In 11/10 Trib story by Wm. Neikirk “Bill targets ‘entitlements’” , on p. 8 at the top, 5 of 6 columns, why quote marks for “Entitlements”? Pretty straightforward word, understood by most as what comes by way of benefits based on one’s condition in life, race, sex, etc. Sub-head is purely from viewpoint of Dems: “GOP-backed trims before House give Democrats plenty of ammo.” Yes, but why is that the important thing here, and not “GOP budget bill saves taxpayers lots of money.” Both may be true, but Trib editors are not interested in the latter.

November 12, 2005 . . . . Chi Trib today has a lead story by Mark Silva about Bush whacking Dems – “Bush fires back at his war critics,” – that is worth noodling. Is it written too much from a Democratic viewpoint, using all the Dem talking points, which MainStreamers tend to take at face value, without considering what’s big in the minds of The Other Side, who also read newspapers but in dwindling numbers? Does it deliver Bushie talking points in equal numbers? That’s for readers to decide.

For instance, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley showed unaccustomed “belligerence” in defending the “good faith” of the administration. Not “vigor”? Not if you’re on the other side of Hadley, reacting to him as opposition. The war-defending bloggers – Instapundit.com and others – are quite happy the administration is standing up and fighting.

Silva did give good space to Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who said he was “not sure if the Democratic leaders were brainwashed” when they approved the war. Does Silva remember George Romney saying that about himself and thus killing his chances for the 1968 presidential nomination? Anyhow, it’s a good GOP talking point for people who do.

In “Muslim group angered by Kirk,” Chi Trib’s Susan Kuszka (once of Chi Daily News), has a brief account of mau-mauing the congressman — Mark Kirk, North Shore Republican — for saying Middle Eastern men deserve special attention from cops and others charged with protecting us from 9/11–type destruction. 

“[W]e need intense security on applicants [for entry] from terrorist-producing countries,” he said. “Ignoring that reality would only do a disservice to our country’s security.”

 The mau-mauing is by the infamous CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations, a crafty bunch who pounce on whatever and whoever pinpoints Muslims as terrorists, as if Mexicans or Canadians, to touch on our two borders, were as suspect as one of them. 

What Kirk “spewed” out of his mouth “is a manifestation of … a classic, malicious, bigoted attitude,” said Yaser Tabbara, director of Chicago CAIR.  The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights basically agreed and called for an apology and retraction, as did CAIR.

Kirk had said he’s “OK with discrimination against young Arab males from terrorist-producing states . . . young men between, say, the ages of 18 and 25 from a couple of countries,” for security reasons.

So he got stamped on, partly because unfair discrimination has been compressed by usage to discrimination.  The issue is unfair discrimination, of course.  We keep men out of women’s washrooms fairly.  It’s OK to discriminate that way.  Kirk is right to be “OK with discrimination” in this case.

As for CAIR, it’s a blustering arrogant operation , “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect” and “has ties to terrorism.”  Or so say Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of NY respectively, both liberal Democrats.  With critics like that, why is CAIR picking on Mark Kirk?

Wuxtry, wuxtry, Depaul dustup? and No wuxtry for a reason: Churchill at DePaul again of 20 & 28 Oct. has another good reason why media were not allowed at the Ward Churchill talk at DePaul University, namely that Churchill, who is paid for appearances by administrators coast to coast, has money to make 

The Hawaii Reporter, in a “Special Report by Grant Crowell,”

has uncovered Ward’s behind-the-scenes “New Rules” for his paid speaking engagements to universities nationwide, a carefully orchestrated agenda to suppress speech of others, all in the name of his own personal greed.

Crowell’s production company, Walking Eagle Productions, wanted to film Churchill and interview him.  He talked to DePaul administrator Dr. Harvette Grey, head of its Cultural Center, who was very cordial.

Apparently she had assumed that I was a supporter of Churchill’s, and she started confiding in me how horrible the media was for being critical of her for inviting Churchill. She promised me enthusiastically that she would check with him on my request, and that she would personally get back to me soon.

She didn’t, nor would she speak to him when he called a week later.

[H]er receptionist refused to let me speak with her, stating their official line that Churchill’s event was being closed off to the media, and only available to “The DePaul Community.” I mentioned that Dr. Grey promised me that I was to receive a response directly from her, or at least some kind of explanation. To my surprise, the receptionist then blurted coldly, “Dr. Grey never spoke with you” before hanging up.

It wasn’t her idea.  She was taking orders from Churchill.

I later learned that it was Churchill himself who had demanded of Dr. Grey not to allow my documentary crew to film the event, for no interviews to be given by him or the Cultural Center, and certainly no recordings be made of his event by anyone outside of his own group. On the night of Churchill’s speaking event — the university orchestrated with Churchill its “High Security” mode, something it had very rarely done for any speaker, if at all. Anyone without a DePaul ID was to be barred from even entering the building, as extra police was hired along with campus security to prevent Churchill from being exposed to any potential protestors.

But Crowell got a boot-legged audio tape of his talk and put it on line.  Churchill emailed him — a first for him; he had refused to have anything to do with Crowell — threatening a law suit based on violation of copyright, just as he would be sued if he bootlegged “a Dylan or Steve Earle concert.”  Churchill explicitly referred to himself as a “performer.”  Among conclusions Crowell drew was that

Churchill believes that anything that comes out of his mouth is, by his decree, automatically copyrighted material. (According to this, he can never be quoted or filmed by anyone at any public or private event for any use without his express consent, and his due monies.

Moreover, Churchill aims to “control all dialogue,” “make challenges [he doesn’t] have to uphold,” “resell the same stuff” at $4,000 – $5,000 per appearance, and “threaten and intimidate others” by threatening to “sue other scholars, activists and the media . . . even his own (ex) family members.”

Crowell concludes: 

So now we have the answer: Why aren’t recording devices allowed at Churchill’s speaking events? Because Churchill himself demands they not be allowed. This is for his own attention, for his own control, for his own personal profit, for his need to bully, and for feeding his ever-increasing yet fragile ego.

All of which gives insight into Churchill, the pseudo-Indian left-wing professor who can give lessons to anyone on how to game the university system, but equally so into this DePaul administrator and the tone of this university.

Doug Elfman in Sun-Times says Fox should scrap “Stacked” as night-club stuff that clutters the airwaves tonight, but he’s picked out items from it that make the sneaky me want to see it.  He opens:

Sex symbol Pam Anderson’s Fox sitcom is called “Stacked.” Her breasts are “stacked.” She works in a bookstore where books are “stacked” up. If you’re new to long words, this is called a “double entendre,” when one word means two things, including a thing that makes you feel naughty.

And then he specifies with a shtick about Pucci as to dress but also something else.  It’s a joke that keeps on giving, up to the point of a woman’s selling her Pucci to make ends meet.  You mean the dress, I hope, says one character.

There’s even a Dylan Thomas reference, “Rage! Rage against the dying of the light!” delivered in timely fashion as Elfman tells it while unconvincingly disapproving.

Elfman agrees there’s joy in wit.  “Cheeky comedy can be great,” he says, denying such success to “Stacked.”  Hmmm.  Will have to check that one out for myself.