It’s what they do, right?

A taste of Bernie, locally.

via Block Club Chicago

The Osudairo brothers, with lawyer.

May the best actors win.

via Jussie Smollett case: Hate-crime hoax case returns to Chicago courtroom – Chicago Sun-Times

Instead, a blow for dignity and recognizing nature of the mass:

Archbishop Villegas says no to clapping during Mass, a memorial of Calvary
“We are a Church called together by God, not a self-organized mutual admiration club,” writes the Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan in his letter for Lent.

“The breaking of the Bread is a commemoration of the violent death that the Lord went through. Who claps while others are in pain? It is pain with love; yes, but it still pain.”

I would say so.

And was not happy about it?

“The Holy Father’s disposition was very clear, he was most displeased about the whole subject of Fr. Martin and how their encounter had been used. He was very expressive, both his words and his face –  his anger was very clear, he felt he’d been used,” one bishop told [EWTN-owned] CNA.

Another bishop, the archbishop of Santa Fe NM, did not see it that way.

In the fourth paragraph, the article states that the Pope was most displeased with the subject of “Father Martin and how their encounter had been used.” My recollection is that it was not Father Martin the Pope was talking about, but the way others tried to use that encounter, one way or the other. In my view, the language subtlety [sic], yet incorrectly, leads the reader to believe that Father Martin was the issue while in fact, it was how others used their meeting that was in play. Furthermore, I have no memory at all of the Pope being angry, upset or annoyed. He spoke gently and patiently throughout our meeting.

Yet another:

Bishop Steven Biegler of Cheyenne, Wyoming, said he supports the recollections of Archbishop John Wester of Sante Fe, New Mexico, who went public to counteract two anonymous bishops who insinuated that the pope was unhappy with Martin.

Wester’s response “accurately describes the tone and substance of the short dialogue regarding Fr. James Martin,” he said.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Wester noted several bishops at the meeting brought up the topic of Fr. Martin, including the Jesuit priest’s private meeting with the pope last fall and his recent talk to Catholic university presidents. What displeased the pope, Wester said, was “the way others tried to use” Martin’s papal meeting.

NC Reporter has both these denials of the in effect sourced story about Francis as peeved at Fr. Martin, being careful also to note the anti-Francis parentage and record of CNA and its editor, who wrote the story in question.

Standard enough, and telling. This Bishop Anonymous comes across as gossipy and CNA as unfortunately too eager for his story , though its reference to America Magazine’s post-meeting hurrah made its point about how others interpreted the meeting.

“By choosing to meet him in this place, Pope Francis was making a public statement. In some ways, the meeting was the message,” America Magazine reported of the encounter.

To complete the give-and-take among news outlets, until the next riposte, CNA duly reported on the two NCReporter articles, reminding us of Archbishop Wester’s being what’s called a “Francis bishop” and his having wholeheartedly embraced the James Martin message.

The Santa Fe archbishop, who was appointed to his post in 2015, is one of seven U.S. bishops to have endorsed “Building a Bridge,” Martin’s 2017 book on the Church and homosexuality.

“This courageous work is necessary reading for all who wish to build up the Christian community and to give witness to the Gospel message of inclusion,” Wester wrote of Martin’s book.

The reason why Professor Rego de Planas was puzzled [at then archbishop Bergoglio’s seeming agreement with both sides of hot issues] was that she was Mexican. If she had been Argentinian, she would have found the technique perfectly familiar: it has the note of classic Peronism.

The story is told that Perón, in his days of glory, once proposed to induct a nephew in the mysteries of politics. He first brought the young man with him when he received a deputation of Communists; after hearing their views, he told them, “You’re quite right.”

The next day he received a deputation of fascists and replied again to their arguments, “You’re quite right.” Then he asked his nephew what he thought and the young man said, “You’ve spoken with two groups with diametrically opposite opinions and you told them both that you agreed with them. This is completely unacceptable.”

Perón replied, “You’re quite right too.”

Very good story, run by NCR from AP. He’s a former Episcopal priest who converted. Pastor of a  North Dallas parish.

via  National Catholic Reporter

Former Sen. Demint defends him as fiscal conservative.  Praised by conservatives on many things . . .

But on the issue of federal spending, President Trump’s critics on the Left and Right accuse him of being a budget-busting, big-government Republican. Trillion-dollar deficits speak for themselves, they say. And of course, the president has signed many appropriations bills I would have preferred he veto. He went along with bipartisan congressional leaders to bust the budget caps conservatives fought so hard to implement under President Obama.

And yet, every year, when the president has presented his budget proposals to Congress, they have contained more spending cuts than any president in history. They sought to achieve balance within 10-15 years. They outline streamlining reforms to bloated and dysfunctional programs. His chief budget advisers – Mick Mulvaney and Russell Vought – are probably the most fiscally conservative senior members of the Trump administration.

But a president has others to work with. More here on this aspect of governance. . . .  at The Daily Caller

. . . having decided the Catholic home office is nothing to be worried about, apparently.

via Bitter Winter

She explained after a closed-door meeting at UIC with her posse of think-alikes.

At the invite-only summit, Lightfoot set the table for a frank and open conversation about poverty in the city, and invited Chicagoans to speak plainly about the racism and systemic oppression that perpetuates poverty.

“We’re going to talk about it. We’re not going to run away from it,” Lightfoot said. “We are going to raise the curtain… and fill that void with resources.”

She has her agenda in mind, aiming

to dramatically increasing economic opportunity for the city’s most vulnerable people, including fines and fees reforms that include ending the practice of taking people’s driver’s licenses for nonmoving violations.

There’s ” low-hanging fruit,”  things “that will make a huge difference.”

Race and gender would be “front and center,” an aide said.

“First,” reducing utility bills “for low-income residents that unevenly affects people of color, especially seniors, and investing more into transit-accessible affordable housing,”

Call her Santa.

Next, “expand quality jobs and increase income levels of residents in the city. ”

Call her Bernie.

Enforce “fair workweek rules, support for home care workers who are overwhelmingly women of color, and building a green economy with career development for people who were formerly incarcerated.”

Call her Elizabeth.

Third, end “end the racial health disparities in the city, like the 16-year “death gap” between downtown and the West Side, Lurie said.

Call her Miracle Worker.

Ditto “infant and child mortality,” violence prevention, mental health care ineqities, “health impacts of pollution on communities of color.”

All in terms of “address” this and that, get the ball rolling and the like. But it warms the heart even to hear that much.

Call it campaign oratory.

And finally, the money issue, where poverty begins.

Fourth, the city will promote wealth building among individuals, families, and entire communities. Achieving this goal will require securing more access to consumer credit for low-income residents so they can pay for cars, homes, and higher education.

The joy of borrowing. Of course. No better expert than the city. For “wealth building,” yes. It’s what City Hall does best, financially speaking. Now she’s talking.

And here she is, pleased as punch about all of it:

via How Will Lightfoot End Chicago Poverty In A Generation? Here’s The Mayor’s 4-Part Plan – Block Club Chicago

A suggestion: What she wants is a good economy, one that supplies work for the most people. We all do, and who’s solving that problem and making history doing it? Donald Trump, that’s who. Look to Trump, Ms. Mayor. You can’t go wrong.

(I can see her advisors palming their foreheads, asking “why didn’t we think of that?”)

via Chicago Tribune