Palestinians drown out DePaul speaker

Nothing about this in Chi Trib or Sun-Times, says Google, but Chi Daily Observer has it, as do various Jewish publications.  No news here for Chi metros?

Campus Left Join Muslims to Bully Jewish Speaker at DePaul
Chicago Daily Observer – ?Apr 7, 2009?
On March 16 the DePaul chapter of Hillel hosted Jacob Shrybman of the Sderot Media Center. Led by Noam Bedein, the Sderot Media Center is the only media …

When Silence Isn’t Golden
St.Louis Jewishlight.com – ?Apr 3, 2009?
The problem hit close to home when a pro-Israel campus group recently cancelled the Saint Louis University appearance of Jacob Shrybman of the Sderot Media …
Education digest > 3/25

St. Louis Post-Dispatch – ?Mar 26, 2009?
Jacob Shrybman, from the Sderot Media Center, was to give a personal account of what it is like to live in one of these border towns and to talk about how …

Attacking Sderot From DePaul U.
Arutz Sheva – ?Apr 10, 2009?
by Jacob Shrybman Another audience member rose up in the front of the room and screamed out, calling me a “dirty whore” in Arabic. Science department. …

Shell-shocked in DePaul
Jerusalem Post – ?Apr 4, 2009?
By JACOB SHRYBMAN I wasn’t 30 hours off the plane from Israel to give a presentation at Chicago’s DePaul University on March 16, before I was greeted with …

By now it’s old news, but it wasn’t on March 17, the day after.  Big story here, came and went, but the ongoing situation is nicely described by Nicholas Hahn III a few days ago, also in the Observer:

Word came that Shrybman was going to display a rocket of the sort that have been shot into Israel.  It was something “DePaul’s Muslim community was not about to let . . . happen.”

An alliance of the Left on DePaul’s campus was formed and soon a letter of opposition to the rocket’s appearance on campus circulated faculty and administrative offices.  Signatories on this letter included the Students for Justice in Palestine, the United Muslims Moving Ahead, the DePaul Democrats [italics added] and almost laughably from “Students for the Advancement of Gender Awareness,” an organization whose status with the University is still unknown.

Maybe a feature story here for one of our metros?

OP election day plus one: signs wait recycling

Dumping signs on other people’s property has paid off for Pope, Hedges, Brewer, Lueck, Powell, Conway, Bracco, and Graves, who all won election or re-election yesterday.

It is their signs that festoon front lawns on the 300 South block of Oak Park Ave., west side — all apartment buildings, at least one owner of which was not informed ahead of time. 

Bully for them and their eager supporters, who, however, threw over the longstanding OP understanding that signs mean support by a household’s voters, rather than mere advertising.

We now await their collection and recyclying of these signs, now obsolete, from people’s front yards.  Hope-a, hope-a, hope-a.  Something we can believe in, peoples.

Oak Park’s election day: signs of change

Heavy-duty yard signs turned up on multi-unit building lawns on the 300 South Oak Park Avenue block, for a high school board candidate (whose robo-call was received here a day or so ago) and candidates for village board and park district — seven or eight in all, to catch the busy, busy, southbound traffic.

At least one landlord was neither asked nor informed about the signs.  Dirty pool in Oak Park!  Illegal!

Later: I should have identified the candidates whose supporters are violating the longstanding unwritten rule that a lawn sign indicates voter support, not candidate’s self-support, being placed on a voter’s private property by the voter.

Shame! on people connected with:

* the VMA-related village slate

* the Bracco-Graves park district ticket

* OPRF board candidate Jacques Conway

This in addition to planting signs on property without owner’s consent, as happened in at least one instance, as mentioned above.

Roeper the giant-stalker

With bankruptcy decided, it’s time to reminisce at Sun-Times, where Richard Roeper remembers Mike Royko:

Royko didn’t like me. He didn’t like anybody. Well, I guess he liked his family and a few other people in life, but he sure as hell never liked any up-and-coming columnist, whether it was someone at his own paper or a punk at the rival rag.

Well now, that makes whom look bad?  Royko or Roeper?

Roeper quotes an Esquire Mag writer in a 4/1/03 article about Bob Greene in which Royko meets Roeper at Billy Goat’s in 1990 and vents his irritation while treating him to some rough, raw, masculine, funny-as-hell humor. 

“Roeper! What are you doing at my table!” Royko asked, having joined Roeper and others at their table.

Then: “Roeper! Where the hell did you come from, anyway!”

Then: “Roeper! Do you use your column to get laid?”

At which point, if Roeper had the wit and nerve for it, he would have, could have said something along lines of: “Why else do you think I do it?” 

Ah, but to be thus belligerent in response to the much-lubricated belligerent great man would take more wit and nerve than most columnists or most news people sitting at Billy Goat’s could call up on the spot, and Roeper instead said, “Excuse me.”

Which leaves us with the question, Why is Roeper bringing it up now?

His own career has been one long often wise-acre commentary in the reliably liberal, progressive, left-wing, whatever, vein for which the market has always been present, as opposed to Royko’s heavily reportorial, expose-oriented, not reliably liberal five-day-a-week production touching four decades.

Royko drank too much and alienated people and along the way did become a legend.  The better for a glib fellow 19 years later to call him out, safely in the grave, for once making the glib fellow the butt of barroom humor.  Even pigmies have their day.

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.