Monthly Archives: June 2005

You want to help? Get wise.

Now and then a great notion this way comes:

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

Murray Rothbard said it here.

Advertisements

Very strange

The top (latest) posting on this blog is coming up with a long black space between title and text.  Don’t know why, except that it happened after I Blogjet’ed direct from Firefox browser.  Will have to quiz a guru about it.  Meanwhile, down you go to the truly latest posting.

Liberal perspective, part 2

Chi Trib Perspective editor on presenting conservative commentators cheek by jowl with liberal ones:

What you are asking is almost impossible, lining up point-counterpoints on issues.  . . . there isn’t always an available counterpoint . . .  Perspective is one of the most popular sections of the Sunday paper because (a) people agree strongly with what it says and (b) people disagree strongly with what it says.

But you could double both pleasure and fun if you also had conservatives agreeing and liberals disagreeing.  On the availability question, for cryin’ out loud, just Google conservative think tank and see what you get.  (Deal Hudson at  thewindow@morleyicc.com would be a natural as counterpoint to Bob McClory in re: the pope, for instance.)  Indeed, #3 Daughter has come to me for names on issues to be discussed on the Neil Lehrer call-in show on WNYC-FM, an NPR station.  You call around for ideas.  It’s what producers and editors do.

Blogger: Chicago Newspapers :: Edit Post ‘ Chicago Newspapers ‘

Blogger: Chicago Newspapers :: Edit Post ‘ Chicago Newspapers ‘

The top (latest) posting on this blog is coming up with a long black space between title and text. Don’t know why, except that it happened after I Blogjet’ed direct from Firefox browser. Will have to quiz a guru about it. Meanwhile, down you go to the truly latest posting.

Media bias

Chi Trib’s Rick Morrissey, “in the Wake of the News,” — which once carried “dumbbell pomes” by Jasbo of Old Dubuque — writes of Chisox being ignored by NBC’s Bob Costas at a golf tournament giving interleague baseball scores — Yankees over Cubs, Red Sox over Pirates, and that was it.  Chisox, baseball’s winningest team, had beaten the Dodgers, but so what?  “Probably an oversight” by the experienced, sophisticated Costas, one of the best known faces and names in sports TV, says Morrissey.  Right, and a perfect non-political example of media bias.  Costas just doesn’t think of the White Sox.  They don’t enter his mind.  He has his interests, and they aren’t one of them.  At the top of his game, you might say, he’s biased.  It happens.

Very strange

The top (latest) posting on this blog is coming up with a long black space between title and text.  Don’t know why, except that it happened after I Blogjet’ed direct from Firefox browser.  Will have to quiz a guru about it.  Meanwhile, down you go to the truly latest posting.

Liberal perspective, part 2

Chi Trib Perspective editor on presenting conservative commentators cheek by jowl with liberal ones:

What you are asking is almost impossible, lining up point-counterpoints on issues.  . . . there isn’t always an available counterpoint . . .  Perspective is one of the most popular sections of the Sunday paper because (a) people agree strongly with what it says and (b) people disagree strongly with what it says.

But you could double both pleasure and fun if you also had conservatives agreeing and liberals disagreeing.  On the availability question, for cryin’ out loud, just Google conservative think tank and see what you get.  (Deal Hudson at  thewindow@morleyicc.com would be a natural as counterpoint to Bob McClory in re: the pope, for instance.)  Indeed, #3 Daughter has come to me for names on issues to be discussed on the Neil Lehrer call-in show on WNYC-FM, an NPR station.  You call around for ideas.  It’s what producers and editors do.

Liberal perspective

Bob McClory belongs in Perspective with his liberal viewpoint on will-the-pope-or-won’t-he wake up and smell the coffee, as in the Sunday 6/12 paper.  But not without a side-by-side from the right, of which there are many around if not in your tickler file.  I would be glad to supply a list.

                  — Bowman to Chi Trib Perspective editor, 6/12/05, re column: “POPE BENEDICT XVI: Reading a pope’s mind: Conservative Ratzinger once acted more like a liberal: Will he do so again?” by Robert McClory, a former priest and an author and professor emeritus of journalism at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism

Ahem. 

“A former priest and an author,” Bowman might have attached to his own name.  And “longtime reporter for the National Catholic Reporter, the liberal Bible, and longtime publicist for Call to Action, the liberal shock troops,” Chi Trib might have also attached to McClory’s, while also identifying his latest book, Faithful Dissenters, but did not, let us say for lack of space.

Perspective indeed.  “Liberal Catholics and many moderates have been in a state of profound shock [nothing serious, we hope] since the election of Pope Benedict XVI,” McClory begins, candidly announcing his perspective — his liberal viewpoint, as Bowman told the editor.  McClory’s is The View from the Left, and Chi Trib would have identified it as such if its editors were not intellectually deprived in the matter, being hampered by their own view, also from the left.  (Yes, the editorials are moderately conservative, but editorials do not a paper make one way or the other: it’s the coverage, stupid; but also in Chi Trib’s case, Perspective.)

McClory does not disappoint us, writing of the new pope as “tireless enforcer of orthodoxy . . . relentless scourge of dissenters . . . determined foe of . . . relativism . . . ‘God’s Rottweiler,’” in a sort of hamming it up for dissenter groundlings while providing just enough eloquence and self-conscious overstatement — irony, you know — to pacify the rest. 

He announces “more than a little trepidation in some quarters” — this is too coy — over what to expect from the Rottweiler as pope.  All may not be lost, however, in view of his “amazing ability to reinvent himself,” which McClory proceeds to demonstrate amply, quoting the before-and-after of Ratzinger as liberal-mugged-by-reality-turned-conservative, except for the reality part, which McClory does not acknowledge.

Instead, he implies a falling from liberal grace by the new pope, beginning in the late 60s, when student revolts especially in his native Germany shocked him into new or renewed appreciation of tradition — but wait: McClory assigns no cause for the change of heart and mind except to cite speculation “about inroads of Marxism in the church . . . the decline of Catholic practice in the West” and “concerns of his immediate superior, Pope John Paul II.” 

The new pope “has shown no such openness [as he did previously] to the views of significant groups of Catholics” since the late 60s.  He ignores “the great disagreement . . . within the church” about ordaining women, for instance.  Asking, “What are we to make of the contrast between the two Joseph Ratzingers?” McClory says nothing about reaction to 60s turmoil.

It’s been a “180-degree shift” for Ratzinger, but we should “stay tuned,” apparently for another shift that would put him on his original liberal course.  In support of this advice, McClory cites the new pope’s recently telling an interfaith group, “Let us go forward with hope” in pursuit of the Second Vatican Council goal of  “full communion . . . with true docility to . . . the Spirit.”

It’s not much of an argument — just a sort of liberal’s prayer, in broad daylight in a liberal newspaper.

Liberal perspective

Bob McClory belongs in Perspective with his liberal viewpoint on will-the-pope-or-won’t-he wake up and smell the coffee, as in the Sunday 6/12 paper.  But not without a side-by-side from the right, of which there are many around if not in your tickler file.  I would be glad to supply a list.

                  — Bowman to Chi Trib Perspective editor, 6/12/05, re column: “POPE BENEDICT XVI: Reading a pope’s mind: Conservative Ratzinger once acted more like a liberal: Will he do so again?” by Robert McClory, a former priest and an author and professor emeritus of journalism at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism

Ahem. 

“A former priest and an author,” Bowman might have attached to his own name.  And “longtime reporter for the National Catholic Reporter, the liberal Bible, and longtime publicist for Call to Action, the liberal shock troops,” Chi Trib might have also attached to McClory’s, while also identifying his latest book, Faithful Dissenters, but did not, let us say for lack of space.

Perspective indeed.  “Liberal Catholics and many moderates have been in a state of profound shock [nothing serious, we hope] since the election of Pope Benedict XVI,” McClory begins, candidly announcing his perspective — his liberal viewpoint, as Bowman told the editor.  McClory’s is The View from the Left, and Chi Trib would have identified it as such if its editors were not intellectually deprived in the matter, being hampered by their own view, also from the left.  (Yes, the editorials are moderately conservative, but editorials do not a paper make one way or the other: it’s the coverage, stupid; but also in Chi Trib’s case, Perspective.)

McClory does not disappoint us, writing of the new pope as “tireless enforcer of orthodoxy . . . relentless scourge of dissenters . . . determined foe of . . . relativism . . . ‘God’s Rottweiler,’” in a sort of hamming it up for dissenter groundlings while providing just enough eloquence and self-conscious overstatement — irony, you know — to pacify the rest. 

He announces “more than a little trepidation in some quarters” — this is too coy — over what to expect from the Rottweiler as pope.  All may not be lost, however, in view of his “amazing ability to reinvent himself,” which McClory proceeds to demonstrate amply, quoting the before-and-after of Ratzinger as liberal-mugged-by-reality-turned-conservative, except for the reality part, which McClory does not acknowledge.

Instead, he implies a falling from liberal grace by the new pope, beginning in the late 60s, when student revolts especially in his native Germany shocked him into new or renewed appreciation of tradition — but wait: McClory assigns no cause for the change of heart and mind except to cite speculation “about inroads of Marxism in the church . . . the decline of Catholic practice in the West” and “concerns of his immediate superior, Pope John Paul II.” 

The new pope “has shown no such openness [as he did previously] to the views of significant groups of Catholics” since the late 60s.  He ignores “the great disagreement . . . within the church” about ordaining women, for instance.  Asking, “What are we to make of the contrast between the two Joseph Ratzingers?” McClory says nothing about reaction to 60s turmoil.

It’s been a “180-degree shift” for Ratzinger, but we should “stay tuned,” apparently for another shift that would put him on his original liberal course.  In support of this advice, McClory cites the new pope’s recently telling an interfaith group, “Let us go forward with hope” in pursuit of the Second Vatican Council goal of  “full communion . . . with true docility to . . . the Spirit.”

It’s not much of an argument — just a sort of liberal’s prayer, in broad daylight in a liberal newspaper.

Zorn unmasked

 It’s good to see Eric Zorn letting his Democrat hair down in his blog, as opposed to his hard-copy Chi Trib column.  Here’s a snippet (scroll down) that goes a long way towards understanding what a condescending con job is his column:

The delightful irony here is that [Durbin’s] conservative Republican critics – oh, you should have heard them wetting their pants last night on WLS-AM! – are overplaying their hand by caterwauling for Durbin’s resignation and bleating that his analogies – and not our apparent brutal violations of the Geneva Convention – are doing the greatest harm to our reputation in the Arab world.  [Italics added, as always]

Now that’s real Democrat nonsense!

%d bloggers like this: