6/17/2005

Seminary selectivity

No one "who has been part of a gay subculture or who has lived promiscuously as a heterosexual [should] be admitted [to a Catholic seminary], no matter how many years [previously] that might have occurred," Cardinal George said during the bishops’ meeting in Chicago.

In this extraordinarily badly written Chi Trib story, by Margaret Ramirez, billed as religion reporter (a slot that has seemed an afterthought to Trib editors since Steve Kloehn left the beat a few years back [later: make Manya Brachear a nice exception to this]), we don’t know if he said it from the podium or in an interview.  The quote above is doctored (here) for clarity’s sake, but as printed, probably accurately, it sounds off the cuff — not that George is the most articulate of speakers or incapable of making off-wall statements.

In any case, what he said justifies neither lead paragraph — “As the nation's Roman Catholic bishops gathered in Chicago Thursday for a meeting to review their sexual abuse policy, Cardinal Francis George said homosexual men should not be admitted into seminaries” — nor headline — “George: Seminary no place for gays.”

Ramirez’s analysis is like a cartoon: broad outlines of issues are offered, with reference to what “is being debated,” “critics [who] have charged,” “others [who] have said,” and the like.

The zero-tolerance ban may violate Catholic teaching “on redemption,” she writes — an odd usage that implies salvation itself is threatened by church discipline and imposing of penance for sin.  Ramirez may get things just enough wrong no matter what she writes about, but that’s little consolation to readers of news about religion and the church.

Quick, Mrs. Durbin, his medication!

Here’s what Dick Durbin said, for the record:

(6-14) Durbin: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Columnist Phil Kadner has the quote in Daily Southtown.  So does Sun-Times and Chi Trib.  And needless to say, so does Aljazeera.   It’s a quote read ‘round the world.  Howard Dean should watch his back; Durbin of Illinois is coming on hard.

6/15/2005

Coyotes OK, says expert

Check out Gary Wisby’s story on coyotes as way to keep geese from multiplying, in which he seeks to shoot down pet-owners’ concerns, citing an expert:

[H]umans have more to gain than to lose from the presence of coyotes, who seem to be adapting nicely to the habitat we share. On the rare occasion that an urban coyote kills a cat or a small dog, it makes the newspapers. But in the meantime the animals are performing a public service every day by curbing overpopulations of geese, rats, rabbits and other prey.

"We're starting to show the ecological roles that coyotes play besides eating people's pets," Gehrt said.

6/14/2005

Gitmo et al.

1. Reading the breathless account of what captive jihadists say -- all part of the drum beat of optimism from NY Times-Democrat, do we not wonder whatever to do?  Close Gitmo?  Move it?  Release the Jihadists, some of whom don't know any better?  Impeach Bush & Cheney, who by the way won handily in 2004?  It's a world-class conundrum.

2. "It's freedom of speech," said radio host Al Franken, who had just got a Freedom of Speech Award, when urged to end a too-long tirade vs. Bush admin and war.

"It's not freedom to kill everybody's evening, so why don't you wrap it up," replied the MC. 

There are limits, in other words?

3. Re: Coyotes, from Reader Marta:
Unfortunately your instant rebuttal [they don't bother people] isn't completely accurate -- two children were mauled by coyotes that wandered close to an elementary school here in California a couple of years back.  A bigger problem is their habit of eating household pets -- I've lost a couple cats to coyotes.  I can sort of justify it -- circle of life and all that, but I still went through the pet grieving process associated with the loss of a furry family member.
4. The 23-year-old Bears lineman caught with loaded gun is "from another state and not familiar with what's going on here," his lawyer said (here and here).  The state is Arizona.  After high school, where he was also a star volleyballer, he played for U. of Washington.  He weighs 300 pounds now, is 6 feet 2 inches high, broad-jumped farther than any other lineman in Bears training camp.  At U. Wash. he had to sit out a year because his high-school core-curriculum grade point average was lower than the 2.0 required by NCAA's Proposition 48, covering college admissions for student athletes.  Nor had he scored 700 on the SAT or 15 on the ACT, thus further failing the requirement.

The rule affects black players far more than whites:  In a recent year, 87% of freshman held back were black!  These and the other 13% spent their first year on campus acquiring grades from the college of their choice so that the college could profit from their performance on the gridiron, which says a lot about (a) academic hard work by footballers or (b) colleges' eagerness to get over the Rule 48 hump by making sure grades get good enough or courses are easy enough. 

This bad academic showing by blacks is "hugely discriminatory," however, says The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), which "works to end the misuses and flaws of standardized testing and to ensure that evaluation of students, teachers and schools is fair, open, valid and educationally beneficial."    Yessir.

5. Have you ever considered how much safer Chi streets would be if Chi Trib devoted as much ink and space to crime-problem solutions as to legal-system abuses?  If headline after headline blared the message about what works in Chi and elsewhere, like how Giuliani cleaned up Times Square?  Wouldn't that grab the strap hangers on their way to the office?  And help circulation while we're at it, if you please?

6/09/2005

Taylor Street that great street, Hillary C., Boggles, Skiles

1. Folks on Taylor Street knew George A. Prado, the Hispanic Dem Org official arrested yesterday for selling heroin, had a lot of money for a $62G-a-year city hoisting engineer -- he had offered Judith Pedraza $1.2 million for her place at Taylor and Bishop, driving up one day in his Mercedes -- but they thought he had won the lottery, Pedraza told Sun-Times.  Erroneously. 
 
2. ''Don't think that Hillary has the women's vote,'' a disgruntled California Democrat told Robert Novak.  ''I will never forgive her for sticking with her husband after he humiliated her. It's something I can't get over.''  http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak09.html
 
3. Sun-Times letter writer Susan House's mind "boggles" at what coyotes could do for the city's rabbit-infested parks and thus wins an Items Usage Award for knowing that "boggle" is primarily intransitive and was solely that before being sloppily mongrelized by our orally fixated society, most of whose denizens read a book once but found it borrrring.  Her letter at http://www.suntimes.com/output/letters/cst-edt-vox09a.html is of a piece with her verbal acuity.
 
"The bunny problem in Millennium and other parks could be easily solved by a few resident coyotes," she begins.  Among possibilities at which the mind boggles she names "a reduction in garden-pilfering rabbits . . . painted Fiberglas coyotes in the parks [and] naming contests.  . . . If there is an Adopt-a-Coyote program, I'll be first in line," she adds, offering from her Edgewater residence an unusually literate bite to relish at breakfast table or while hanging from a Green Line strap.
 
4. L'affaire Skiles as in Scott, the recently renewed Bulls coach, ended like any good melodrama, with the main characters living happily ever after and the chorus saying silly things.  Scott, Jerry, and John have the good ship Bulls on its way (http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull09.html and http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/sns-ap-bkn-bulls-skiles,1,493486.story), and yippee for them who are restoring my interest if not my faith in NBA ball.  But the commentators, God love 'em, gave their last going-bananas shot with uproariously contradictory assessments.  On Michigan Avenue Sam Smith confidently adjudged Skiles to have come to his senses as Smith had said he should, in a column hubristically titled "Luckily, Skiles sees cliff, doesn't jump" (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-050607smith,1,1392498.column?coll=chi-sportscolumnist-hed), while at the Furniture Mart his mortal opponent Mariotti had Skiles staring down the normally unflappable Reinsdorf, in a column hubristically titled "Skiles brassy enough to make boss blink" (http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay08.html).
 
The allegedly blinking boss was not amused, however,and did the actionable thing on a talk show, calling M-man a liar, as Chi Trib dutifully reported (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/chi-0506090240jun09,1,520824.story), because he and Skiles had neither met face to face as M-man said nor haggled over contract in their telephone conversation as he also said.  That's what "[his] newspaper" told him, M. told Chi Trib -- without telling hundreds of thousands of readers, who read only of telephone talks in the above-linked news story, one must add.  However again, M. also said Reinsdorf will be hearing from M's lawyers.  This could be a case of "Reinsdorf lied, Mariotti died" of embarrassment?  Smith should write a column urging Mariotti not to go there?

6/07/2005

Saving mayors Daley

"Mayor Daley Summerdale" registers zilch on Google News, about 30 on Google Web, beginning with a U. of Chicago Press site for the Royko compilation, One More Time, and ending with http://www.gamblingmagazine.com/articles/53/53-178.htm, site of a 1999 Gambling Magazine interview with the prolific and dogged and professionally expert Richard Lindberg. 
 
"Mayor Daley hired truck," on the other hand, gets 78 news references, which is no surprise.  Why compare?  In the vague suspicion that the incumbent Daley might look to his father's Summerdale, now a nothing as news but big (we might even say "huge") in its day and quelled as ruinous scandal by the father's appointment of OW Wilson as police superintendent.  Is the son that bold when it comes to a salvage operation?

Page one smasheroos

Chi Trib went for the hat trick, or maybe trifecta (horse bettors have to help out here), with this pair, yesterday and today, of page one smash-'em stories:

* Sunday's was about a black man brutalized by drunken whites who got short jail terms in Linden, Texas, described by the Texas NAACP head as one of "a few areas in Texas that have kind of bypassed the civil rights era." Linden, said the NAACP man, is "an island of the '50s." One of a few, an island: unusual. What then is the significance of this story for a Chicago, as opposed to a Texas, newspaper? It does rub raw sores of discontent among most readers. Is this what reporter Howard Witt and his editors have in mind?

* Monday's, with the startling head "Critics: Pentagon in blinders: Long before 9/11, the military was warned about low-tech warfare, but it didn't listen" is about "maverick officers, active and retired . . . agitating for change," including "a chief warrant officer in the Marine Reserves who focuses on gang crime in Chicago as a sergeant in the city's Police Department [who] recently returned from Iraq after leading a Marine unit against insurgents." Other "mavericks" are quoted, in their journal articles and in personal interviews. The problem goes back to the Viet Nam war, the article, by Stephen J. Hedges, says. Back to Gen. Billy Mitchell being court-martialed for his stubborn support for developing air power in 1925, it might have said, lending context. Buried in the story is 3rd Cavalry's commander saying they are learning how to do it in Iraq, which would have made a Wash Times lead. All in all, Hedges did a lot of reporting but was given an awful lot of space -- more than 2,200 words! -- and (naturally) used it all up. Are there no editors below O'Shea at Chi Trib, any beside the one who devised that sock-'em-bust-'em head, picking on a time-honored fat target?

Busting drug busting

This from CNSNews.com, at http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200506/NAT20050606b.html, "Medical Marijuana Laws Don't Shield Users From Prosecution," could be (maybe?) a straw that breaks back of drug-law camel.  The decision was made in view of inadvisability of breaking the law (judges don't make laws, legislators do -- "The ruling also said that Congress could allow the use of medical marijuana, if it chooses to do so").  Does it not add impetus to the so far minority notion that lawmakers (not judges) should reassess drug prohibition as presently constituted?  Repeal, anyone?

6/03/2005

Social Security a problem?

No reason for Social Security reform to be a partisan issue, says Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner. 

In fact, there is a long history of Democrats offering workers more choice, ownership and control over their retirement funds.  Democrats like former Senators Robert Kerry and Patrick Moynihan were among the earliest proponents of individual accounts. The Democratic Leadership Council and its think tank arm, the Progressive Policy Institute, have been supportive. Even former president Bill Clinton was willing to consider the idea. Some Washington observers believe that only the Lewinsky scandal preventing him from endorsing individual accounts.

That woman in the White House.  Drat!

6/02/2005

Deeply Felt

James P. Pinkerton in his Newsday column puts Deep Throat in perspective, noting this among other things about Watergate:

As an impressionable teen back then, I remember the chairman of the Watergate investigating committee, Sen. Sam Ervin (D-N.C.), declaring that the scandal was "the greatest tragedy this country has ever suffered, [worse than] the Civil War."

At the time, I took those words to heart, mostly because there was no voice in the media to simply laugh out loud in derisive response. Watergate was worse than the death of 600,000 people in the War Between the States? Worse than the Depression? Worse than any number of disasters, epidemics, lynchings and assassinations? Please.

As for W. Mark Felt, the #2 FBI man now self-exposed as Deep Throat,

he's a strange kind of hero. In 1980, he was convicted of ordering FBI agents to burgle the homes of political dissidents. Isn't that kind of close to what Nixon's men were guilty of? And after decades of denial, at 91, now he comes forward - or at least his daughter does, on the stroke-ridden old man's behalf. As she explained to Vanity Fair, "Bob Woodward's gonna get all the glory for this, but we could make at least enough money to pay some bills."

And Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, telling of his “secret life with W. Mark Felt,” notes that Felt is a man who “truly knew a thing or two about illegal break-ins,” thanks to his heading up FBI’s “notorious COINTELPRO domestic spying-and-burglary campaign” about the time he was giving good stuff to Woodward and Bernstein.

 

Let no man call her l-----l

AP story in today’s Sun-Times about Topeka legislator who once said giving women the vote showed “men weren’t doing their jobs” as heads of families, of which women are to be hearts, has critic predicting trouble for her in seeking statewide office, describing the critic as exec director of “a group fighting conservatives in politics.”

That’s not a liberal group?

5/25/2005

Media bias? Oh yeah

From John Leo's latest in U.S. News, italics added:

Instead of trampling Newsweek --the magazine made a mistake and corrected it
quickly and honestly--the focus ought to be on whether the news media are
predisposed to make certain kinds of mistakes and, if so, what to do about
it. The disdain that so many reporters have for the military (or for police,
the FBI, conservative Christians, or right-to-lifers)
frames the way that
errors and bogus stories tend to occur. The antimilitary mentality makes
atrocity stories easier to publish, even when they are untrue.  . . .  It's
possible to read newspapers and newsmagazines carefully and never see
anything about the liberal indoctrination now taking place at major
universities. This has something to do with the fact that the universities
are mostly institutions of the left and that newsrooms tend to hire from the
left and from the universities in question
.
...................
 the biggest flaw in mainstream journalism today is the lack of diversity.
Much bean-counting goes on in regard to gender and race, but the new hires
tend to come from the same economic bracket and the same pool of elite
universities, and they tend to have the same take on politics and culture
.

So it happens that Chi Trib’s Dawn T. Trice as a newbie in 1990 could not only get indignant over a Mike Royko column over his use of  “monkeys” as applied to blacks by a Los Angeles cop, but with others of her ilk could persuade a night editor to kill it, as in this Chicago Newspapers item of May 15, 2004.  In my lead, I made the point:

There are times when Chi Trib seems populated by graduates of politically correct campuses, editors and reporters who speak mostly to their own kind.

5/22/2005

His inning

Mark Steyn doesn’t know it, but in his “Cricket star knows how to fire up fanatics” column in Sun-Times, he corrects the reference below to a “hot-to-trot anti-Musharraf Pakistani movie actor-activist” who read the offending Koran-flushing Newsweek story to Muslims who then rioted.  The reader is a famous cricket player (deeply sorry about that), Imran Khan.  He read the story “in a ferocious speech” on Pakistani TV, and the rest is Muslim-rioting and U.S. media history.

In that fell swoop, Khan got the cork of what Steyn calls “two highly parochial and monumentally self-absorbed tribes living in isolation from the rest of the world and prone to fanatical irrational indestructible beliefs,” thus tarring mainstream media people with an Islamicist brush.

As for Khan the onetime playboy with megabucks capitalist Jewish wife now seeking fame as a Pak pol, “he's an opportunist and that's why he went out of his way to incite his excitable followers,” says Steyn, who takes a final parting shot at “our self-worshipping vanity media whose reflexive counter-tribalism has robbed it of all sense of perspective or proportion,” which is to use a broad brush with basic, general accuracy, as anyone knows who has tried even feebly to suggest problems in their arena, which is to stir a hornet’s nest of easily wounded sensibilities.

5/20/2005

Ignorant congressmen

Chi Trib’s Rudolph Bush has worth-reading page one story, “Rush, Gutierrez plead ignorance of travel rules,” about which a few points:

He says in third graf:

The fact that they didn't file for a number of years and don't remember receiving reminders of the rule raises questions about the House's internal enforcement and the seriousness with which the chamber takes its ethics rules, analysts said.  (Italics added here and throughout)

But he quotes only one so-called analyst, the veteran liberal activist Fred Wertheimer (husband of Linda the NPR hostess), identifying him simply as “of the watchdog group Democracy 21,” not identifying Democracy 21, whose web site is much about nailing Tom De Lay — though for this story Wertheimer, of Common Cause fame, has no blame to cast on fellow lib-Dems Rush & Gutierrez, only on those who didn’t catch them:

"One of the problems here has been lax oversight of the rules. It's clear that one of the reforms that is essential is to strengthen the role of the [ethics] committee and the House in overseeing and enforcing its rules."

Meanwhile, Bush tells us

The other 19 members of the Illinois delegation were aware of the rule and regularly sent their travel disclosure forms, but Gutierrez's files from 1997 to 2005 were all but empty, while Rush's contained disclosures for several staff members but not for the South Side congressman himself. The House passed its travel disclosure rule in 1995.

Rush & G were not aware of the rule, however, and the rest of the story is their self-exculpation on various grounds, as this from G:

"I'm very unhappy and upset that my senior staff never filed any disclosure forms,"

leaving us to wonder, on a scale of one to ten, where does this unhappiness of his rank with Bush’s asking him about his travel vouchers in the first place?

As for Rush, he

took a somber tone about his failure to follow House rules, although he has yet to file travel disclosures for himself. He said he expects to make a complete filing by month's end.

As do we taxpayers expect him to do but are not holding breath.

Main thing is, nobody told them about it:  There was “lax oversight,” said Wertheimer the DeLay pursuer.  Rush “wondered why he never received any notice.”  "No one knew that was the rule,” said Gutierrez.

A small voice is raised at the end of the story, however, to provide miniscule relief from this pity-the-poor-Congressman theme: 

Though neither Rush nor Gutierrez received any reminders from the clerk, not knowing the rules isn't an excuse, said William Canfield, former general counsel for the Senate Ethics Committee.

"It's sad. You're supposed to know the rules if you are a member," he said.

Way at the end.  Better late than never.

5/17/2005

Abortion discussion aborted?

This in today’s Chi Trib, Experts debate diet's link to breast cancer, jogs the memory about suppressed discussion of the role, and to what extent, played by having an abortion in getting breast cancer.  In any case, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer: The ABC Link calls having an abortion “the most preventable risk factor for breast cancer.”  But “Why the Silence About Abortion and Breast Cancer?” asks Chi Trib columnist Dennis Byrne some months back.  He refers us to the very same Coalition, which is all about suppression of research results dating back to a 1986 Lancet article.  Etc., etc., etc.

But so-called women’s advocates have a hammerlock on mainstream reporters and editors, that peculiar breed who meet no one at parties who gives a hoot about such matters and besides, would rather not stick head above trench level, thank you, because it would be blown off.

Detroit, home of the free press

Mitch Albom stole material.  Detroit Free Press’

Carole Leigh Hutton, publisher and editor, said the problems reflect a lack of familiarity with the paper's rules on attribution. She pledged to take steps to address them. The paper's ethics policy requires reporters to give credit when they use the work of others. 

says AP

The paper's rules on attribution?  Not basic honesty or universally accepted rules of writing in civilized society?  She’s saying there have to be rules for this?

=============

Add this from Tapscott’s Copy Desk, where the Free Press story is excellently covered:

Since when do professional journalists have to be reminded that simple honesty dictates that they not present the work of others as if it was their own?

5/16/2005

Hard-hitting journalism

The Austin Bay blog has this at http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=323#comment-7751.  It gets at the mentality of some of our best and brightest newsies, P. Jennings and M. Wallace.  Old news yes, 1989, but is it?

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20011010.asp#4
===================
A reprint from the April 1989 MediaWatch, a monthly newsletter then-published by the MRC:

Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace Agree
Reporters First, Americans Second

In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That’s just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS’ Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops.

For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: “If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans.”

Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, “would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover.” Jennings’ position bewildered Wallace: “I’m a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story.”

“Don’t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?” Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: “No, you don’t have higher duty… you’re a reporter.” This convinces Jennings, who concedes, “I think he’s right too, I chickened out.”

Ogletree turns to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argues “you’re Americans first, and you’re journalists second.” Wallace is mystified by the concept, wondering “what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?” Retired General William Westmoreland then points out that “it would be repugnant to the American listening public to see on film an ambush of an American platoon by our national enemy.”

A few minutes later Ogletree notes the “venomous reaction” from George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel. “I feel utter contempt. Two days later they’re both walking off my hilltop, they’re two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines up there to get them. They’re just journalists, they’re not Americans.”

Wallace and Jennings agree, “it’s a fair reaction.” The discussion concludes as Connell says: “But I’ll do it. And that’s what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists.”

END Reprint

Schmich back

Stunned by the Trice reappearance (without explanation for absence), I forgot to take note that Schmich got back yesterday — “Illness' 2 voices agree: Being sick is no fun at all.” She’s been sick and tells us about it, lightweightly describing a horse (hoarse?) race between "your eight-year-old" and "your 108-year-old."

No problem. Chi Trib demographics clearly call for such, as its sales people put it at Media Kit:

Chicago Tribune's sites are number one in total market reach for Chicago news and information Web sites (source: Media Metrix).  Beating out popular national sites like CNN.com and MSNBC.com, Chicagoans choose to get their online news from a trusted, local brand. Attracting a young, educated, and affluent audience, the Chicago Tribune sites reach more than a million readers every month. (Italics added)

Of course.  The Dippy Three — Schmich, Zorn, Trice — are there for a reason.  They are deemed to appeal to the young, the educated, the affluent — the future leaders of our great nation.  Why am I complaining?

Potty (more)

On its discredited Koran-flushing story that led to riots and deaths abroad:

Newsweek's editor, Mark Whitaker, apologized to the victims on Sunday and said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

Not to its readers?  For snapping up a tip and running it gossip-like in good old breezy fashion, never suspecting there was a hot-to-trot anti-Musharraf Pakistani movie actor-activist there to read it aloud on the Muslim street?  Where was the sensitivity to The Street, about which we have heard so little lately? 

And be advised that what you have here is very mild commentary.  For link after link to informed indignation about Newsweek and its Michael Isikoff, author of the rumor, start with www.instapundit.com, which as usual is all over this thing.

She's baaaack

Trice has re-appeared page one Metro in Chi Trib, leading with this:

A South Carolina Republican legislator, not known for his sensitivity and tact, incensed a bunch of people last month when he said he didn't understand why women who are victims of domestic violence fall back into the arms of their abusers.

a) The commas are ridiculous.  b) “A bunch” is alarmingly chatty. 

In any case, she identifies the faintly damned legislator in paragraph two:

Rep. John Graham Altman made his comments just after helping to defeat a criminal domestic violence bill working its way through a legislative committee. That bill failed at the same time one protecting chickens passed.

They care more about chickens than women in South Carolina!  Point made in manner most droll. 

Etc.  Can’t read any more.  At any rate, she’s back, without explanation where she’s been for a week, having led fans and at least one observer to ponder her fate.  Maybe it took a week to put today’s column together, as opposed to the usual half week.