Who is an embarassment?

Apparently, Cardinal Francis George thinks it is an "extreme embarrassment" that Notre Dame University invited President Barack Obama to speak at its commencement ceremony. Extreme embarrassment, eh? Wow, strong words. I mean, this is the President of the United States he's talking about. It wasn't so long ago that that kind of talk would cause a person to be branded unpatriotic.

I know Notre Dame is a Catholic university. George, and others, think Obama shouldn't have been asked to speak because his views on abortion and stem cell research are not in line with the views of Catholics. But from looking at Notre Dame's site, there is no requirement that a student be Catholic, or religious at all. I would gather that means there are students of many different religions, and maybe some who don't practice at all. I would also gather that not all students have the same views on abortion or stem cell research, regardless of the fact that they attend a Catholic university. Isn't that pretty much what college is about -- coming into contact with people unlike yourself? And let's face it, not even Notre Dame students are perfect.

It's not as if Obama is going to give a speech about abortion or stem cell research, or try to convince students who have different views than he does to change their views. Obama is about more than just his political views. If anything, the fact that Obama is the first black president should be encouraging to students. And that leads me to something I found on George's Web site.

George wrote a pastoral letter on racism where he talks about people of different races dwelling together. Here is the first black president, and George calls his invitation to speak at Notre Dame an "extreme embarrassment." Now, George wasn't referring to race when he made that comment, but he should have thought a bit more about the obvious consequence of that remark. George says it's an embarrassment and encourages people to write, call and e-mail to convey their displeasure. But by doing so, the end result of that campaign, could be the rescission of the invitation for the first black president to speak. If George is so passionate about ending racism that he would write this long involved pastoral letter, then why not express his concern over the invitation in a different way? Because despite Obama's views on abortion and stem cell research, he is still a success story for minorities, if not for everyone. See what you can do when you work hard. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say Obama is somewhat of a success story when it comes to racism in this country. No, his election didn't eradicate racism, but it meant something. It showed us that if a person is right for the job, he (or she) deserves our vote.

When former President George W. Bush gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame, he too faced protest. He also faced protest when he gave the commencement speech at Yale, his alma mater. So I guess this is just par for the course for presidents. But this notion that Notre Dame's invitation to Obama is an extreme embarrassment to Catholics, well, I think George should be embarrassed for making such a statement, especially when his pastoral letter on racism contains such nuggets as this:

The Gospel compels us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to abandon patterns of seeing those who are racially or culturally different from ourselves as strangers and to recognize them as our brothers and sisters. Even those who have suffered at the hands of others, individually or collectively, must pray to overcome hostility, forgiving those who have offended them and asking forgiveness from those whom they have offended. We must embrace one another as formerly estranged neighbors now seeking reconciliation.

Seems to me the Cardinal doesn't practice what he preaches. Embarrassment, indeed.

The recession hits home

I've never worked at a company that laid off several people at once. I've never sat at my desk worrying that I might get that call telling me to come down for a chat, i.e. the figurative pink slip. I never experienced those things until last week. My company had let a few people go toward the end of last year, but it wasn't anything major and it was mostly eliminating positions that weren't needed. I was worried, but not too worried. I thought I was safe for at least a few more months, that my company wouldn't let anyone else go until the middle of this year, if at all. I was wrong.

I heard rumblings last week that 70 people were going to be let go at the end of the week. I didn't know how much to believe. Was it really 70? Would there be layoffs at all? Would it be that week? But I was scared. Who wouldn't be? I may be young and good at my job, but in this economy that doesn't mean much. Even people my age with my skills are having trouble finding jobs. I barely slept that night, thinking about how I'd pay off the $2,000 in furniture I bought just the weekend before, thinking my job was safe. Here I went out and tried to help the economy by buying something big, and it was going to bite me in the ass, possibly. I should have kept my money under lock and key like I had been, because of my fear of losing my job.

It turned out my company let just over 30 people go, and I wasn't one of them. Not that it makes me feel that much better. People I knew and talked to, who I had worked with for five years, were let go. I was on the verge of tears the whole day, and every time my phone rang, my heart beat faster, until I looked at the display and realized it wasn't my supervisor calling me for that chat. I don't think anyone did anything that day because we were all too consumed with who was being let go. Staff members were calling other staff members to let them know who they had just heard was escorted out. By the end of the day, it was over, but I was no more relieved. Because I realized no one is safe. I always thought if I worked hard, was knowledgeable and received good reviews, I was safe. But I don't believe that anymore. Because in this economic climate, sometimes companies have to let even the good people go. I don't know if there will be more layoffs down the line, and I don't know if it will be me next time. But a day doesn't go by now that I'm not anxious over the possibility, that I'm not looking at my bank accounts to see how much I have available and how I can save more. I'm afraid to buy lunch even one day out of the week because I don't want to waste the money. Not like $7 is going to do much for me. I don't buy anything with my credit card because I don't want the balance, and that furniture that I bought on a 12-month no interest no payment plan will be paid off shortly, just so I don't have that balance hanging over my head. And I won't be buying any other big ticket items this year. I'll be saving my money -- just in case.

I never thought I'd be this scared. I never thought I'd be afraid of getting laid off. I never did, but now I am. And it's not a good feeling.

Schoolyard politics

So is this how politics works?. Like the schoolyard? There is a bully. The bully says you will do this or else. Everyone else complies.

This weekend, a group of black pastors from Chicago rallied on behalf of Sen. Roland Burris and said that those politicians calling for his resignation need to leave him alone. And if the calls for Burris's resignation don't cease, these pastors will not support those politicians in future elections. Wow, so that's how things get done? I thought people would just laugh it off. You can't expect people to take you seriously when making threats like that. Then I heard on the news today that Gov. Pat Quinn is backing off on calls for Burris's resignation. Wimp.

I'm glad to see Rep. Bobby Rush came out of the woodwork for this little gathering. I was starting to wonder where the support he gave to Burris a month ago had gone. But I guess when the subject is race and how Burris is only being treated this way because he's black, Rush will be present. Of course, his claims are asinine. The Sun-Times column quoted Rush as saying that Sen. Larry Craig, for example, was treated better than Burris has been, even though he pled guilty to a crime. Sadly, Rush needs to read his history, because fellow politicians called for Craig's resignation. Mitt Romney said Craig had disappointed the American people. Craig didn't get a free pass because he's white. Nor did Randy Cunningham. Nor did James Traficant. Or even Gary Condit, who wasn't guilty of anything except bad judgment. These are random names, but just ones I could remember or found while reading other items. There are three congressman who are white and who weren't allowed to just skate by. Four, if you count Craig.

But, you say, these guys were convicted of or under suspicion for more serious crimes than Burris. True. But no one really knows what Burris is guilty of, because the story has changed many times over. If Burris was appointed by a governor who was squeaky clean (to the extent that any politician can be that clean), I don't think his waffling would matter to anyone. But Burris had to know when he accepted the appointment that he would be subject to closer scrutiny because of his connection to Rod Blagojevich. The uproar over Burris's revised testimony should come as no surprise to Burris or the black pastors who support him. The problem never was Burris's race. The problem was that he was appointed by a crooked governor. And then his changing testimony about which one of Blago's aides and friends he spoke to, or whether he did or didn't raise money for Blago, made the situation even worse. Burris wants our trust, but how can we trust someone who says one thing at one time and then says another later? And this is not the media attacking Burris. The media reported the facts that were out there. It's not their fault those facts paint Burris in a bad light. Burris himself is responsible. And I love this quote in the Sun-Times column from Rev. Janette Wilson: "You're all at his home every morning; when he goes to bed. You didn't do this for priests . . . wanted for pedophilia." Ha, that's rich. The Church did a pretty good job of covering up the pedophilia scandals, but when the news came out, there were stories. Many of them. Like the Church, Burris was able to cover up the true story about any connections with Blago. But once the news came out, the media reported it. Wilson also said, in the Tribune article, that they would not allow "you to force our senator to resign." He's not our senator. We didn't vote him into office. If anything, he's Blago's senator and we're just forced to go along. What about the people who don't want Burris to represent them? We have no choice. So why should people like Wilson be able to force their senator down our throats? I want a special election. If Burris wants to run, and Wilson and others want to vote for him, then so be it. But at least the people of Illinois would have a say in who represents them in the Senate.

I know racism is alive and well in this country, but where it doesn't exist, why must others make it an issue? Don't we have enough true racism to deal with? Burris's race is not an issue. This isn't a black vs. white issue. But the black pastors for Burris have now made it one by threatening not to support politicians, many of whom are white, who called for Burris's resignation. This is about what is best for Illinois, and it is not in our state's best interests to be represented by someone who can't keep his story straight. If the black pastors for Burris want him as their senator, they can vote in a special election.

No trust

So the government lends taxpayers' money to the banks with the idea that they would then lend that money to people to get the economy moving again. I know there were other objectives to lending money to banks , but that was one of them. So what does Northern Trust (a/k/a No Trust, to me) do with some of their money? It spends the money on schmoozing clients for the Northern Trust Open, a golf tournament.

Now, No Trust argued that it didn't spend the bailout money, of which it received $1.5 billion, on the event, which included concerts by Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire and Sheryl Crow as well as hotel rooms at the Ritz Carlton. But my response to that is, how badly could the bank have been hurting if it had other money to spend on the event?

If No Trust is doing so well now that it can throw money away on party time, then maybe it should repay that $1.5 billion tout de suite. No Trust also argued that the schmoozing was part of its marketing program, and a No Trust spokesman said, "It's about client relationships and showing appreciation for clients." Really? I wonder how many of the people No Trust put up in the Ritz and who were in attendance at all those concerts were just regular "clients." I wonder if Joe Average, who has a checking account with No Trust that contains maybe a few thousand and a savings account to match, was a part of these events. Because he's a client too, and many more like him. He might not be a whale, but he put his trust in No Trust just like anyone else. So what No Trust is really saying is these events were for lucrative clients and building those relatoinships. And to that I say, it wasn't just the lucrative clients' money that made up that $1.5 billion No Trust received. It was Joe Average's too. I think it's time for No Trust to pay Joe Average back. All $1.5 billion.

$6.95

I just wanted to rant for a moment here. This morning I decided it was time to sign up for the half marathon I usually run in the summer. I had waited because the registration cost for the Chicago Marathon was quite high ($125), and I also signed up for the Shamrock Shuffle ($40), which I had to do in January because the race fills up fast. I usually do all my registrations online. It's faster and instantaneous. And usually I'm charged a dollar or two as a registration fee. I don't really understand the fee, since everything is being done online so I imagine there is little manpower required on the race organizer's part, but a dollar or two is not a big deal. Today, however, I'm signing up for what is now the Rock N' Roll Chicago Half Marathon (used to be the Bank of America Chicago Distance Classic Half Marathon) and find out they charge $6.95 as a registration fee. The race itself cost $70, so that's kind of a hefty fee to tack on. Not only that, but if you fill out the registration form by hand and either fax or send it in, you just pay $70. So for the convenience of online registration, you're paying almost 10% more in fees, even though registering online should take less work for all involved.

So of course, what did I do? I canceled my online registration before paying, filled out a hard copy form and faxed it in. In this economy, I'm trying to save all the money I can, and my race fees per year probably cost me about $300. Add in shoes and running clothes, and you have another $200 to $300. I would think Elite Racing, which runs the Rock N'Roll series of marathons and half-marathons, would understand this. Bank of America never charged $6.95 for registration. In fact, last year, I paid $55 with a $4.95 fee. Now, before you say, well that fee's about 10% too, sure it is. But in total, I was only paying $59.95. That's $17 less than this year's registration cost. And the year before (2007), the half marathon again charged $55 with no registration fee.

Now, in all fairness, it is the Active Network, which Elite uses as its registration service, that charges the fee. But Active isn't a small company. They handle a lot of the registrations for various races, including the Chicago Marathon. They don't need a 10% fee. And every year, these races charge more money. I remember my first Chicago Marathon I think I paid $80 or something, maybe less. This year, it's $125. I used to do both triathlons and marathons, but had to stop because the race fees were getting so high I couldn't afford to do both. The Accenture Chicago Triathlon is $165 this year.

I'm not saying the cost isn't warranted to some degree. The race organizers have to pay for supplies and food, medical personnel, police presence and any paid employees (many are volunteers). But why just a couple years ago could the Chicago Marathon get by with $110 registration fee, and this year it's $125? Sadly, I believe the answer is -- because they can. We'll pay it because we want to run. And even if I decide to bow out once the fee gets to say, $150, there will be many other people willing to pay in my place. It's a shame that those of us who love running or doing triathlons have to almost work a second job to afford the races. I'm starting to wonder if I'm better off as a "recreational runner." It would definitely be cheaper. If the Chicago Marathon goes up another $15 next year, I probably will seek out a less expensive marathon, even if I have to travel. Sure, I'd have to spend the money on travel costs, but at least I'd get a little vacation out of it. If I can find a marathon that costs about $60, and they are out there, I'm already $80 ahead.

Well, that's my rant for today. I faxed in my form to Elite Racing, to save the $6.95. I can put it toward the new running shoes I need.

Where's B. Rush?

Maybe Rep. Bobby Rush is gearing up to make a statement on behalf of his pal, Roland Burris. But I'm surprised it's taking so long. Back when the U.S. Senate was blocking Burris from being seated, Rush was quick to throw out the race card. Burris would have been the only black senator, just as President Obama had been. The U.S. Senate, according to Rush, didn't want a black man around. Never mind that under normal circumstances, it doesn't matter what the other senators want. Senators are elected. If there are no black men or women in the Senate, the voters are to blame, not other senators. Never mind that a black man, a former senator, was elected president, supported by some of the same senators that Rush now claimed didn't want Burris around because of his race.

No, the issue back then, if Rush had bothered to step back for a bit, was about Rod Blagojevich's taint on the whole process. Blago had been arrested. Politicians and voters were skeptical about the appointment, whether Burris gave anything to Blago in return. That was the issue. Not Burris's race.

And now, when information has come out that Burris not only had contact with more Blago associates than he testified to but also tried to organize a fundraiser for Blago, Rush is nowhere to be found. Like I said, maybe Rush's support is forthcoming. Maybe it is meant to be implied. But I don't see Rush giving any press conferences or TV interviews now. No statements that Burris is being attacked because he's black and the U.S. Senate wants him out. I don't see any press releases from the Congressional Black Caucus once again supporting Burris. Has Rush realized his mistake? Has he, with the benefit of hindsight, realized maybe he shouldn't have been so quick to blame the ruckus over Burris on race?

I don't see the support that was there a little over a month ago. But I'm waiting.

Kass, off his rocker again

John Kass is better at finding people to blame than Roland Burris. In his column today, Kass blames President Obama for the Burris mess. Wow, now there's some well-thought out journalism. The Chicago Tribune shouldn't have even wasted the ink. Because Kass spends about half the article talking about Mayor Daley, Burris playing the race card, Blagojevich and the FBI wiretaps, etc. The only blame he puts on Obama is that Obama should have pushed for a special election for his Senate seat and that Obama wanted Burris seated so that Burris could vote in favor of the stimulus bill. Well, damn, there's a smoking gun if I ever saw one!

First, Obama did push for a special election, but I guess Kass didn't bother to research that. Or maybe Kass's use of the word "demanded" means he thought Obama should have pushed harder on the issue. But let's face it, other Illinois politicians also were asking for a special election, among other things. It was out there already. Obama also called for Blago's resignation. But I guess that wasn't "demanding" enough either. And frankly, on the heels of becoming our new president, Obama had a little more to worry about than just Illinois's troubles. He didn't create this mess, other than getting himself elected as president thereby leaving an empty Senate seat for the selling. Not his fault.

As for passage of the stimulus bill, I doubt Burris's one vote mattered all that much. Yes, the bill passed 60-38, so just barely. But with all the back and forth on the bill, I'm sure without that one vote, the Senate would have come to a resolution on the bill eventually. They couldn't do nothing. Even Republicans could understand that. Looking back, I believed Burris should be seated and the whole mess put behind us. The Senate had more pressing matters to deal with than the business of whether Burris should or should not be seated. They didn't need Illinois's mess in their house. Even though I was skeptical that Burris was appointed without giving Blago something in return, I hadn't seen or read anything saying he had, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

This mess is no one's fault but Blago's and Burris's. It's not on Rep. Jim Durkin for asking the wrong questions. It's not on Obama. It's not on other Illinois politicians. Blago appointed Burris, even though Blago should have left the task up to someone else (whether the people of Illinois by special election, or by resigning). Blago was given that authority by the Illinois Constitution. After Blago's arrest, there wasn't enough time to do anything to prevent what happened, to force Blago to do something other than what he did. Burris accepted the seat, because of his blind ambition. Burris wasn't completely truthful in his affidavits or his testimony. A mess has ensued. But it is a mess of their making, not anyone else's. Although I know how Kass likes to stick it to a Democrat.

Burris in the hot seat again

Sen. Roland Burris should have known what would happen if he let himself get mixed up with the likes of Rod Blagojevich. Just a little over a month after being sworn in as President Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate, Burris is under suspicion once again.

When first appointed, many people doubted that Burris didn't conduct any behind-the-scenes deals with Blago for the seat. But we gave Burris the benefit of the doubt. And Burris might still be clean. However, the information that recently came out doesn't look good.

Burris sent an affidavit to Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, head of the impeachment committee, to supplement testimony he gave in January before that same committee. During his original testimony, Burris forgot to mention that he had been in contact with other Blago friends, staff and relatives besides Lon Monk. Burris stated in the affidavit and during his press conference that he was asked another question by Rep. Jim Durkin, which is why he never went back to supplement his answer with these other names. It's all Durkin's fault, in other words. If Durkin hadn't confused Burris, Burris would have mentioned John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, John Wyma, et al. during his testimony. Below is that line of questioning. You decide for yourself if Burris had an opportunity to answer the question fully at that time.

REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Did you talk to any members of the Governor's staff or anyone closely related to the Governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including let me throw out some names, John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma, did you talk to anybody who was associated with the Governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the Governor's arrest?
MR. WRIGHT: Give us a moment.
MR. BURRIS: I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is I was trying to ask, did you speak to anybody who was on the Governor's staff prior to the Governor's arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the Governor?
MR. BURRIS: I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business, and I did bring it up, it must have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08 that, you know, you're close to the Governor, let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat.
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. Did you speak to any individuals who -- any individuals who were also seeking the appointment of the United States Senate seat, otherwise people we've referred to as Senate candidates one through five?
MR. BURRIS: No, I did not.

I watched Burris's press conference. When asked why he didn't tell the impeachment committee about these other contacts during his testimony, Burris asked his lawyer, Tim Wright, to answer. But then reporters badgered Burris about why he couldn't answer the question, why did he need his lawyer? Burris went on to answer, or try to answer, the question, but again, he just blamed Durkin's line of questioning. But the transcript of his testimony doesn't show that. Durkin didn't ask Burris about Monk, to the exclusion of all others. Burris talked about Monk and no one else. And then Burris waited over a month, until after he had received the transcript of his testimony, to suddenly realize he left something out. A few somethings, or somebodies as the case may be.

Regardless of Durkin's line of questioning, Burris knew why he was at that hearing. He should have made sure, at that hearing, that the committee members knew everything there was to know about his contacts with Blago's friends, staff and family. But I think Burris also knew that admitting to those contacts would only make him look worse. And he was already looking pretty bad.

Some have questioned whether Burris only prepared this affidavit because he found out his conversations, or any one of them, were taped by the FBI. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I am wondering the very same thing. Burris said in his press conference that federal prosecutors had reached out to his lawyers because they wanted to talk to Burris. But Burris claimed no meeting had been arranged and no discussions had been had. And later in the press conference, Wright said that the FBI hadn't contacted them, then said there "may have been some contact," but when asked by reporters for more information, Wright refused to give any more. Did Burris know what was forthcoming?

In the press conference, Burris also makes a distinction between "the appointment" and "the Senate seat," as if the two are different. Burris said he filed an affidavit about "the appointment" before he gave testimony, stating that he didn't talk to anyone about the appointment. Burris accused the Republicans on the impeachment committee of starting this line of questioning about who he talked to period. But Burris's Feb. 5 affidavit stated that he did talk to people about the U.S. Senate seat. How Burris sees a distinction between talking to people about his appointment and talking to people about the seat is beyond me. They are one in the same. His appointment was to the Senate seat, so therefore, any conversations he had with Blago's associates about the open seat was the same as talking to them about an appointment, because how else did Burris intend to get the seat? By osmosis?

And this lapse in judgment brings me to something else I gave Burris the benefit of the doubt on when he was appointed by Blago. I read about his lapse in judgment on the Rolando Cruz case, but I figured it was mistake. No doubt it was a BIG mistake (an innocent man put in jail and Burris fought his appeal even though an employee in his office told him there were inconsistencies in the case). But it was the only mark on his record that I read about. Now, here is another lapse in judgment. Whether the lapse was taking the Senate seat to begin with after being appointed by a crooked governor, or whether it was not providing complete testimony before the impeachment committee, it was a lapse. And I'm not sure Illinois can accept any more lapses.

P.S. At the end of his press conference, Burris then blamed this whole mess on the media. First, Durkin, then the MSM. Who isn't at fault, Senator?