the bank to buy A-Rod and other stars and Sam Zell gives up on selling Wrigley and changing its name.

Death sting eliminated

Ezekiel delivers the ultimate promise from God, quoting him:

O my people, I will open your graves
and have you rise from them . . .

Paul tells Romans the same thing:

If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
the one who raised Christ from the dead
will give life to your mortal bodies also . . .

This is great news, to say the least.  It solves the ultimate mystery.  These two short (5th Sunday Lent, 3/9/08) passages lead to John’s long account of the raising of Lazarus.

He’s sick and not long for this world, or so people thought.  Jesus decided to use him to make the Ezekiel point about graves opening — and to anticipate the Paul point about resurrection.

The body was in Judea, where they were laying for Jesus.  “You’re sure you want to go back there?” his people asked him.  He answered mysteriously about a twelve-hour day (of daylight, we presume) and stumbling in the dark, meaning let’s go before it’s dark.

There was the back-and-forth with the dead man’s sister, who unwittingly sets him up for his clinching argument, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.”

He immediately puts it to her: “Do you believe this?”  She can’t say yes fast enough.  This was Martha, who got something of a bum rap earlier for getting tied up in housework when something big was happening — the biggest she would ever come up against.  It was a mistake she wasn’t going to make twice.

She sends for Mary, who gets up to go and meet Jesus outside of town.  “The Jews,” present everywhere you turn in these stories, follow her.  She arrives shaking with grief.  He catches his breath at the sight: this Mary broken up, racked with sobbing.  He groans and cries.

“The Jews” see it.  Some of them get nasty about it: “Could not the one who opened the eyes of the blind man have done something so that this man would not have died?”

Jesus goes into action.  Roll the stone away, he says.  The body will smell awfully, says Martha, the practical one.  Didn’t I tell you not to be that way? Jesus says.  The stone is removed, Jesus prays to the Father, he issues the call: “Lazarus, come out!”

He comes out: “Untie him and let him go,” says Jesus, and the rest is history — the gospel truth, we might say. 

As for those “Jews,” they are pretty much understood to be the Jewish authorities.  “Johannine [John] Christians” were Jews in conflict on the basic issue of messianic identity.  This gospel, a sustained argument for Jesus as messiah, is for Jews who knew Greek, to convert them or to defeat them in an argument. 

The late Rev. Raymond Brown, a Catholic scholar of the first water, concedes anti-Jewish sentiment here.  At the very least, there was rivalry, sometimes intense.  That’s how it was in those days.

 

Today Dyson, tomorrow who?

On Today Show today on NBC, Melinda Henneberger, once-NYT reporter, now Slate contributor, says Obama is helped by the preacher-friend controversy because it puts to rest the idea that he’s a Muslim.  He “answered an altar call 20 years ago.”

On same show, Michael Dyson, the itinerant Afro-studies prof once at DePaul U., refers to “so-called inflammatory rhetoric” of the preacher friend and backs him up in his analysis of American history AND is a fervent Obama supporter.

Meanwhile, are we to believe no white people are going to rethink their Obama commitment when he merely rejects certain sayings of this preacher but not the preacher himself, for whom the sayings reflect his fervent beliefs — unless we think these spiels were aberrations for him, which no one is saying.

Obama likes the guy, is obviously quite comfortable with him as an individual, even has a warm relationship, even as the guy is a race-baiter of the first water.  Four years coming up of the smooth-talking left-wing president whose friends we have to ignore?  God bless and save America.

A church for Barack

No other churches for Obama to pick?

At some point, in some venue, Mr. Obama is going to have to give a speech directly addressing his longtime pastor’s views and answering a simple question: Why didn’t he find another church that didn’t include a leader who so frequently engaged in such hate speech?

That’s John Fund in WSJ.com’s Political Diary, voicing my very thought in the matter.  It’s been 30 years (this month, in fact) since I regularly attended church on assignment.  But I must say that there have to be other South Side churches and preachers — black, white, and indifferent — that don’t demagogue the Gospel.

But O. found something he was looking for in this church that he could find in no other, we assume, and now he’s stuck with this wild-man preacher.

Look, even Catholics can pick and choose among Catholic churches.  As a Protestant, O. is part of a tradition where picking and choosing got its biggest boost religion-wise.

He did not know about the man’s oratorical proclivities, he says.  He wasn’t there when he said this or that.  But how many sermons did O. have to miss not to catch the drift of this man, who is not a crazy uncle he inherited but a spiritual father whom he chose?

He was surprised to hear the man talks this way, as “so contrary to my own life and beliefs.”  If only he had known.

And where did those worshipers come from pictured in the video cheering the pastor on?  Did they pop in knowing he would uncork something big and exciting that day?  Were they surprised when he talked that way?

In politics we trust . . .

Is there something sad and mysterious about this release from St. Sabina Church?

March 13, 2008 Vince Clark – 773.483.4300
ANOTHER C.P.S. STUDENT DIES
RALLY AT STATE OF ILLINOIS BUILDING

On Wednesday, another Chicago Public School student, Channon Taylor, died. Channon [age 18] was shot Saturday afternoon in the 1800 block of South Lawndale and died Wednesday. On Friday, March 14, as was promised, Rev. Michael Pfleger and Chicago Public Schools will lead a rally from
11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at The State of Illinois Building, located at 100 West Randolph.

Rev. Pfleger said, “Every time a child [!] dies we will put it in the face of state government and demand ‘Common Sense Gun Laws!’”

Please invite anyone to attend.

Why sad?  Why mysterious?  Besides the obvious reasons about kids being shot down on the street? 

It’s that city and neighborhood leadership, in this case religious, clings so tenaciously to a legislative straw as the solution to their problems.  [Candidate Obama wants no part of it, by the way.]

Is it too much to ask for evidence of correlation between tighter gun control and reduced killing?  Or of successful enforcement of the laws we have or might have?

Newspapers don’t discuss this.  Who does?

These people do, for what’s it’s worth — here and here and here — to pick the first three sites shown by Google when you type “gun control.”

Bad stat not so bad after all . . .

Politically incorrect stuff hit the fan with the federal study of teenage girls that rang the alarm about sexually transmitted diseases and along the way found blacks more than twice as much affected or infected than whites, 50% to 20%.  Not to worry, however: the Center for Disease Control doc had an answer for this:

[Dr. John] Douglas said African-American girls are probably more vulnerable to STDs because of higher infection rates among blacks as a whole and less access to health care.

The numbers “[do] not mean African Americans are taking greater behavioral risks. In fact, research suggests the opposite,” he said.

OK.  For a minute there, we thought they caught more stuff because they did it more — were “taking greater behavioral risks,” as the doc said.

No.  Blacks in general are more infected, so sexual looseness is not to be suspected.  And they have “less access to health care.”

Hence the yawning chasm of difference.  Would the doctor please expand on that thesis?  More to the point, would somewhere in this land of ours a desk editor turn to the writer — in this case rewriter and Englisher of the AP copy — and ask her to give the doc a ring?

Times are hard, but a telephone call?  Is that too much to ask?

The writer did some calling, true.  She got this from the exec director of something called the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health:

“It’s a clear sign that something’s wrong in terms of the way we teach sex education, the way we talk about it, and the message we send to youth,” said Soo Ji Min . . .

. . . who could be on to something.  The message we send ignores the option of keeping one’s knickers in place, maybe?  We can only guess.  No one asked, apparently.