Readers are people too, you know

Martin Marty buries his lede in an America Mag essay here, beginning with this:

“My doctor cured me, but she didn’t heal me: she never looked in my face.” Halfway through America’s 100-year history, many Catholics began looking into the face of the rest of us Christians, especially Protestants, and stopped seeing us only as “others.”

Etc.

But the lede, five (long) paragraphs down, is or should be this:

Though I had lived among Catholic friends all my young life, at age 33 I had never been permitted to join Catholics in any form of prayer. . . .  Then in October 1961, a small group of theologians assembled at the University of Notre Dame for a first ecumenical colloquium. . . . a decade earlier, “my habits of thought” would have found me and my editors speaking of Catholicism as . . . “Jesuitical” and “Romanist,” now, across the table or—unforgettably—at the bar, we were gathering face to face, engaging with Fathers Bernard Cooke, Walter J. Burghardt and a few others marked “S.J.”

The editing, assuming there was any — you don’t invite the uber-published Marty to write for you with a lot of editing in mind — buys into the academic-itis which has in mind an extremely demanding, picky and sometimes hostile audience, ready to pounce.

This too deserved to be higher up in the story:

[A]t the Second Vatican Council in 1964 . . . I had traded my press pass for a visitor’s license, thanks to the . . . bishop of St. Cloud, Minn., who was amused to meet someone who bore the name of his 19th-century predecessor, Martin Marty, O.S.B. I was later told that the bishop was quite a traditionalist, and we would have argued. He took responsibility for me, however, as we looked at each other’s faces, and offered one of the many gestures of healing.

Look, even America readers go for a grabber, of the sort that Times [of London] Literary Supplement usually provides.  It has lured me into reading the most abstruse stuff with anecdote and historical allusion.

On the other hand, and this is to go from sublime to the other thing, we have today’s Chi Trib, whose hard-copy front page surely has Hecht and McArthur spinning:

A CHILD’S HEART-RENDING EULOGY: ‘Tell God we said hello’

is the highest head, about two brothers killed by their father.  Come to think of it, H&A might recognize that one, but it would have gone with “Headless body found in topless bar” or “Jerked to Jesus,” about the hanging of a repentant killer.

Also in five-column width below it, just above the fold:

Iowa court backs gay marriage

with also five-column color poster pic of rejoicing female couple and their two female children.  Their children in adapted sense.  It took some unidentified man’s sperm, we assume.

Where’s the cynicism, for cryin’ out loud?  Where’s the . . . realism?  Not in today’s market — these aren’t Republicans.  Romanticism rules.

By the way, Chi Trib’s digital head for the paternal killing story is more serviceable:

A CHILD’S HEART-RENDING eulogy:

Funeral for brothers: Family and friends say tearful goodbye to Duncan and Jack

At least it gives a quick glimmer of what it’s all about.

Drawing the line at Notre Dame

Neil Steinberg thinks Obama is coming to ND to give a lecture or take part in a debate in which there is delicious free flow of ideas, when he is coming as political ceremony. 

Where in Catholic theology does it say that they are not allowed to hear other perspectives?

He compares Cardinal George at the editorial board table to the #1 political figure at a graduation podium, with honorary degree thrown in. 

I don’t recall anyone here complaining, “Why are we letting this guy in here?

He thinks the issue is what Obama thinks or believes about abortion, when that is beside the point, which is public policy as regards abortion.

So the question is how bad should a president’s policy be before an institution takes away the welcome mat and bestowal of esteem and honors?  George sees policy gone awry to that extent, Notre Dame doesn’t.  How bad should it be before Notre Dame draws a line?  How immoral on its face?

Steinberg is unimpressed by arguments against abortion, but George is.  He thinks it’s time to draw the line.

Later: Look, even Congress members get it, that some invitations imply approval, as in a House committee having former AIG chairman “Hank” Greenberg to testify:

Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), the top Republican on the panel, suggested it shouldn’t even be hosting Greenberg because of the many legal entanglements.

And he came to tell them something most of them thought they ought to hear about.

Yet later: Here’s an idea for the Sun-Times, where Steinberg works: Bring back Tom Roeser as a columnist, thus demonstrating liberal openness to others’ ideas.  At his blog, Roeser counts the ways in which Obama policy decisions make him anathema to the pro-life community.

It’s the newsies’ culture, stupid!

Listen to R. Simon, fecklessly approving the Obama move into the auto business:

On Monday, in a calm and forceful statement, Obama made clear his reasons. “Our auto industry,” he said, “is not moving fast enough to succeed.”

Calm and forceful = I love that man.

Made clear his reasons = I believe that man.

Not moving fast enough = I trust (hope in) that man.

All three theological virtues in one column paragraph.

Finally, someone punished for business failure!

In a startling departure, the Obama administration has decided that the price of failure in America should be failure.

O. fired Wagoner, “simply because Wagoner was doing a terrible job and had run GM into the ground.  Wall Street was aghast.”

Now isn’t that silly?  Investors don’t like the national CEO’s firing the auto CEO, and it’s because an exec is at long last paying for his mistakes?

If Simon would sneak off the (crowded) lefty newsies’ compound for even a few minutes, he would know that stock traders punish failure routinely, daily, hourly.

Investors, that is, people who watch the long arm of the White House reaching into their midst and swatting one of their own, and are aghast — as Simon would be if he weren’t harboring ingrained suspicion of business and inexplicable trust in government.

Remember AIG? And consider Danny Davis’s earmarks

Now and then I read something I really like in the Wed. Journal of OP&RF, like John Hubbuch’s recent tips for candidates — “Tell [people] what they want to hear, and you will get their endorsement. . . . Try hard for the newspapers’ endorsements. Even if you’re not strong, they’ll usually feel compelled to endorse at least a couple of lame candidacies, to demonstrate their independence. . . .” Etc. Rich stuff.

Another I liked was “They whom the feds would control, they first give money,” which I read (over and over) in my last column. Like the big insurance company — a “blood_sucking monstrosity,” the NY Times lady called it (yeah!) — given billions to save the system, paying millions in bonuses. Big O. got mad at that, as if he hadn’t known about it for weeks or months. The up side was that it offered him a capitalistic whipping boy for a few days, his very own malefactors of great wealth.

Young Cuomo fulminated also, waving a New York subpoena, demanding names. Ditto the eminent banking expert Barney Frank of the great state of Massachusetts. Chilling stuff actually — creeping fascism, socialism, and/or politicians doing what comes naturally, moving into the market place, which most of them know little or nothing about, having worked little or not at all for anything that lived or died on its profits.

Take Danny Davis, our congressman, whose resume lists government and other not-for-profit work, period. As our man in D.C., that jumbo ATM for the nation, he has money to burn — millions this year alone, for which he has laid out $3,935,000 on his own and $37,884,000 more in collusion with other Illinois Congress members. He requested and got the government to spend that much in FY 2008. Small parts of the $410 billion spending bill, yes, but as Sen. Everett Dirksen probably never said, “A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you’re talkin’ real money.”

Where else can a guy like Davis, who never worked at a for_profit job, get that kind of money to spread around? He’s lived off public or other non-profit money his whole professional life. Pulling down federal bucks for constituents when no one’s looking? So what? Earmarks, shmearmarks. It’s what you do.

Three major 7th-district institutions are grateful for the largesse — U. of Illinois ($1.2 million), Roosevelt U. ($689,000), and Loyola U. Health Systems ($383,000). Davis brought home the bacon for them. A few years ago, he did it for Oak Park and later stood in village hall at a town meeting, basking in the glory of the $400,000 he had procured to study capping the Eisenhower. Citizens were grateful.

John Hubbuch said, “Tell [people] what they want to hear, and you will get their endorsement.” And get them bucks from Washington.

Oak Park electioneering – 2

Careful note is to be taken of OP presidential candidate Gary Schwab’s for-the-record (but more than that, I think) correction in the Wed. Journal comment page, where yesterday’s item was linked.  He recalls that it was trustee candidate Glenn Brewer who said in a 3/13 forum that he “couldn’t tell if there was a problem with permits until he had more data” and wasn’t kidding when he said it — not presidential opponent David Pope.

This is interesting, in view of Brewer’s 3/19 observation, discussing Forest Park’s Madison Street, that this extremely successful half-mile stretch “has empty storefronts too” — a comment that advanced discussion not a whit and demonstrated unsettling unfamiliarity with the scene and subject. 

This prompts the question (does not beg it, as many say, misusing a useful phrase), what else doesn’t Brewer know and has not bothered to bone up on since his selection as VMA-endorsed candidate four months ago?  And: How much does he want an election-day victory and what does he think it takes for success as a trustee? 

He has the Wednesday Journal endorsement as providing “a much-needed African-American voice to the village board.”  Sounds racist to me.  Brewer has headed the regional housing center board and served on the Bellwood plan commission.  But what does he know about Oak Park.

Meanwhile, Reader A. in an email questions my interpretation of It Takes a Village clerk candidate Sharon Patchak-Layman’s emphasis on organizing “networks” of parents and others as political.  I “make it sound as though there is something underhanded in this,” she says, noting the traditional role of village clerks in finding and recruiting people for various commissions.

A. is right about that, and the reader can judge from what I report whether Patchak-L has more than that in mind. 

I have sat in on the “commission on commissions” meetings (Community Involvement Commission is the official name), by the way, and found it fascinating in part for its display of highly qualified citizen volunteers who come before it to be interviewed.  It’s the clerk’s commission, yes; she attends its meetings, and though I missed evidence of a prominent role by the clerk in recruiting volunteers, I happily concede it. 

However, the Patchak-Layman matter and her candidacy gets a kick in the rear in today’s Wednesday Journal in a letter from Carol Browder, who recalled her being censured a year ago by the high school board on which she serves, for “for violating her oath of office and that Board’s policies” — for “having a conflict of interest by “advocating” for a parent who has filed a complaint with the state against the school” in the Wed. Journal article she cites, of 1/29/08.

Adding insult, Patchak-Layman’s opponent in this race, Theresa Powell notes in another letter in today’s Journal that P-L takes a position on board activity — how often to enter executive session — that as clerk she would have no say about.

“The village clerk is not the party who determines when the board should meet in executive session. There simply is no need to politicize the clerk’s role.”  She adds, tellingly, “The clerk is charged with handling both public and confidential matters of the board in a professional and appropriate manner.  . . .  by statute, [the clerk] has authority over official village records and elections and administers the office that handles many of the licenses and permits issued by the village.”

I must add, being careful not to protest too much, that I beat Powell to it with my public allegation of political activity being planned inappropriately.  Nor was I aware of her letter, being not in contact with her campaign.

 

A touch of Oak Park electioneering

Village clerk candidate Sharon Patchak-Layman apparently has plans to use the clerk’s office as a political rallying tool. The clerk’s office is a “prime place to get more involvement” by citizens in the affairs of local government, she said Thursday 3/19 at a candidates’ forum at Irving School. The election is set for April 7.  The clerk “should harness parents” and others and use her office as “a way to bring a network together.”

Her running mate on the “It Takes a Village” slate, trustee candidate Julie Samuels, had a few minutes earlier identified herself as “a community organizer,” with the goal to “facilitate meetings” between trustees and citizens. The present board “is broken,” said Samuels, who ran as Green Party candidate for state representative in 2004 and lieutenant governor in 2006, unsuccessfully both times.

Patchak-Layman, on the other hand, has won three school board elections, two for Oak Park elementary schools and one for Oak Park and River Forest High School, and now is halfway through a four-year term on the latter. This is her second run for village clerk, the village’s only elected position that is paid and full-time. She ran the first time four years ago. She would continue at her high school board position — as a citizen doing volunteer civic work, she told me.

The incumbent clerk is choosing not to run again after 16 years in office, having worked eight years before that in the village’s community relations department.  Her predecessor held office for 20 years.

The clerk is to be the village’s “eyes and ears, to tell people what’s going on at village hall,” Patchak-Layman said, emphasizing her responsibility “to citizens.” Her opponent, Teresa Powell, had a somewhat different emphasis. “Elected, we [office-holders] represent all of you,” she said, adding that the clerk is to work “closely” with village board and calling it “critical” that there be “openness and trust and willingness to work together.”

Samuels further emphasized her claim that the board is “broken,” alleging lack of “public discussion” of legislation. She is suspicious of what’s discussed in executive sessions, she said. “The board seems to know a lot” at open meetings. “How did they come to know it?” she asked.

But the current village board has had fewer executive sessions than previous boards, countered a trustee opponent from the other slate, the Village Manager Association-endorsed “Responsible Leadership” party, Collette Luecke. In any case, she said, executive-session agendas are announced beforehand.

The commission system — mostly involving citizen appointees who vet issues prior to board consideration — has suffered a “demise,” said Samuels, who gave her “guarantee” to restore it and to get trustees to attend commission meetings. On the other hand, she bemoaned the length of board meetings as a needless drain on the time of its members and said time requirements discourage people from running for the board.

“Responsible Leadership” (VMA-endorsed) trustee candidate Collette Lueck agreed that there is “not enough public input,” but denied that commissions are “dead,” adding that Oak Park has more of them “than any other village in the state” and that most commissions have a full complement of members. Moreover, hearings are held by the board “for many things, as [recently] citizens wanting to sell bread at Farmer’s Market, [who] came prepared to argue their case and convinced the board. It’s not unusual,” she said.

Discussing delays encountered when seeking building permits from village hall, “It Takes a Village” presidential candidate Gary Schwab called the situation “appalling.” He also accused his opposite number on the “Responsible Leadership” slate, incumbent David Pope, of asking at a previous forum whether there is such a problem.

Pope explained that he’d been kidding. Indeed, it’s a much discussed matter, extremely unlikely to have escaped him in his six years on the board, the last four as president, and based on his normal cautious manner, unlikely that he would have misspoken in the matter.

“It Takes a Village” candidate Kathryn Jonas twice addressed the empty-storefront issue, each time urging adoption of the “Main Street” economic development program in use by neighboring Forest Park. This is the program of National Main Street Center of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in Washington.

In this she echoed her predecessors in the last two campaigns to unseat incumbents, one of them successful, the other not, the incumbents being those endorsed by the Village Manager Assn. (VMA), whose candidates have held sway with only two brief interruptions since the 50s.

“Don’t vacate commercial buildings until there’s something to replace them,” Jonas argued, referring to commercial sites awaiting development. Oak Park has an “incredible” number of commercial “buildings without tenants,” she said. The village should have “a single entity,” as Forest Park does, where “the Chamber of Commerce handles everything,” employing the “Main Street” model.

Her argument is based on the acknowledged thriving character of Madison Street west of Harlem, the Oak Park-Forest Park divider, where Oak Parkers once went for hard drink — long ago in German taverns, more recently in Irish bars — until Oak Park went wet some 20 years ago. Oak Parkers still do, for that matter, and one might argue that Oak Park has little to compare with the liveliness and boom quality of that strip.

Nonetheless, the VMA-endorsed Glenn Brewer observed that Madison Street in Forest Park “has empty storefronts too,” without saying how many.

Asked how trustees would go about getting federal stimulus money for Oak Park, Solomon mentioned “urban farms” as a good idea. Lueck noted incumbent President Pope’s familiarity with other mayors and possibilities of making joint requests. “It helps to be known,” she said.

The clerk candidates, asked about past managerial and labor-negotiating experience, candidate Powell noted that she supervised a staff of nine in nine of her 13 years at Blue Cross, Patchak-Layman that she had a staff of “16 to 20” at Pilgrim (Church) Nursery School in the 80s. Powell said she’d been a union member as a Chicago Public Schools employee, Patchak-Layman that as a school board member she has negotiated with unions.

Uh-oh, government came to help

What I’ve been saying all along:

This whole AIG fiasco — where the entire political class is suddenly screaming over bonuses paid to derivative traders in AIG’s financial-products division — is just a complete farce. What it really shows is how the government has completely bungled the AIG takeover. Blame the Bush administration and the Obama administration. It also shows, once again, why the government shouldn’t run anything, because it cannot run anything.

Etc., by the eminent Kudlow, who speaks with authority, vs. me, who just speaks.

The shape of news to come

The noosepaper is dead, long live the noosepaper — on line.

Newspapers are dying but journalism is evolving, an acclaimed science writer told a gathering of the techno-hip at South By South West Interactive Festival on Friday.

See them as old growth forests, says Steven Johnson.  Under its branches are growing “blogging, citizen journalism, Twittering and other Internet-age information sharing.”

He likes what he sees in the news business, though things are “ugly and going to get uglier” and “great journalists are going to lose their jobs and cities are going to lose their newspapers.”

How make it pay?  Supply nothing that’s free on line.  Ditch the printing, which is too expensive.  He’s not the first to say it, of course.

Expanding on it is a major on-line provider, International Data Group chairman Patrick McGovern, who told AFP, “Print editions are yesterday’s news.” 

It’s been that way since radio began delivering on-spot accounts — see Len O’Connor’s

A reporter in sweet Chicago on how radio news men were resented by pencil men in the late 40s.  Not to mention TV. 

But verba volant, as the Romans used to say — spoken words evanesce — while scripta manent — written words remain.  Internet makes it easy to save it all and lets you go back over the scripta right away.  Hence new ball game.

McGovern: Drop print and delivery costs and focus on digging out the hot local topics [my italics].  “Find out the scandal in the mayor’s office; what the police are up to, and those other things that people love to talk about.  . . . It is easier and much less costly to put it online.”

Scandal sells.  Chicago newsies dig it up quite nicely.  It’s the best thing they do, their raison d’etre in my view.  What if you had to log in to Tribco’s new blog Chicago Corruption (for a price) or Sun-Times’ new Cook County Dirt (ditto).  You wouldn’t?  For a fraction of what you pay for hard copy?

For $3.95 a month, I get a week-daily “Political Diary” from WSJ.com (Wall Street Journal), which never disappoints.  And because I put out that $3.95, automatically, on a card, I do not treat it lightly.  Not even Instapundit or Power Blog or Drudge Report gets that kind of attention from me.  Tribco and S-T could get that kind of attention if they were good enough, which I think they are in digging for metropolitan dirt.

Indeed,

McGovern believes people will pay monthly subscriptions for online newspapers solidly tapped into their communities.

“I think people realize that if they are not paying for the information there will not be much investment in the information,” McGovern said.

Yes.

Back to Johnson in Austin TX (the South By South West venue), who carries it several steps further.  He

sees the future of news weaving together talents of professional journalists, bloggers, and people using social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter to instantly tell what is happening around them.

In some future utopia that collaboration.  The hostility of pros vs. bloggers is equal only to Sun-Times’s vs. Chi Trib in this blessedly two-newpaper metropolitan area, as in a self-congratulatory editorial in the former a few weeks back which crowed:

No army of bloggers, no TV or radio station, no nonprofit journalism collective, no foundation-supported task force of political and government reporters will ever do the job so well.

Too defensive by half.

Johnson theorized, however:

“If only there were some institution that had a reputation for integrity and a staff of trained journalists that had thousands of people visiting their websites every day.”

Those institutions are newspapers, Johnson noted, adding that an Internet-age motto of newspapers should be “All the news that fit to link.”

You could sell that.

Eeny, meeny, miney . . .

Our leader has a change of heart:

Washington is by nature an hysterical place. (Remember those who chest-thumped the fall of Saddam’s statue only soon to claim they never supported the war?)

Still, it is quite striking that in the space of a mere 50 days, Obama & Co. have gone from “We are in 1932 and things are getting worse—unless” to “Things are not as bad as we think,” with choruses from the likes of Larry Summers on the dangers of talking down the economy and sowing fear.

That’s Victor Davis Hanson on “one of the most schizophrenic moments in recent memory.”  He asks, “What in the heck is going on?” and suggests three possibilities.

Meanwhile, cartoonist Ramirez has it pictured this way:

Obama Picasso

Rahm E., what a guy! Danny D. too. Whence comes such another?

Say Rahm E. gave a million to his alma matter, which let’s say is NU (it’s not). Fine.  Say he gave $900G to Adler Planetarium.  Philanthropists do that and get good space in local papers. Say he adopts Milwaukee Avenue, as highway signs urge adopting stretches of highway, and coughs up another $8 million.  All of it would be fine. He did it all, in fact, but not with his own money. With other people’s money in his capacity as a Congress Member!

Writing from Oak Park, I must ask, What about our own man in DC, Danny K. Davis, who in 2006 preened himself and was warmly appreciated in a Village Hall town hall-style meeting, in a very expensive suit, bragging (and later being bragged about, I am sure) that he got us $400G to pay for considering capping the Eisenhower?

In DC, that jumbo ATM for the nation, Davis is the man from Illinois-7th, the entire West Side and beyond, for which he goes begging. For FY 2008, the year whence came earmarks in the just-presidentially-signed $410 billion spending bill (budget), Davis requested $3,935,000 as a solo endeavor, of $41,819,000 in all, including joint requests with other Congress members of $37,884,000.

Where else can a guy like him, who never worked at a for-profit job, get that kind of money to spread around — and preen himself on in a town-hall meeting? To be elected to Congress, ah, such a consummation to be wished! Such a bonanza for the public-spirited citizen in expensive suits!

Davis comes by his not-for-profit status honestly, having joined the socialist New Party by September 1998 and received its enthusiastic support. Indeed, he was praised by Democratic Socialists of America as “an old friend of DSA.” So was Obama, for that matter, who also enjoyed DSA support in his 1996 quest for a state senate seat.

But I digress. The point is that Davis can have no problem with earmarks, having lived off public money his whole professional life.