Brown v. Vallas

Mark Brown is miffed at Paul Vallas’ turning Republican to run for county board president.  He concedes that V. might reform county government, as he says he would, and that there’s “nothing wrong with dumping Stroger,” which I call an odd way to put it.  I would have said there’s nothing right about keeping him.

But after quoting V. extensively (to good effect for V’s cause) and conceding that it’s “tough” for a Dem reformer to get nominated, he still wishes V. hadn’t switched.  For one thing, and I thought at first it’s the main thing, it’s to oust a black.

Astute readers will have already picked out [I didn’t] the key common denominator among these three Democrats-turned-Republicans [whom Brown cites as losers], and I’m not talking about their short-lived tenures with the GOP.

In each case, they made the switch to outflank an African-American politician, trying to gain some advantage in Chicago’s race-based politics.

That’s bad on its face, Brown implies, his knee jerking as it has in the past, especially in the matter a few months back of Dems not voting for Obama in the primary.

However, Patrick Hickey Hickey [sic] cites another root cause for Brown’s adversary position, a sometime-back dustup with the irate father of a 19th ward candidate opposing Brown’s main man (source) Mike Quigley of the county board.  The father “had words for Mark Brown,” and it got “ugly – for Mark Brown,” says Hickey.

Don’t know what that’s about, but the Quigley connection is something to keep in mind, and I thank Hickey for alerting me.

Any real good $500G-a-year men around?

New boss, new rules:

WASHINGTON — In announcing executive pay limits on Wednesday, President Obama is trying to hold the financial industry accountable to taxpayers while aiming to change an entrenched corporate culture that endorses outsize bonuses and perks that often bear little relationship to corporate performance.

Hey, he’s providing the capital, he calls the shots.

It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand

TV newsman Warner Saunders, who is black, after blasting retired Sun-Times radio and TV writer Robert Feder, who is white, for race prejudice:

“I simply wanted to confront him, face to face,” Saunders said. “I just spoke my truth in front of a person who I felt has been unfair to me and to black journalists in this city. … Very few people who are not in our skin can understand this.” [Italics added]

So he can’t blame Feder, and most whites won’t get it?  What is it, some kind of freemasonry?  If most whites can’t understand, why bring it up?

How’s he doing?

Here’s a site dedicated to Obama as promise-keeper or not:

PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in politics.

Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times examine statements by members of Congress, the president, cabinet secretaries, lobbyists, people who testify before Congress and anyone else who speaks up in Washington. We research their statements and then rate the accuracy on our Truth-O-Meter – True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True and False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

All right.  Not just Obama.

He’s the man with the plan

Rush Limbaugh’s “bipartisan stimulus”:

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%.

As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

It’s a way to find out what works:

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

Time to stop being narrowly partisan.

Through a Marxist glass darkly

Robert Burns, poet of the downtrodden, once considered moving to the West Indies to be a plantation overseer (of slaves) and later worked as an exciseman, a job much condemned as oppressive of the poor.  Joe Phelan comments:

The negotiation of such contradictions is one of the severest tests imposed on the working-class writer.

The near-miss on the overseer job

serves as a stark reminder of the moral compromises forced on people in Burns’s social position by the overriding need to make a living.

Forced?  No one in Burns’s social position ever refused such a compromise?

This is hardly to blame Burns.  The first stone finds few to cast it.  But the reviewer oughtn’t do such excusing.  This is in Times (of London) Literary Supplement, whose strength lies in its analysis on literary and scholarship grounds, not in lecturing readers on the human condition as seen from a strongly class-conscious point of view.

Cardinalatial fraud in L.A.?

A d.a. has a new stick with which to beat a cardinal:

The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles has launched a federal grand jury investigation into Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in connection with his response to the alleged molestation of children by priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

He cites “honest services fraud” by failing to protect kids from molesters, says a source.  Argument is that parishioners relied on Mahony and other church leaders to keep their children safe.

It’s a first?  At first blush it seems a very broad brush that could cover so many other deficient public and private officials that it gives a non-legal mind pause.

Birds of a feather

We compare, you decide.  The month’s Wed. Journal column is about O. and FDR as peas in a pod.

It’s a shame our first black president is a liberal. He appoints a few center-leaners here and there but has very crazy people at EPA and Labor, to name two Cabinet posts. . . . .

The comparison:

In some respects, O. [O’ in the online version, unfortunately] is like Franklin D. Roosevelt. He arrives trailing clouds of glory — to adapt Wordsworth — at a time of crisis. He’s popular, has a way with words, and plays the electorate like a violin. . . . .

There’s more more more . . .

Catholics once came to the rescue

To market, to market, to save us all:

* WSJ today, p-1, has “Price cuts spur home sales.”  Biggest monthly gain in almost seven years. What? Market correcting itself? It does that? Not for those whose mantra is market-bad-government-good. Holy Mother the State we believe in, not in any stinkin’ market!!!!

* Cardinal Cajetan, Dominican, 1468-1534, upheld the market as arbiter of justice in pricing and even endorsed upward mobility as individual goal. Saw money as a commodity, and so favored foreign exchange — francs for dollars, etc. — and lending at interest: usury, they called it in those days, regardless of rate.

There were statists among them, one of them fellow Dominican DeSoto, as in Rothbard, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, 1995.

* As for statism and its presumed role in bringing us together in a spirit of community, fellow 16th- (& 17th-) century commentator, Sir Thomas Smith chimed in (from England) on the role of self-interest in running things, within a property-rights framework:

It’s “a natural fact of human life to be channelled by constructive policy rather than thwarted by repressive legislation.” It’s better that people be “provoked with lucre [money]” than have governments “take this reward from them.”

Better too that entrepreneurs with their virtues and faults and their track record be the engine of change we can believe in than politicians with theirs.

* Also in the 16th, the papal bull “Cum Onus” condemning “usury” — lending at interest whatever the rate — issued in 1569 by Pius Fifth, came too late in the debate to quell lending at interest. Too many theologians (philosophers) had OK’d it.

In fact, four years later the Jesuits, forget their special vow to obey the pope, OK’d the mutually redeemable census contract — selling of annuities, whereby a price is put on delaying of money-use — in a general congregation and eight years after that, in 1581, all census contracting.

Some German Jesuits complained about such liberalism, and Jesuit Genl Claude Aquaviva told them to suck it up. “So much for the Pope’s census prohibition,” commented Rothbard, about whom one may look here.

Requiem for an industry

A book you all might want to own.

From the day Barack Obama announced his candidacy to the moment he took the oath of office, the mainstream media fawned over him like love-struck school girls. Even worse, this time they went beyond media bias to media activism, says CBS veteran and #1 bestselling author Bernard Goldberg.

In his most provocative book yet, A Slobbering Love Affair, Goldberg shows how the mainstream media’s hopelessly one-sided coverage of President Obama has shredded America’s trust in journalism and endangered our free society.