All the cardinal’s men

Sun-Times religion writer Susan Hogan/Albach reprises her rundown on how Chicago churchmen prospered in the wake of the Rev. Daniel McCormack scandal in this (farewell) blog.  She did well in her short time at that newspaper, now being axed beyond recognition in paroxysms of budget-cutting.

Two years ago this month, the Rev. Daniel McCormack was arrested for molesting boys. He’s in prison now. And the top leaders in the Archdiocese of Chicago who might have stopped him have risen in their church positions.

They are:

* Cardinal George, elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops four months after McCormack pleaded guilty and went to jail

* George Rassas, made an auxiliary bishop a few weeks after McCormack’s 2006 arrest following his 2005 arrest and subsequent further molestation of children while remaining a pastor

* Chancellor Jimmy Lago, who kept his job throughout the McCormack sequence, while overseeing offices that handle sexual abuse, claiming ignorance.

* Rev. John Canary, seminary vice rector in 1992 when sexual accusations were made against McCormack involving two adult males and a minor starting in 1988, later seminary rector and in 2006 appointed vicar general, replacing Rassas when he was made a bishop

* Bishop Gerald Kicanas, seminary rector during McCormack’s years who knew of “sexual improprieties” reported about him but said, “It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him” and became a bishop in 1995, a year after McCormack’s ordination, in 2001 being given his own diocese (Tucson) and being elected vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops two months ago, with presumed right of succession to the presidency now held by Cardinal George.


Loads of comments follow the blog item.

The rooster crows

If you doubted something new was coming, you were wrong, Barack Obama said in his S. Carolina victory speech, even as he was being compared to JFK by Caroline K. in NYT. 

However, if JFK told us to ask what we could do for our country, Obama tells us to ask what our country can do for us.

Such as to “make college affordable or energy cleaner” and rid us of “crumbling schools . . . shuttered mills and homes for sale” and get us “a health care plan . . . better pay” and help “struggling homeowners [a]nd seniors,” to put “an end to a war” and achieve “jobs and justice.”

Millions for tribute to economic expectations, nothing (not a word) for defense against worldwide Islamic radicalism.  That will come later, we trust, when he’s in office and disaster strikes.  Meanwhile, the base requires economic salvation-by-government, and this man promises it.

Great oratorical skills, better speech-writing, with beautifully located shots at the Billary campaign.  He has the tools of inspiration of the masses, as did Caesar per Wm. Shakespeare, Casca telling Brutus:

I saw Mark Antony offer him a crown (yet ’twas not a crown neither, ’twas one of these coronets) and, as I told you, he put it by once. But for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered it to him again; then he put it by again. But, to my thinking, he was very loath to lay his fingers off it. And then he offered it the third time; he put it the third time by; and still as he refused it, the rabblement hooted and clapped their chopped hands and threw up their sweaty nightcaps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar, for he swounded and fell down at it. And for mine own part, I durst not laugh for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.

This fellow also had a way with words, did he not?

More:

From Powerline Blog:

No doubt some will characterize [Obama’s speech] as eloquent, but I think a better term is vapid. If you strip away the vaguely high-minded generalities, only two policy positions are (more or less) clearly stated. Obama wants to fail in Iraq, and he wants government-run medicine here at home. It’s hard to see anything either noble or unifying in these goals.

And:

Obama’s speech was virtually content free. Obama declared that “there are real differences between the candidates,” but then failed to cite even one policy disagreement between him and his Democratic rivals.

A shell game.

Yet more, from the inimitable Mark Steyn:

Re: Caroline Kennedy

Obama is Kennedyesque in one respect: on the stump with supporters (in my experience), he’s cool and a little remote and detached – and, like JFK pre-death, oddly unknowable. Maybe it’s just in comparison with that oozing phony Edwards touting the same old mawkish driveling anecdotage from town to town.

Anyway, I don’t suppose that’s what Miss Kennedy means. All she’s saying is that a big chunk of the country (and not all of them Democrats) want someone new, young and glamorous – and, if he’s a member of an approved minority group, so much the better.

The new, the young, the glamorous.  From Chicago?

He’s in the doghouse?

Bill was no help at all in S. Carolina, says John Dickerson for Slate, so much so that:

A big question facing the Clinton campaign is whether to put the Big Dog, Bill Clinton, back on the porch. The Himbo eruptions before the New Hampshire primary and Nevada caucus appeared to help Hillary. . . .   [A]fter South Carolina we might see Bill Clinton suddenly dispatched to solve some new crisis in a country with no satellite trucks and no cell towers.

 

Plugging the daughter

Filing this by Chi Trib’s Sid Smith under wish-I-wrote-it:

Shot simultaneously in a dozen or so locales, “Election Day” offers a snapshot, and a vibrant one, of our national diversity: urban dwellers in New York City; Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Mich.; farmers in Stockholm, Wis.; African-Americans in Quincy, Fla.; and Native Americans striving to get out the vote in Pine Ridge, S.D. Factory workers and dishwashers share their experiences. So does a convicted felon voting for the first time.

The movie deals with some thorny issues of disenfranchisement, in Florida in 2000 and in Shaker Heights, Ohio, in 2004. But this is more about the hues of the nation’s fabric, more an amiable glimpse into everyday life during one of our quadrennial watersheds. It’s a pleasant pastime rather than a revelation, though here and there it zeroes in on underlying anxiety. How did we get to be so divided, a woman wonders near the end, and no one seems to have an answer.

“Election Day” ran last night at the Siskel Center on State a few doors south of Lake and runs again, same place, Monday at 6 p.m.  Tix on line or at the door.  Nice refreshment bar for your usual popcorn, espresso, etc.

The director Katy Chevigny and producer Maggie Bowman were on hand for q&a.  Maggie will be there Monday.  They are also to be on WBEZ-FM’s “Eight Forty-Eight” show, 9 a.m. Monday, though .

As for viewer response to last night’s showing, (a) the parents approved, which is the first thing for a producer of anything to worry about, as we all know even if we don’t admit it, and (b) so did everyone else.

The editor who couldn’t count

Something more about the most recently fired LA Times editor, from Random Mumblings:

The departure of Jim O’Shea from the L.A. Times shouldn’t be construed as fighting the gallant battle for journalism. It was the battle for status quo and business as usual.

What’s needed is creative thinking, new approaches and a reassessment of what newspapers do. O’Shea failed on all points. He needed to go.

Pulling last year’s or four year’s ago plans from the files and adjusting for inflation is not managing as an editor. Finding a way to do great journalism (big J and little J) despite the obstacles is.

The commentator did not just come in from the cold:

Jack Lail is managing editor/multimedia for The Knoxville News-Sentinel.

He directs The Knoxville News Sentinel’s online content efforts, which include www.knoxnews.com, www.govols.com, www.goladyvols.com, www.gosmokies.com and www.govolsxtra.com.

There’s lots more about this guy here.

Hillary, self-unmasked

This from the subscription-only Wall St. Journal “Political Diary” gives me a chill:

What a treat for viewers who tuned into the South Carolina debate on Monday night and caught a glimpse of the real Hillary Clinton. Whether it was calculated or not, the senator cleared up any doubts that, for her, winning the presidency is about revenge. Forget about veiled threats. She’s already taking names.

It’s not always clear who Hillary thinks she owes a kick in the pants to. But it’s very clear that, should she get into the White House, baby, it’s payback time. “They’ve been after me for 16 years, and much to their dismay, I am still here. And I intend to be still here when that election comes around and we win in November 2008,” she declaimed.

Whoever “they” are, you certainly don’t want to be one of “them” come January 20, 2009. For instance, apparently men and/or employers can expect the boom to be lowered for numerous injustices they have wrought. “We obviously still have problems of gender equality. You know, equal pay is not yet equal,” she warned her audience.

Also in line for punishment are those who humiliated Mrs. Clinton during her first attempt to administer a heavy dose of government-run health care whether Americans wanted it or not. “I think that the whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up…. I am not running for president to put Band- Aids on our problems. I want to get to universal health care for every single American.” Get in her way and you’re toast.

At least she made no effort to hide her hostility, which apparently emerges from being a victim for so long. “I’m used to taking the incoming fire. I’ve taken it for 16 years.” And now, she let us know on Monday, the tables are about to turn. Be afraid.
— Mary Anastasia O’Grady

This fits with my contention that Hillary is the devil we know, Barack O. the one we don’t know, except that in this case the one we know is so bad I’d be willing to risk the other if I had to choose — which, God willing, I won’t.

 

Lying down on back and kicking feet in air

The LA Times editor who got the ax the other day became an editor gone wild about it:

“The current system relies too heavily on voodoo economics and not enough on the creativity and resourcefulness of journalists,” O’Shea said in a farewell note to his staff that said flatly he had been fired. Too often, he said, “we’ve been dismissed as budgetary adolescents who can’t be trusted to conserve our resources.”

When quite the opposite is true?  Or are they guilty of wanting to make money without consideration of the market?

It is “simply stupid,” [Jim] O’Shea [the editor] wrote, to consider closing foreign bureaus so the Times can afford to cover the presidential campaign and the Beijing Olympics. As for Tribune Co.’s new owner, real estate financier Sam Zell, O’Shea said, “When Sam Zell understands how asinine the current budgetary system is, he will change it for the better, because he is a smart businessman.”

Zell will take business advice from O’Shea?  Please.  Instead, elementary economics from the publisher who fired him:

In an interview yesterday, [David] Hiller said the rupture came over O’Shea’s demand for a modest increase in newsroom spending, but that this was just one among many disagreements.

“It was a regrettable and unnecessary line drawn in the sand,” Hiller said. “In the environment all newspapers are facing, it is wildly unrealistic to consider a budget increase at a time when revenue is falling.”

What?  You don’t spend more when taking in less?  What sort of mentality is that?

Newspapers just fade away

Reader Margaret in response to my saying I go to Instapundit, Drudge, and one or two other ‘net sources “rather than my old reliable morning Trib or Sun-Times” — it’s how her household dropped Chi Trib:

Ditto — the Internet is always timely, self-correcting and if one is choosy about which blogs to visit, not Left-leaning or outright lying by shading the wording, delivery, or amount of news provided. 
 
During the 2000 election, when Drudge was providing links to the AP and Reuters, my husband and I would notice that the exculpatory last paragraph that both had to add to their sensational and twisted main stories (in order to maintain their claim to full coverage of events) would be copied at the Tribune with the last paragraph missing.  Regular readers did not get the part that unraveled the whole piece of slanted journalism. 
 
It happened over and over until we decided that we couldn’t support the paper any more.  The faster they die, the happier I’ll be.  Of course, then we will be a society depending on two entirely different sources of information, conservative vs progressive blogs.  If we are divided now, think of what that will mean?

Freedom to be nice?

Here’s the crux of the matter, in a Dutch official’s warning about anti-Muslim film whose showing is expected to cause rioting:

‘It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend,’ said Maxime Verhagen, the Foreign Minister, who was in Madrid to attend the Alliance of Civilisations, an international forum aimed at reducing tensions between the Islamic world and the West.

How so?  Because freedom to offend is at the heart of free speech.  Rubber does not meet the road when no one’s offended, no one objects, only when someone objects.  Else it’s meaningless.

If he had talked up “fire” in a crowded theater, there would at least have been arguments to make.