Turning to one of my most trusted sources of news, Power Line, this a.m., I find this, which announces or discusses the distinct possibility that Al Queda is a goner in Iraq.

Unavoidably glancing at one of my least trusted sources, Chi Trib, I find on front page this propaganda from La Raza telling me to pity the poor immigrant:

Throwaway lives: While fewer Americans are killed on the job, that’s not so for Latinos. [with bit front-page color pic and caption:] Antonio Cabrera shattered his leg.

I know this story is long and involved and dishonest and tear-jerker — a weeper — and so I hold off reading it until I have composed myself with worship of the God of my choice in the church of same.  More later.

Later: It’s long if you consider there’s more to come, which there is: “Monday: The cost of being injured,” says my hard copy.

It’s not involved; in fact, my head is sore from being hit with the same simple story: illegals know they are outside the law and so do not get medical care they need.  So do employers who put them to work doing what “none of us want to do,” to quote the mantra in support of ignoring their illegality. 

As for dishonesty, the story has no context, and writers dishonestly write without reference to the political position they are shamelessly shoring up, namely that our immigration laws suck. 

As for the weeper factor, my tears go for the journalism involved for reasons just given.  What they are doing in that regard speaks so loudly, I cannot work up an appropriate response to the plight of the poor devils getting hurt on the job.

It’s a variation of the Oscar Wilde response to a pathetic scene in The Old Curiosity Shop, at which he remarked memorably:

One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.

Maybe mind of mush in this case.

Nice Democrat talking points on Chi Trib front page today. One has biggest billing:

Democrats return fire over Iraq: Officials seize on Pentagon report, respond to administration rhetoric, By Stephen J. Hedges, Washington Bureau:

In a wave of statements, Democratic Party leaders targeted Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for casting the Iraq war as part of a broader war on terrorism.

“The Pentagon’s new report today indicates that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld’s speeches are increasingly disconnected from the facts on the ground in Iraq,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement.

It’s a neat summary of what Dingy Harry and friends want us to hear. There’s Rahm Emmanuel, our machine-tooled congressperson, on Rumsfeld: House Democrats are considering staging a no-confidence vote, reports Hedges. There’s Howlin’ Howard Dean: “You can’t trust Republicans to defend America.” Way down in the story, there’s this about the political nature of the criticisms:

The charges and counter-charges over Iraq have more to do with political than military strategy. With the Nov. 7 elections more than two months away and poll numbers suggesting Democrats could overturn the GOP majority in the House, the role of U.S. troops overseas has become a primary focus.

And wayyy down, at the end, in fact, there’s this that should have gone much higher up, even in the lede, if in shortened form:

Rumsfeld spokesman Eric Ruff said there was nothing political in the defense secretary’s comments.

“He was not accusing anybody of being soft on terrorism,” Ruff said. “What he’s saying is that terrorist networks pose a threat to the United States and the free world. The questions he’s raising are questions that all Americans ought to be addressing. He linked that to those very clear lessons in history, and history tells us that you just can’t ignore a problem.”

Late Friday, Rumsfeld wrote top Democrats in Congress saying his recent remarks in Salt Lake City were misrepresented by the media, The Associated Press reported. Rumsfeld said he was “concerned” with the reaction of Democrats.

“I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive,” he wrote.

Elsewhere, several letters are quite good. “Measured perspective,” from G.R. Paterson in Wilmette, puts William Neikirk on notice about his near-hysterical reaction to Abu Ghraib and other GI abuses. Neikirk concedes good reasons why the American public is not in full cry about them, says Paterson:

Most Americans recognize that these are not the actions of the typical GI, that they are not a reflection of American policy, that every war produces its atrocity stories, and that the unrelenting stresses placed on our troops can drive some over the edge.

But he misses

what is perhaps the biggest reason to take a measured perspective on these sad events, and that is the astonishing atrocities that Iraqis themselves are committing against their fellow countrymen every single day. While our troops risk their lives to enforce order, each day brings a new report of 30 or 50 or 75 ordinary Iraqis blown up or gunned down at a market, a mosque, or a roadside by their fellow Iraqis (with some help from Iranians and Syrians, to be sure). As the victims of these Iraqi mass murders mount from the hundreds to the thousands, does it really make sense to treat alleged GI abuses of a handful as the bigger story?

Excellent point here. It’s the compared-to-what? issue. Neikirk wrote (last Sunday) in the Perspective section, but he could use some. His

fretting that the public hasn’t used the charges against a few troops as a reason to rise in massive outrage against our entire military seems more than a little unbalanced,

concludes Paterson.

Another good letter, “Lack of leadership,” from Neil Gaffney in the city, notes:

It is easy to overlook the critical roadblock preventing reconstruction of many areas of New Orleans: the total lack of a city reconstruction plan now one year on. Easier to point at the empty homes and shattered neighborhoods and point the finger at the federal government.

Give this a look-see as indictment of McCain-Feingold, which muzzles free speech about candidates, except what you can persuade media writers and editors to say, from Labor Day to the November election.  It’s more proof that liberalism ain’t liberal; it’s statist.

John Leo discussed lawyerly violation of non-discrimination laws in June, including the ABA’s coercion of law schools in the matter of racial-preference admission policies.  He notes tellingly:

[M]any of the people involved [mayors, city attorneys, judges] have a personal history of activism and see their current posts as opportunities to promote their causes. They often have romantic views of lawbreaking derived from the civil rights movement and the in-your-face activism of the 1960s.

Traditionally, officeholders are expected to resign if they cannot bring themselves to obey the law. The resisters don’t feel that way. Often they see themselves as prophetic figures working against sluggish majorities to produce a better future. Save us from visionaries who think they are entitled to break the law.

Oh to be a prophet, now that armageddon is near!

This from Tony Peraica’s blog is quite good on Sneed:

In a city full of good newspaper columnists – the kind who actually break news – there’s one gossip-hound who traffics in weeks- and months-old “news.”

# Translation: Columns written by Michael Sneed are full of interesting “information,” if by “information” one understands “unverified gossip and news that was old weeks ago, yet is still delivered in a breathless, ‘Ssshhhh! Listen to what I found out!’ tone, as if it were actually NEWS.” Today’s column by Michael Sneed, for instance, includes reference to a year-old endorsement of Tony Peraica by the late Mayor of Westchester, John Sinde. Sneed suggests “we’ll never know” if Sinde actually endorsed Peraica, because he died in 2005. [Not if we never ask]

# The problem: Sneed, as per usual, hasn’t bothered to do her homework. John Sinde endorsed Tony Peraica for Cook County Board President IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR as Tony Peraica kicked off his campaign for Cook County Board President, long before he passed. Tony Peraica was proud to receive that endorsement, and he was proud of his relationship with Sinde. Tony Peraica even sponsored a County Board resolution in memoriam for Sinde.