Like the cowboys and the farmers in “Oklahoma”

. . . coming to terms on what benefits all.

This fellow argues that he did.

Here is the scoop.

He took the children’s murders to heart. But there are many more children and others dying on his watch.

Announcing his executive actions on gun control at the White House . . . President Obama wiped away tears as he talked about the mass shooting of first-graders in Newtown, declaring, “Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad.”

No doubt the president’s emotion was genuine. [sic] When any of us think of first-graders being killed, our hearts break and our blood pressure rises.

But Obama’s tearful moment raises a question: Why doesn’t Obama show that same emotion when it comes to terror?

Why not?

. . . sometimes.

Consider George Washington High in southeast Chicago, “a soccer kick away from Indiana,” where a notably and verifiably successful principal faces the heave-ho from the Local School Council, the sort of Chicago Public School reform that’s supposed to promote good schools.

A month ago, a Lauren Fitzpatrick story in the Sun-Times told of the principal’s being opposed by a newly elected council president, Tina Perez, and her newly elected slate of allies, with a vote looming putting the principal’s tenure in the balance.

Today’s follow-up story revisits the scene with more chapter-and-verse information on how this principal succeeded.

Here he is:

 

Here’s Tina Perez, the council president who wants him out:

No photo available. Neither any comment, for either story. Too bad.

So there we are. Chicago school reform says let there be local school councils. Local school council is poised to block verifiable reform — see the two Sun-Times stories, especially today’s hard-copy story.

Sounds like politics, does it not?

. . . You will feel better, Mister O.

(Getting perilously close to dead-horse-beating on this one, I know, but I can’t help myself. Sob.)

Once there was the apex of urban sophistication — and arrogance — but ever the height of clean copy with a kick.

Now? Sentiment. Sediment after cloudburst. How low the style-setters have fallen.

(Sound of weeping by disappointed reader)

Boo-hoo, Boo-hoo, Boo-hoo, Boo-hoo, he break-a my heart wit dat NON-SENSE!!!!

Congr. Jan Schakowsky (D-North Side and North Shore) came to talk up ObamaCare to businesswomen Aug. 21, 2013, but couldn’t stay away from an apparent favorite topic, the obstructionist Republicans.

They have mounted a “last-gasp push back,” she said, promoting “myths” and “lies” about ObamaCare’s raising costs and being “bad for businesses.”

In fact, she said, ObamaCare will lead to creation of 1.5 million more “small businesses,” as found by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation. (Not quite. It was 1.5 million more self-employed individuals, not businesses.)

Republicans are discouraging sign-ups for Obamacare, “especially young people,” she said, calling it “political malpractice” and ticking off reasons the young should sign up, including that they “won’t have to worry when riding a bike” or “on an adventure, jumping off things.”

A “well-funded, concerted effort” is underway “to undermine” ObamaCare, she warned, countering with a battle cry, “It’s the law of the land! We can’t say it often enough.” Conceding “bumps in road” ahead, she vowed, “We are absolutely going forward. Once [ObamaCare] is experienced, debate will be over. It will be a success and will be popular.”

As for ObamaCare adding to the deficit, “It’s a myth,” she said, part of “an extensive campaign to confuse people.” And then she unveiled a supposed clincher. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted ObamaCare will save “over a trillion dollars”!

In 20 years, the White House says. While spending about a trillion, the CBO says. Can you imagine a Congress member leaving that part out?

Be that as it may, it was maybe “the proudest day” in Schakowsky’s life when ObamaCare, which her subcommittee helped to write, was passed. She predicted, “It’s to be up in lights some day with social security and medicare.”

Among its benefits, she said, was that “being a woman is no longer a pre-existing [health] condition.” She cited non-coverage of pregnancy by “most policies.”

There will be “no out of pocket costs,” she predicted. Not for contraception, for instance, which has become “controversial.” “Can you imagine?” she asked. “In the 21st Century?” She praised Planned Parenthood, which she said “has become a major target.” The group applauded.

There was a slight glitch in the praise-filled session, billed as instructional for small-business owners. It was the matter of “shared responsibility,” also known as the employers’ mandate to provide insurance for full-timers, specifically its being delayed until 2015.

Asked about this, the otherwise alarmingly fluent and rapid-fire explainer from the U.S. Small Business Administration  (on hand from the start of this meeting) entered on an involved exposition from which as far as this listener could tell, she never emerged. It is certain, however, that she did not say it was to give breathing space for Democrat candidates in the 2014 election.

It’s an issue that is “very sensitive to businesses,” she did add. This listener had to agree with her on that matter.

The gathering, at Chicago Temple, on Clark across Washington from the Daley Center, was organized by Women’s Business Development Center, Women Employed , and YWCA of Metropolitan Chicago.

. . . lavishly greased by her public statement of Christian-Muslim equivalence.

Foolish woman, thinking that would fly at a Christian institution that took itself seriously.

“I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book,” she wrote in her Facebook post. “And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”

And citing Pope Francis for her justification at an Evangelical institution. Wow.

Incidentally, when the mind routinely boggles at indifferentism in issues of belief, it’s good to see a college stand up for what it stands for.