From evil comes good . . .

According to the ever-observant John Fund in the (dirt cheap) subscription-only WSJ.com’s Political Diary, Congr. Charlie Rangel of NY has his eye on the prize of a Gov. Spitzer resignation, if and when:

Should Mr. Spitzer resign, Mr. Rangel would . . . be in the catbird’s seat. Lt. Gov. David Paterson, a former state senator from Harlem, is a longtime protege of Mr. Rangel and would likely grant his mentor wide influence over patronage and fiscal issues. “Rangel could have instant access to Paterson anytime of the day or night,” is how one New York Democratic leader evaluates Mr. Rangel’s likely importance in a Patterson administration.

The ebullient Charlie smells the meat acookin’, to use the old Illinois expression. 

It’s how Paul Powell, who died with $800G in shoeboxes in his closet, put it.  Powell was one of the imprisoned former Ill. secretary of state (and governor) George Ryan’s predecessors in that office.

“A big old country boy , [he] could shake you down and make you like him,” per a boyhood friend.  That’s certainly a knack for government.

McCain explains

In response to objections to his endorsement by televangelist John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church “the great whore” and a “false cult system” and “the apostate church,” McCain offered a delayed response:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month “if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.”

If? He’s not sure?

And he said this only after criticism by The Dreadful Pelosi, that eminent Defender of the Faith from San Francisco.

Running for office, he rejects “any comments that are made” but not the commenter. This is standard gobbledygook apology, of course, long since perfected by offenders awaiting sentencing.

On the other hand, “Minister” Farrakhan loves Obama, doesn’t he, but O.? What O. said about that briefly took wind from opponent’s sails in his recent debate with What’s-her-name, just after he had feinted and dodged some Tim Russert qq.

And Farrakhan tore into Catholicism a few years back, didn’t he? He was quizzed by Russert in 1997, who quoted him:

“We just got to tell the truth. Catholicism has been by white people, for white people, to subject black people to a white kind of theology that strips us of ourselves.” That was you in 1994 [said Russert].

And [Catholics] particularly took great offense to Khallid Muhammad, your former chief spokesman, who said [in 1993], “The old no-good Pope–you know that cracker, somebody needs to raise that dress up and see what’s really under there.” Do you understand why Catholics take offense and believe that you are bigoted towards them?

As for McCain and Hagee:

“We’ve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s. . . .

“I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it,” McCain said.

Point is, does he recognize the Hagee quotes and does he go beyond a blanket repudiation? No, because he’s a politician running for office, like Mutt & Jeff on the other side, for neither of whom would I cast my vote for dogcatcher.

And speaking of politicians, note this well, that Rev. Michael Pfleger of Chicago has endorsed Farrakhan, to whom he has surrendered the pulpit of St. Sabina’s Church on the South Side and whom he has called “a gift from God to a sick, sick world.”

Anything?

If Obama is a rock-star candidate, this babe, recently relieved of her duties as a key foreign-policy advisor for identifying Hillary as (that is, calling her) a monster, is a groupie:

In America, Miss [Samantha] Power has been compared to Condoleeza Rice.

“I’m nothing like her,” she says. “I don’t have any conventional political ambition.”

But if Mr Obama wins the Presidential race she is likely to remain a powerful force. “I’d do anything he asked me to do. It’s not about working for the next President of the United States, it’s Obama. If he ran General Motors I’d be working for him.”

He’s got her vote.

Laugh and the world laughs with you: SNL knows

The lemmings turned?

Over the last few days, the tone of the Democratic contest seems to have shifted, with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign more buoyant and Senator Barack Obama’s more defensive.

That shift may be traceable in part to the “Saturday Night Live” show on Feb. 23, when, back from the writers’ strike, it mocked the news media for treating Mr. Obama more gently than it treated Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton amplified that view later in a debate, and her aides stoked it all week, practically browbeating reporters.

They are so little sure of themselves?  So much with finger to the wind?  The public press is a public trust and all that, but who can withstand Saturday Night Live?

Of course, this is NY Times reportage, ignoring Chicago newspaper coverage of B.O., which did not begin only this week to press him on important issues.

Mrs. Crabby

Michelle Obama laid it on heavy in recent campaigning about how bad we have it.

In a New Yorker profile, she is quoted in a stump speech made throughout South Carolina as characterizing America as “just downright mean.”

She said the country is divided, life is not good, the people are “guided by fear” and cynicism.

“We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she told churchgoers in that primary state. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime.”

She ain’t seen nothin’ yet.  Wait till the mainstream reporters really get warmed up with their Rezko qq.  Then she’ll really howl.

“Let me tell you, don’t get sick in America!” she exclaimed.

Especially when U. of Chi Hospitals are your option.  Lots of insurance needed to help cover her $316,952 salary there as an administrator — up from $121,910  once her man became a U.S. senator.

She’s — ahem — conflicted about her success, or was in 1985 when she wrote her undergraduate thesis, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” in which she makes a heartfelt cry:

Princeton both humiliated her and corrupted her, Michelle Vaughn Robinson complains in an undergraduate prose that is all the more touching for its clumsiness. By condescending to the young black woman from a Chicago working-class family, the liberal university made Michelle feel like an outsider. Worse, by giving her a ticket to financial success, Princeton caused her to feel that she was selling out to the institutions she most despised.

We call it guilt.  She’s made it big, and that ain’t bad, but she feels bad about it and wants us to feel bad too.  Grrrrrr.

Seeing and believing: the light shines

“Fill your horn with oil,” God told Samuel.  He was sending him to Bethlehem, where one of Jesse’s sons was to be king. 

God didn’t leave such matters to chance.  In the story of his people, he was calling the shots — for their own good, needless to say.  He was a benevolent despot.  They had to learn to trust him. 

He was not capricious, however, demanding to be placated, not one to be feared, period.  We have to compare him to other gods of the day.  “Compared to what?” is the key question here, as in most other places.

This time Samuel, sent to find the new king, got a lesson in substance compared to mere appearance.

As Jesse and his sons came to the sacrifice,
Samuel looked at Eliab [one of the sons] and thought,
“Surely the LORD’s anointed is here before him.”

He had to think again:

“Do not judge from his appearance or from his lofty stature, [God said]
because I have rejected him.
Not as man sees does God see,
because man sees the appearance
but the LORD looks into the heart.”

So the pleasantly appearing hotshot is not necessarily the one.  It does not rule him out, however.  The son who is chosen is

ruddy, a youth handsome to behold and making a splendid appearance. The LORD said, “There-anoint him, for this is he!”

Go figure.  The lesson seems to be that we should look before leaping, hold our judgment in abeyance sometimes, wait for guidance, in this case divine.  I like that. 

This son — the youngest, called in from his sheep-tending after Samuel has seen the others — is the least likely candidate for anointing from that oil-filled horn.  Splendid appearance or not, he was chosen in apparently a judicious manner.  It was David, of course.

So much for the first (Old T) reading for this past Sunday, the 4th of Lent, A-cycle.  Now chimes in Paul in a snippet from his letter to the Ephesians about light (good) and darkness (bad), warning against the “fruitless works of darkness” which are “shameful even to mention.”

We may consider God here as one who “looks into the heart.”  Yes, that’s God, and that’s also the honest man or woman, who is implicitly urged here to take a second look, and a third, etc., in any case to avoid fooling himself or herself.

We may also consider “shameful,” which is a description that does not come easily to our lips, we being 21st-century Westerners.  “Have you no shame?” lawyer Welch asked Joe McCarthy 50–plus years ago, and his words reverberated in article, column, headline, TV news clip.

We learn morality by being shamed, argues Lee Harris in his Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West.  We are shamed into behavior required by the tribe or by the community that inevitably is part tribal.  This by Harris is one of two book-length essays on this general subject since our 9/11 catastrophe.

On to the 3rd reading, from John 9, which is surely what you heard about Sunday from the preacher if you heard a preacher.  It’s the story of the man blind from birth whom Jesus used as launch pad for a sharp rejoinder to the Pharisees: he’s not blind because the parents sinned, as they said.

“Neither he nor his parents sinned;
it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.
We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day.
Night is coming when no one can work.
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

That’s a seminal, almost modernizing comment, lifting affliction from the realm of blameability — seminal because it tears us with ears to hear out of the ever-threatening superstitious approach to life.  A preacher could spend some time on this point, speaking up for reason as Jesus did and doing what he or she could to undercut un-reason. 

We don’t usually look to a miracle-worker for that, but miracles imply a discernible order in things, something to be investigated.  If there were no investigatable nature of things, it would be silly to claim a miracle; the word would have no meaning.

And of course, we can’t miss this light-darkness contrast, echoing Paul to Ephesians in the 2nd reading.  In a world of electrical appliance, we have no idea how impenetrable darkness can be.  My friend Charlie stood on a Himalayan high spot and saw moon and stars as if he could touch them.  He was living in a Nepali village in the course of his Jesuit missionary years.  With no city lights, even in the distance, he saw the dark, as it were, clearly.

That clay made of dirt and spittle to heal the blind man was a Sabbath violation.  Accused, Jesus lived up to another pivotal announcement, in Mark, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”

My.  Again the modernizing statement, in its call for the second look, the inquiry, the reassessment.  It’s somewhat like God tutoring Samuel in his choice of a king from Jesse’s sons.  We are supposed to be thoughtful.

Ah, but all in all, it’s a great story, this blind man’s buffet of pictures and dialog, and more power to the preacher who can retell it lovingly — and thoughtfully, shedding light where there is at least semi-darkness.  That would be nice.

Tone it down, says Oak Park Dem

Oak Park’s Dem committeeman and one of its state senators, the astute and up-and-coming Don Harmon, warns against harsh words and the like among Dems in this primary:

The nominating process has almost run its course. While I believe and hope that Sen. Obama will be our party’s nominee, I would certainly support Sen. Clinton, were she nominated. More so than ever before, we Democrats need to rally ’round our nominee, and do so in a manner that engages independent voters and Republicans troubled by the course of current events. Fights within families often include the most hurtful words, but just as often lead to healing. In a campaign where words matter, let us all begin the healing by choosing our words more carefully.

He speaks for a lot of Dem professionals, who are worried about divisions in the party that will give the lie to their candidate’s bringing an end to divisions in the country.

First, no metal, then not enough mettle

The good news was, the metal detectors worked at Proviso East last night.  The man behind it, among many milling about on both sides of it, kept calling out to us on the other side, “Single file, folks.  Single file.”  And hats off, not to anyone in particular but to the goal of civility in closed places.

The bad news was, the Huskies lost decisively to the Dolphins of Whitney Young.  . . . .

More more more at my Wednesday Journal blog . . .

Wuxtry. J-dean beats rap. He got the gist of it.

The Medill-Northwestern journalism dean is off the hook because he can’t be proven wrong.  He

did not violate any policies in using unattributed quotes in alumni magazine columns last year.

Provost Dan Linzer said that he concurred . . . that Dean John Lavine had accurately captured the essence of student sentiments about courses in his column, “Letter from the Dean.” [Italics added]

He used quotation marks, right?  To capture the essence?  Winking as he did so?  The quoted statements

cannot be [verified, but] sufficient material does exist . . . to demonstrate that sentiments similar to the quotes had been expressed by students,” . . . .  [Italics added again]


This was pretty truthy stuff?

“The author of a [column] like the “Letter from the Dean” could not reasonably be expected [to] have retained for a year the notes or e-mails documenting the sources of quotations used in the letter.”


But The Daily Northwestern asked every student, none of whom vouched for the blind-quote affirmations of the dean’s class:

[Columnist] Spett sought out the 29 students in the class Lavine had described and, he said, asked all of them if they had made the statements in Lavine’s story. All said no.


But the dean is not guilty, as it were of a criminal charge, when the matter was much more a civil complaint, of which he’s supposed to be innocent — a regular Caesar’s wife, being a teacher of mass communicators in a prestige-heavy institution.


Are we henceforward to look on Medill grads’ work as crafted so that we can’t pin a thing on the writer?  He’s in the clear, is he?  No matter the “caveat lector” that has to accompany his writing?