I am dumbfounded as to why Rev. Jeremiah Wright would make such a spectacle of himself at the National Press Club. An older black woman, a commentator on Anderson Cooper’s show, said that, in her opinion, what had motivated Rev. Wright’s behavior was his perception that Barack Obama had “dissed” him, and, that Wright lashed out at Obama in anger. An interesting theory.

In today’s New York Times, Bob Herbert affirms that theory. In an article entitled “The Pastor Casts a Shadow,” Herbert writes, “Feeling dissed by Senator Obama, Mr. Wright gets revenge on his former follower while bathed in a spotlight brighter than any he could ever have imagined. He’s living a narcissist’s dream. At long last, his 15 minutes have arrived.”

Herbert continues, “The thing to keep in mind about Rev. Wright is that he is a smart fellow. He’s been a very savvy operator, politically and otherwise, for decades. He has built a thriving, politically connected congregation on the South Side of Chicago that has done some very good work over the years. Powerful people have turned to him for guidance and advice. … So it’s not like he’s naïve politically. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Forget the gibberish about responding to attacks on the black church. That is not what the reverend’s appearance before the press club was about. He was responding to what he perceives as an attack on him.”

The judgment that Wright is acting out of ego and out of selfish anger I’ve heard repeated in many versions. It seems the best explanation. This is a strange case that, to me, doesn’t make sense. Why would Rev. Wright, a man of seasoned maturity, throw away so much? Why would Rev. Wright seek to sabotage his parishioner, a person he has known and influenced from the time he was a fatherless young man in his twenties, a man who obviously has affection for Rev. Wright and who, over time, has established what he thought was a basis of trust with the minister. Why would Rev. Wright discard such a friendship?

And with his decision to throw away his friendship with Barack Obama, Rev. Wright also discards a wonderful opportunity to have positive national influence, an opportunity to transform our nation’s discussion about what it means to be a Christian. Wright, as potentially the president’s pastor, could have had the platform to teach the nation about his understanding of “liberation theology,” about his commitment to define Christianity in terms of service to others, about how Christianity caused him to want to serve and uplift his community. Rev. Wright could have provided the teaching and the inspiration that might have provided a valuable counterbalance to the view of Christianity presented by “God wants you to be rich” TV evangelists and to the view of Christianity promulgated by narrow minded right wing evangelicals. It is hard to understand why Rev. Wright threw such an opportunity away.

One thing is for certain, Rev. Wright, because of his actions, has a real problem. His claim to legitimacy is not that he is a scholar, not that he is a community leader, not that he is a black man. His claim to legitimacy is his claim that he is a man of God, a man dedicated to a life of Christian ministry. His actions have now undermined his very legitimacy as a minister. Does a man of God, who feels he has been “dissed,” seek to get even, does he seek to lash out in destructive words and actions? Does a man of God seek his own way? Is Wright’s actions and attitude a good example to anyone who is seeking to understand Christianity? I don’t think so.

It is possible that before this is all over Rev. Wright will surprise us and repent of his sin of ego and self centeredness. Possible, but unlikely. It seems that Wright sees himself as a prophet, and having boldly presented himself to the national stage in a certain manner and with a certain message, it seems unlikely he will reconsider. In the Bible, we are warned about false prophets. And much of the negative trends in today’s world can be blamed on the false prophets of our time. We criticize Moslem religious leaders for leading their flock astray, but the Moslem religion is not the only religion with false prophets.

I imagine that Rev. Wright feels his actions and words are justified. But, what the behavior of Rev. Wright can remind us is that any man who is ego driven, whose thinking and actions are self centered, can delude himself as to his own motivation and can do great harm, while convincing himself that he is doing great good.

Ohio’s Assembly is stalled in completing new legislation regulating payday lending rates. Thomas Suddes in an editorial in the Dayton Daily News today blames Christopher Widener, a Springfield Republican, chair of the Financial Institutions, Real Estate and Securities Committee, for blocking a vote on the matter in his committee. Suddes says, “The Ohio House’s failure to pass a 36 percent APR cap is a new and disgusting low.”

I googled “Ohio payday lending” and found a web-site sponsored by “The Ohio Coalition for Responsible Lending,” that says:

Payday lenders market their loans as short-term help for people in crisis. Data reveal, however, that only 1% of payday borrowers pay off their original loan in the standard two-week cycle. In fact, loans are deliberately structured to require borrowers to continue the cycle. For example, Judy, a recently divorced mother of two, took out a $300 loan that cost $45 in fees every two weeks. This became a $690 monthly payment which took nearly two years to finally pay off. This practice is the very foundation of the payday lending business model. The number of payday lending shops has grown from 107 in 1996 to 1,562 today. Ohio now has more payday lending locations than McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy’s restaurants combined.

The cost to Ohio borrowers in fees is estimated to be over $200 million annually. As Judy’s story reveals, this original $300 loan did not help her with a short term problem as marketed, but trapped her in long-term debt. Judy’s story is typical of a payday borrower. It is estimated that there are over 368,000 payday borrowers in Ohio, each with their own distressing story.

The standard interest for Ohio’s payday loans is $15 every two weeks for every $100 borrowed. This amounts to an annual percentage rate of 391%.

Suddes reports that at the national level payday lending has been capped at 36 % in a bill backed by congressional Republicans and signed by President Bush, “Because unregulated payday lending was crushing military families with debt.” Suddes says, “Now, miracle of miracles, the U.S. Congress actually looks good compared to the Ohio’s General Assembly.”

Suddes concludes his editorial: “Payday loans are too dicey for bank regulators, too expensive for George W. Bush and break hearts in black neighborhoods. But some Ohio House members don’t have a problem with that, which is predictable — and revolting.