Reporting on Penn State Scandal Underscores Problem

** UPDATE 11/13/11 -- I am glad to see that the story is finally turning to the crimes committed against the children, and that we are hearing less about what happened to Joe Paterno. The players and fans gave appropriate homage to the victims in yesterday's game, and Mike McQueary, the assistant coach who allegedly saw the rape of a child by Jerry Sandusky in the team showers but failed to call police, has rightfully been put on administrative leave. I hope the children (some of whom are now probably young adults) have or will find help and eventually some peace of mind. If Sandusky is guilty, he should save everyone -- the victims, the college, his family, and the taxpayers -- from going through a trial. He should plead guilty and face his punishment. **

You would think that if an assistant coach of a big-time college football team perpetrated horrible sex crimes with minors for years on end, you might actually hear something from the media about what's happening to that person, maybe some background about who he is. I would expect that the media would be all over his life like white on rice.

Instead, you'd be hard-pressed to find much reporting about him at all. Why? Because all the media is currently worrying about is whether or not Penn State head coach Joe Paterno will be fired or asked to resign. (The trustees just fired him, by the way.) I have heard very little about the (alleged) disgusting pedophile who perpetrated the crimes in the first place. Doesn't this tell you exactly what the underlying problem is? The career of a big-name coach, apparently, is more important than reporting on the crime.

By the way, I had to look it up... the name of the accused is Jerry Sandusky.

Why such worry about Paterno? He as well as other coaches and employees of Penn State allowed boys to be molested for years apparently without giving it much thought. I can guarantee you that if I saw a grown man molesting a 10-year boy in the locker room of a college, I wouldn't turn around and walk away, to think about whether I should report it to a superior later. If I had been there Sandusky would have been waddling out of there in handcuffs toward the police van, yelping in pain while trying to hold onto one very sore pair of gonads. What the hell has happened to our society that someone can see a serious crime being committed and not call the cops?

I don't really care whether Paterno's career is over. The media should be reporting on what's happening to Sandusky. But instead the big story, to them, is whether or not an 84-year old coach of a college team will be able to finish out the season. This is just a symptom of the problem, and that is the out-of-control worship of sports and its stars.

This Is What Your House of Representatives Did On Tuesday

We have an unemployment rate over 9%. We are still in the midst of a mortgage and foreclosure mess. The European debt crisis remains unresolved and threatens to throw the world financial markets back into chaos. That's just a few of the issues facing the President and Congress. Pretty important issues, wouldn't you say?

So what did your Republican-led House of Representatives work on yesterday? After all, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) has said that the House would only work on "substantive and meaningful issues," so I'm assuming it must have been something important.

Well, in this New York Times article Jennifer Steinhauer informs us that the House of Representatives spent Tuesday on a resolution "reaffirming 'In God We Trust' as the official motto of the United States."

Yes, folks, you heard that right. Our House of Representatives voted on a resolution that does nothing, changes nothing, and by the way "reaffirms" a national motto that is completely contrary to the notion of separation of church and state guaranteed by our
Constitution. Apparently that was more important than anything else they could have been doing yesterday, including voting on a resolution that had already been passed by the Senate honoring the heroes who rooted out and killed Osama bin Laden. More important than passing a jobs bill. Certainly more important than doing anything to address the concerns of the hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who have spent the past several weeks demonstrating in order to call attention to the decline of the middle class vs. the wealthy.

I had to do some research on the national motto. Until 1956 the national motto was "e pluribus unum," the Latin phrase meaning "from many, one" that you see on our currency. During the Eisenhower administration (i.e., the McCarthy era, when "under God" was also added to our Pledge of Allegiance), the motto was changed to "In God We Trust" and it then appeared on our currency, in federal buildings, etc. etc. I guess that pesky separation of church and state thing doesn't really mean much to the people who inhabit the Congressional offices. Hence, to address this "crisis" they felt the most important thing to do this past Tuesday was to vote to "reaffirm" a national motto that worships a supernatural deity referred to as "God" by only a segment of the population of this country, completely ignoring the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Good work, guys. Nice to know you're on top of things, and that you're so inclusive of all non-Christian and secular Americans and their diversity. I feel so much better about the people leading our country now.

Why We MUST Save Social Security

I find it sad, and somewhat worrisome, that so many young people think Social Security will not be there for them when they're ready to retire. What they don't understand is they had better hope it is -- because if not, it's doubtful that the vast majority of them would ever be able to stop working.

The Republicans want to kill Social Security or privatize it (in other words, they want to invest all that money in the stock market, not exactly a great idea given what's happened to that in the last decade). They keep saying we have to cut Social Security to balance the budget, yet they don't want to increase taxes on the wealthy, even the capital gains tax, which is now only 15%. Many people who are wealthy make most of that wealth from capital gains, by the way, so their income is taxed at a much lower rate than the pay of most Americans.

As we know, the income disparity between the middle class and the wealthy has gotten wider and wider as time has gone on, and yet the Republicans continue to shelter them. Notice that they no longer refer to the wealthy as "the wealthy" or "the rich" - there must have been a memo that went out to all Republican lawmakers to now refer to them as the "job creators." Really! I know, it's hysterical. The wealthy are doing better than ever, so if they're the "job creators," why is unemployment over 9% again?

But back to Social Security. Only the first $106,800 of income is taxed for Social Security. So whether you make $106,800 or $20 million, you will pay the same amount of Social Security tax. Does this make sense to anyone? 70% of Americans agree there should be no income limit on these taxes. In September of this year a bill was introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to remove this cap, but as yet it has not been brought up for a vote. That's probably because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed knows it won't pass the Republican-led House.

How many of you out there work for a company with a traditional retirement plan (known as a "defined benefit" plan), the kind your parents and grandparents had? Probably not many of you, because these kinds of plans have been disappearing. Some companies replaced them with what is called "defined contribution" plans, where you have an account with your name on it and the company can decide how much, if anything, it wants to contribute to that account each year. These accounts are almost always very poor replacements for defined benefit plans (trust me, they didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts). Recently companies have been ditching those as well, and relying on 401(k)s, if they give the employees anything. In my mind 401(k)s are very dangerous as it relies on the employees to be able to make the kind of financial decisions that most people just do not have the knowledge or background to make. Not only that, but it is very unlikely that most people, unless they make a huge salary, would be able to come close to saving enough money for retirement through a 401(k), even one with a company matching contribution.

With real estate losing value, people losing jobs, and the loss of traditional retirement plans, Social Security simply MUST be saved, or we will have generations of people who either cannot retire at all, or who will retire in very poor financial shape.

In addition, the loss of Social Security or the increase in the Social Security retirement age will mean a rise in unemployment, but the Republicans don't mention that. Why will this affect unemployment? The longer people have to work to receive their Social Security or to save for retirement due to the loss of other retirement income, the more young people will be frozen out of the jobs where they would have replaced the older worker who retired.

By the way, when the Republicans talk about raising the Social Security retirement age, guess what - they already have. They don't tell you this, either. But look on the Social Security website (www.ssa.gov) and you will see that the age for full Social Security benefits is 65 only for those people who were born in 1937 or earlier. It goes up after that, until it reaches 67 for people born in 1960 or later. So if you are now 51 years old, you will not be able to retire with a full benefit until age 67. You may say, that's OK, I'll take a partial benefit and retire at 65 anyway... but for each year you retire early you will sacrifice about 8% of your benefit for the rest of your life. So in that case, your benefit would be about 16% less than it would be if you retired at 67.

Make sure you understand the implications of any changes your lawmakers want to make to Social Security before voting. And if you're a young person, don't think of Social Security as something only for your parents and grandparents. If you ever want to be able to retire, you had better work now to make sure it will be there for you.

Mississippi's Abortion Law Insanity

On November 8th there will be a measure on the ballot in Mississippi to declare a fertilized egg a "person." This is just the latest in the overzealous, far-right evangelicals' attempt to create a workaround for the fact that they can't get abortion outlawed in this country. This law would, in fact, make abortion, some forms of birth control (the morning after pill, such as is used in cases of rape, for example), as well as discarding unneeded embryos created for in-vitro fertilization procedures murder. That's how ridiculous this gets.

See my previous posts regarding abortions and abortion law, including the outrageous law just passed in North Carolina. I have always said, and will always say, that I do not believe abortion should be used as birth control. However, there are occasions (again, refer to my previous posts) where it is medically necessary, where it is ethical (rape of a 10-year old, anyone?) or where it is the most humane thing to do (such as in the case of a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb). Making abortions illegal would take women back to the days of backroom, coathanger abortions, which are just damn dangerous and could mean death for the mother. But the so-called "pro-lifers" don't care about the life of the mother, apparently. All they care about is a fertilized egg.

By the way, in case those people neglected to sit through their junior high class on the subject, it takes more than a sperm meeting with an egg to make a baby. It also takes a third item, the most critical one - implantation into the womb. Without this element, there will be no baby. Got it? So why does this ridiculous law go so far as to protect fertilized eggs that have no chance of growing into human babies?

Now, as a secularist I don't believe people have souls at any stage of their lives. But anyone who thinks a few cells in a petri dish has a soul is just crazy. Period.

I have yet to see attached to a bill like this any funding for orphanages and caretakers for the children who will be abandoned should this bill take effect. If Mississippi wants to pass this bill, then they should make it clear to the voters that their taxes will go up to fund such organizations, but I never hear this talked about. What do these lawmakers think will happen to these children?

I hope the people of Mississippi, as well as Florida, Ohio and other states considering such laws, think about the other people involved in cases like this. If you seriously believe that a little girl who has been raped should have to carry that baby to term, endangering her life and mental health, then you live in a different moral universe than I do. That is simply using women as tools to obtain a political result, and that is wrong.

For Occupy Wall Street to Succeed People Must Stop Voting for the Wrong Candidates

When the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations started I figured they would last for a few days and then fizzle out, but they have been going for a month now. I had no faith because about half the voting population has no idea, if the polls are to be believed, exactly who or what they're voting for. Why are people so determined to vote for candidates who couldn't care less about them or their concerns?

Take the current Republican frontrunner, Mitt "I never met an issue I couldn't flip-flop on" Romney. He claims he knows how to create jobs, but how exactly did Mitt make his millions? Anyone ever hear of a leveraged buyout? Mitt went around taking over companies that were in trouble, cleaned their assets out and sold them, cutting as many jobs in the process as he could. Does this sound to you like someone who cares about middle-class unemployment?

Then there's Herman "Let 'em eat cake" Cain, the CEO of Godfather's Pizza. According to him, if you're not rich it's your fault. You're just "not working hard enough.". OK, Mr. Cain... I'd like to see you say that to a room full of firefighters, or teachers, or police officers. How about our men and women in uniform? Do you think they're not working hard enough? And what about his so-called 9-9-9 tax plan? Quite frankly I'm amazed anyone in the media is taking it with more than one tiny grain of salt, considering it's the most half-assed idea I've heard of in a long time. But then it does meet the Republican criteria for tax reform... make sure you give a big tax break to the wealthy while raising taxes on the middle class and the poor. It's even better is if you make it sound as though what you're doing is actually the opposite!

Rick "Really, I'm not George Bush!" Perry likes to tout his job creation record as governor of Texas. But if you look at the numbers you realize the bulk of those jobs came from an addition of jobs for the state and federal government, many paid for by the stimulus plan Republicans claim to loathe. Oops! His newest big plan for job creation? Drill, baby, drill! That's right - he wants to drill for "abundant" (it's not) oil in Alaska, and for more natural gas (ever seen someone light their tap water on fire)?

I could say something also about Michelle "I will single-handedly get gas back down to $2 a gallon" Bachmann, but suffice it to say I've figured out that she is just this year's obligatory female Republican presidential candidate designed to make us women think the GOP is serious about actually nominating one. In reality I think they just like to have one around that, just like last year's model, is attractive but dumb as a box of rocks. Oh, and did Ms. Bachmann mention all the federal money she and her husband have taken in? And how about the farm subsidies?

When Jon Huntsman jumped in the race I thought he would be big trouble for Obama, but instead he's been relegated to the back of the pack. It seems no one who votes Republican wants a moderate who knows how to work with Democrats. Huh, imagine that.

If the Occupy Wall Street protestors want to change things, then they need to stop voting for people who have done everything in their power to protect the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. They need to stop voting for people who put money ahead of the health of the environment. They need to stop voting for people who protect big corporations because that's where their campaign contributions come from. They need to stop voting for people who don't give a damn about them. I'm just not sure when, or if, enough of the people out there protesting are going to get it.

Warren Buffett Says: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Billionaire Warren Buffett has been saying this for a long time, but today he says it again in the New York Times here. And he's not the only wealthy person I've heard say that it's time to stop talking about cutting taxes (are you listening, Republicans?) and start talking about raising them on the people who can afford it.

If you look at our tax rates, they are at almost historic lows, as evidenced by the chart here. Why are they so low? Because in order to keep getting reelected to office, the Republicans keep cutting them. Remember the reasoning given for putting the Bush tax cuts into effect was that the Clinton administration had left behind a budget surplus. We don't have a surplus anymore, in case nobody on that side has noticed! But still they want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. Why? Because they say raising taxes in a recession isn't a good idea. OK, so if they don't want to raise them when we have a surplus, and they don't want to raise them when we don't have a surplus...

By the way, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect I didn't even notice the change in my paycheck. The largest chunk of that went to... you guessed it... the wealthy. Who, not coincidentally, by and large vote Republican. So once again, it's not about what's best for the country -- as evidenced by their fight over the debt limit -- it's about whether or not they'll get reelected. Common sense has left Washington, D.C. and I don't see it coming back anytime soon.

North Carolina Abortion Law Idiocy

North Carolina Republican legislators overturned Democratic Governor Bev Perdue's veto of legislation that requires women to wait 24 hours and receive "counseling" before being provided an abortion. This includes information about the developmental stage of the fetus, and requires women to consider an offer to see the shape of the fetus and hear a heartbeat. This kind of so-called "counseling" is required now in half of all U.S. states.

Let me make one thing clear: I don't think women should use abortion as birth control. Period. That is just really stupid in this day and age of easily attainable birth control. But let me give you a couple of examples of why this new law is downright inhumane in some cases.

First, I happened to have worked years ago with a woman who married in her late 30's. She and her husband, in considering their ages, decided to start a family right away. This is in the early days of HMOs, and a sonogram wasn't done until 5 1/2 months in. It was then discovered that the fetus's condition was such that it would be unable to survive outside the womb. It was heartbreaking, but the couple made the entirely understandable decision to have a late 2nd trimester abortion. By the way, she had to fly from Missouri to Texas to have the procedure done. What would this law do to this woman and her husband? This isn't a single mother who got pregnant by accident with an unwanted baby. To make this couple and their family suffer more than they already had by needlessly requiring them to go through the machinations required by this ridiculous law would be nothing short of inhumane.

And how about a young girl of, say 12 or 13, who is the victim of incest or rape? What then? Are you going to have this child go through this "counseling"? Make her feel guilty if she doesn't want to (or shouldn't for obvious medical reasons) carry the baby to term? Seriously?

This law makes no provisions for such circumstances because anti-abortionists write these laws as if all unborn fetuses are perfect and their mothers are simply ridding themselves of an unwanted burden. Most women agonize over this decision. I doubt the majority of abortions are done flippantly. To put this kind of guilt trip on a woman who is already traumatized by the situation, particularly in cases such as the ones I outlined above, is simply mental torture perpetrated by right-wing religious zealots who don't understand the consequences of such an archaic and short-sighted law.

Justice Perverted

This post is my opinion, and only my opinion, of the not guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony case. Justice in this case was twisted. The case was twisted. The truth was perverted from the very beginning.

Ever since the OJ Simpson case it seems that the defense attorneys are allowed to bring as "evidence" every wild, cockamamie theory they can think of. Accuse someone of incest with his own daughter without one shred of evidence? No problem. Call someone "morally bankrupt" and suggest that that person moved the remains? No problem there, either. In other words, you can accuse anyone you want of a crime, as long as your client gets off and you get a victory. Shame on you, Jose Baez and the rest of Casey's taxpayer-paid defense attorneys. And you call Roy Krunk morally bankrupt.

Jose Baez accused the prosecution of throwing everything against the wall to see if it stuck. But what did he do? He threw out the theory that Caylee drowned in the swimming pool, for which there was no evidence. He threw out the theory that Casey's father George found the child in the pool, but instead of calling 911 decided to hide the remains. Again, no evidence whatsoever. I could go on and on.... but the retelling is frankly a little sad. I'm not going to let the judge off in this case, either. Why would he exclude from the defense's closing arguments any mention of the incest charge and yet allow it throughout the trial? It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.

I can tell you that the people in my office gathered around the television to hear this verdict were shocked when it was read. Just like in the OJ case, I don't think I could walk down the street, pick any 12 random people, and have all 12 say they thought Casey Anthony was innocent. I could do that ten times and still not find any 12 random people to agree on that. I know one thing... if I had been on the jury, I would have hung it.

Caylee can't be hurt any more. But it's sad to think that she won't get justice. And it's sad to think our "justice" system has devolved to the point where winning a case means you can accuse innocent witnesses of anything and get away with it. The only thing worse than that is watching someone get away with murder.

Ban Male Genital Mutiliation

UPDATE: Circumcision advocates have been pointing to a study from sub-Saharan Africa where some men were circumcised that seems to point to this as the cause for lower HIV rates in that group. Let me just reiterate this: in the United States approximately 80% of our adult males are circumcised. In other developed countries it is below 20%. So I looked up the HIV rates in the U.S. vs. other countries and here is what I found (from the CIA World Factbook as of January 26, 2011) - the U.S. has a rate of 0.6% prevalence of HIV infection. The United Kingdom, where you'd be hard-pressed to find an adult circumcised male, has 0.2%, or 1/3rd of our HIV rate. Sweden and Norway are at 0.1%. Spain is at 0.5%, France is at 0.4%, Germany is at 0.1%. I suspect that the drop in rates in the African study were totally unrelated to the circumcision of the study group, and had more to do with the fact that these men were being given information about prevention (condoms, etc. etc. ) than they had before. From the above data we can say with certainty that circumcision and the rate of HIV infection are not in direct correlation.

It's been a while since I've felt the need to climb on the Soapbox, but I feel the need now. One would think it would be something re Sarah Palin's latest evidence of her boundless ignorance, or Anthony Weiner's, for that matter... this time I'm going to get on the Soapbox about the practice of routine circumcision of infant males in the U.S.

Why this subject, you ask? Well, it turns out San Francisco is introducing a bill to make it illegal to circumcise males under the age of 18. This type of law may be introduced in other cities around the U.S., and I for one hope it succeeds.

When you hear about genital mutiliation your mind probably thinks of the tragedy of the girls of Africa who are horribly mutilated as children, having much of their outer genitals removed (and not surgically, but usually with a sharp rock or some like sort of thing). This is just horrific, and I don't think any American in their right mind would disagree. But what exactly is male circumcision? It might be done in a hospital under sterile conditions (at least for those infant males who do not have this done as part of a religious ritual), but it is the permanent removal of a natural part of male genitals without the consent of the patient. Just because we're more used to it here in the U.S. doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Circumcisions can and have gone horribly wrong, including the necessity of removal of the entire penis in some cases.

While pro-circumcision advocates say that the practice helps stop the spread of STDs, including HIV, and lessens the probability of a urinary tract infection, the facts just don't bear this out. The U.S. is the ONLY developed country where the vast majority of adult males have been circumcised, and yet we have the highest rate of STDs. As far as UTIs go, only about 1% of uncircumcised boys experience one that needs treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the AMA are now not recommending routine infant circumcision, and so the rate of circumcision in the U.S. has fallen to around 30%-50% for non-Jewish, non-Islamic baby boys. That is still much too high. And while I am not one to poke my nose into other people's religious practices, I don't think that permanently removing a natural part of an infant's genitals should be included in religious practice, call me crazy.

There are other things to consider when it comes to circumcision as well. The foreskin has a purpose - it is there to protect the penis. In addition, it is packed with nerve endings, and removing it causes a decrease in sensitivity.

Many people say this decision is the parents' to make, but is it really? A baby is a baby for a while, but he will be a man for many decades. This is not a decision that parents should make just because it's more convenient for them while he's an infant. This should be a decision he can make for himself when he is of age and can be informed of his options.

Hey, Trump - I'm here to help!!

UPDATE: Today President Obama released the so-called "long form" of his Hawaiian birth certificate in an effort to end the ridiculous controversy over where he was born. And what did Donald Trump do? He got up in front of the media -- of course -- and said he'd look into it, that he'd see if it was real and proper. So now Trump is saying that he thinks the President might have presented a forged birth certificate? Whaaatttt??? He also said he was "proud" of his role in getting the President to produce the document. Listen, Donald, here's my take on it -- you're an ass who owes the President a public apology. Your ego is so overblown that it enters a room before you do. If you had any balls at all you would immediately apologize, in public, and in front of a full press corps. Instead you're still voicing your "doubts." Why haven't you asked Mitt Romney to produce his birth certificate? Or Tim Pawlenty? Or Sarah Palin? Hmmm? Still having a hard time believing the people of the United States of America actually voted a mixed race person into office, huh? Yeah, I thought so... from the comments I see out on the Internet about this you're not the only right-wing nut to wish he could reverse an election, you're just the loudest.

Hey, Donald! Just wanted to give you a little note to help you out, bless your heart (we say that here in the South when we know someone is really hopeless. It sounds better than "you moron.")

I've been hearing all about this birther nonsense you've picked up on, and I wanted to give you a little help. Now, this is something that anyone with an IQ above Idiot already knows, but since you're having some trouble with this stuff I thought I'd lend a helping hand. It really is disconcerting to see a grown man who has so much money to wave around having such a difficult time grasping a little thing like, oh I don't know... the truth.

I know you probably have an assistant who does all your typing for you, so I've made this really, really easy. I'll try to use small words as well. No sense taxing that brain of yours since it already has enough to do just to hold up your hair... by the way, if you averaged your wives' IQs would yours be higher? But I digress... oh, that was a big word, sorry! You might have to look that one up.

You're hanging your contention that President Obama, our President, who by the way was elected in a friggin' landslide, may not have been born in the good ol' U.S.ofA. on a phone call out there on YouTube recorded by a pastor here. He called Obama's step-grandmother, recorded the conversation (she being translated by an interpreter), and the conversation was uploaded to YouTube. Here is the version you're hanging your hat on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo&feature=related

In this recording you will notice that the reverend does not specify that he is referring to her step-grandson, the President. He just asks her if she was present when "Obama" was born. You will notice that when you play this it ends very abruptly. That means short. A person with some common sense might say "hmmm... why does it end like that"? Well, that might be because there's more to the conversation that the right-wing nutcase who posted it doesn't want you to know! Like this -- she thought he was referring to the President's father, who not coincidentally has the same last name. If you listen to the full version -- link below for your convenience because I know you have trouble with these things - just push the little clicky thing on the mouse... no, the one on the left! --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY6bPYKLjNw

you will notice that she makes it clear she thought he was referring to the father, and not the son, our current President, you know the one with the big plane? She goes on to say that the man in the White House with the big plane was born in Hawaii while his father was over there going to college -- just like our President has always said.

So we're straight now, right? You're going to get down on your knees in public and apologize all over the place to the President of the United States, leader of the Western world and most powerful man on the planet, right? Donald? Donald??!! Are you listening, Donald??

Yeah, I didn't think so, but hey, I was just trying to help, big guy.

Newt's Knee-Slapper and other stuff

According to former Speaker of the House and current presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, the affairs he has had (both while married to wife #1 and wife #2) were caused by his rampant passion for his country and the fact that he worked so hard! Oh, man, you just can't write this stuff! By the way, he's the former Speaker because his scandals got him drummed out of office. Oh, hey guys! Try that excuse if your wife catches you cheating, and let's see if it flies with her... Meanwhile, I seem to remember that the Republicans thought extramarital affairs on Clinton's part was impeachable stuff. Hmmm....

If there was any doubt that the Republicans in Wisconsin were trying to break the public unions, there should be none now. Yesterday the governor and the Republican State Senators decided to ram through a bill (remember, the Democrats are still in Illinois in protest) that strips the public unions of their collective bargaining rights. They say that this bill is legal (remember they don't have a quorum without the Democrats) because there is nothing about the budget in it. So there it is for the world to see -- the fact that this always was about taking collective bargaining rights away from public employees, despite the slimy governor's original assertion that he had to do this to balance the state budget. I hope you're enjoying the governor's mansion, Walker, and that your Republican state senators are liking their chairs, because you won't be there after the next election. Just a guess.

Meanwhile I haven't heard that Mike Huckabee has apologized to the President, as he should, for his lowdown, dirty political stunt. No word on whether he can look himself in the mirror, but he's still claiming he "misspoke."

NPR's troubles just got a lot worse, and it came at a really bad time. The Republicans have tried for years to strip federal funding from public broadcasting. Remember, it's called public broadcasting for a reason! Anyway, a couple of NPR execs, notably Ron Schiller, were videotaped by a couple of people who work for conservative activist James O'Keefe (who is willing to go to just about any lengths to get dirt on liberal groups or even groups perceived to be liberal - reference what he did to ACORN). I'm not going to excuse what Schiller said (bad things about the Tea Party), but he did say repeatedly that it was his own personal opinion and not an official position of NPR. He resigned early -- he was going to leave his job in May anyway -- and now the CEO has also resigned. But that won't be enough for the Republicans! They are still determined to try to kill federal funding for NPR and PBS. NPR gets about 2% of its funding from the federal government. The real problem for NPR -- which I listen to for hours every day at work, in the spirit of full disclosure -- is that federal funding can make up to 10% of the funding for some of their stations, and in light of that, some of these stations may have to shut down, such as stations on Indian reservations and others in impoverished areas. So congratulations, Republicans -- you want to defund NPR, which as I can tell you as I know it well, goes out of its way to be fair and balanced, unlike anything you guys listen to -- because it doesn't lean to the right. PBS will be hurt by this as well (think Sesame Street). Frankly, if you succeed in your endeavor to defund public broadcasting, Republicans, I will triple my contribution to them, and I bet a lot of other people will, too.

Mike Huckabee, you should be ashamed of yourself

Mike Huckabee, former (and probably future) Republican presidential candidate and sometime preacher, pretends to have morals. He supposedly lives by the big 10 (commandments, that is). And yet this week he has been out-and-out lying through his teeth about President Obama for political gain.

In his book he asserts that President Obama "grew up in Kenya" and has an axe to grind with Britain because of the Mau Mau revolution there. When he got called on it he said he "misspoke" and that he meant to say Indonesia (where Obama actually only spent four years of his childhood). But if you substitute Indonesia for Kenya, the rest of what he said doesn't make sense. So he lied about where Obama grew up, and then he lied about misspeaking. And this guy's supposed to be a preacher?

I hate to say it, but this is out-and-out racism. Do you think this kind of stuff would be happening on the right if the president were white? I don't think so.

Huckabee, you should be ashamed of yourself. And you should apologize to the president -- in public and often -- and then look in the mirror and ask yourself just how low you are willing to go to be president... because this is not a pretty picture.

There's something rotten in Wisconsin...

... and it ain't the cheese.

Unless you've been living under a rock you know that Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, has used a supposed state budget crisis to try to break the backs of public sector employee unions, meaning teachers and the like. The claim is that these unions are busting the state budget, so the governor has decided to use this as an excuse to cut off unions' right to bargain for pensions and other benefits, except for salaries.

There are several problems with this, but among them (and I know wherefrom I speak, having spent many years in retirement pension consulting), is that the governor doesn't understand something very basic about pay and benefits, and that is that they are all part of your total compensation. I bet he doesn't even know that term, but anyone who knows anything about worker pay and benefits does. Do teachers make a lot of money? No. But they give up making a lot of money for more security when they retire in the form of retirement benefits. When your employer figures out how much it costs to hire and retain you as an employee, he's not just looking at your base salary - he's looking at how much your pension will cost, how much your medical will cost, how much your training will cost, etc. etc. Your total compensation. You can't split pay and benefits. They're all part of the same package.

In the case of Wisconsin's teachers, they don't make a lot of money (averaging around $44,000 a year) and they don't get a huge pension, either. The reason why Wisconsin and so many other states have budget shortfalls (and there is some argument over whether Wisconsin has a shortfall or a surplus) is simple -- the recession. When you have 9% or so of your population not contributing to the tax base by virtue of the fact that they're unemployed, and when those people are not only not contributing to the tax base but are pulling from the state budget due to unemployment benefits, budgets will understandably be strained. But this is (hopefully) a temporary issue; there is no reason for unions to give up their rights permanently for a temporary issue.

I have to give kudos to The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. Rachel has been doing an excellent job explaining what the real issue is here, and make no mistake, she's right that the governor is using budget pinches as an excuse to break the public sector unions. Why? Because unions have typically been on the side of Democrats, and Democrats have been on the side of unions. It's the old, and absolutely true adage that Republicans care about corporations, Democrats care about people, in its simplest form.

In Wisconsin's case, though, not all public sector unions were included in the governor's union-busting attempt; the police and firefighter unions were exempted. I bet you can guess why, if you haven't heard already -- those unions supported the Republican governor's election campaign! Oh, oh!! Now I get it! It's all about getting elected/reelected, as usual. But here's the deal... if your argument is that public employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize, then you just vaporized that argument by exempting the ones that contributed to your campaign! Hello!!

Here's another point... Gov. Walker gave big tax breaks to businesses equal to the amount of the monetary concessions he wants from the teachers' union (which, by the way, they've already agreed to as long as they can keep their collective bargaining rights). So here it is again, the Republicans making sure businesses (and the wealthy) get theirs by taking it out of the hides of the middle class.

Have some unions gone too far doling out much too generous pay and benefits? Absolutely. The UAW, for instance, nearly destroyed the auto manufacturing industry in this country by doing so. But that is not the case here. What is going on in Wisconsin (and now in other Republican majority state houses in the Midwest) is simple -- union people are a traditional Democratic base. They donate money to Democratic candidates, and the Republicans don't like it. But hey, the majority right-wing Supreme Court not too long ago gave corporations the same rights as people when it comes to donating to campaigns, and whose campaigns do you think big businesses are going to donate to? For the Republicans, though, that was not enough. They figure that if they break unions there will be less money flowing into Democratic candidates' coffers, and they're using the recession as an excuse to try to make that happen.

UPDATE: Yesterday a left-leaning journalist pulled a prank on Gov. Walker by calling him pretending to be one of the billionaire Koch brothers of Koch Industries (think energy companies). On tape the governor made clear his real intentions have nothing to do with money (which we already knew, considering those concessions had already been given), but that the real impetus here is to break the unions. This is the same thing that is happening in other states now with Republican governors, which he himself said when he thought he was talking to his billionaire buddy. Large corporations have bought the Republican Congress. They have bought all these new Republican governors. They are buying our government. And if you think this isn't an out-and-out assault on the American way of life, you haven't been paying attention. Most large corporations already pay NO taxes. Zero. But they still want the middle class to pay for their bloated salaries and their lavish lifestyles. They want to cripple regulations that hold them back from doing anything to keep them from destroying the environment (note that Speaker Boehner wants to cut funding for the EPA). And they want the American people to pay for it all. If you voted for a Republican, this is what you voted for. Governor Walker should be recalled, tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

Sayonara Fifth Third Bank!!

So far I haven't used this blog to spout off about an issue with a particular company, but I am making an exception now.

When I moved across the country 15 years ago, I chose a small bank called First Charter for my accounts. I loved First Charter. Then a couple of years ago it was bought by Fifth Third Bank out of Cincinnatti. Everything was still going along fine, so I saw no reason to move my accounts. A few weeks ago I thought I might look into refinancing my townhouse (which is under condo rules), so I went to my local bank branch and put in an application for what they call an Easy Home Refi. Well, in the first place if you happen to live in a condo, it's not easy, but that's not my main complaint. I had provided them with a copy of my last two years' W2s (from a company I've worked for for 10 years), as well as copies of my last two paycheck stubs, as requested. Come to find out they also wanted me to spend over $200 to get a copy of my condo association's financials. That on top of the fact that they wanted to add an additional 1/4% onto the interest rate just because it was a condo and not a traditional house was enough for me to decide to kill the application, which is what I did.

A few days after stopping the application I get a letter in the mail stating that they were denying my application because they couldn't verify my income! Now, keep in mind that a) I have a credit rating that is just a couple of points shy of 800; b) I've been with this bank, or the bank they purchased for 15 years, c) the place is worth more than double what I owe on it; d) my income is way more than sufficient for this transaction; e) I had already cancelled the application, and f) they apparently couldn't figure out how to call one of the largest corporations in the country to verify that I worked there! Here's the kicker - for the last several years my paycheck has been directly deposited into their bank every two weeks!! Yet they say they can't verify my income??

So, here's what's going to happen. I am going to shut down all my Fifth Third Bank accounts and I'm taking my banking business elsewhere. Now I'm sure they won't really care much about that, after all I'm not exactly rich... but hopefully someone looking for a new bank to park their money in will see this post and think twice about doing business with this bank.

Sayonara, Fifth Third - and no, I won't let your door hit me in the ass on the way out.

Michele Bachmann Proves Tea Party Not Ready for Prime Time

Hey, I certainly think everyone's entitled to their own opinions and views. But Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Pluto), Tea Party darling, not only has her own views, but apparently she writes her own history books as well. Facts don't get in the way of this Congresswoman's thinking! She just makes up her own! How enterprising. Hey, Michele, here's the rule -- you don't get to just make crap up.

Some have called her a LooneyTunes, but hey, don't go around insulting Bugs Bunny! How can people from the 6th District in Minnesota keep electing someone to Congress who: 1) called for an investigation of Democratic Congressmen and women for being "anti-American" (whatever that means to her)? 2) said President Obama didn't say "God" enough? This being the same woman who wasted Congress' time and taxpayer money by having them start the 112th Congress by reading the Constitution aloud, apparently ignoring the fact that it only mentions religion to give us freedom of it? 3) claimed that President Obama's trip to India would cost $200 million a day, blindly accepting a discredited and completely untrue account from an Indian news agency, and 4) taped a separate rebuttal for the Tea Party to the President's State of the Union speech where, along with making up her own ideas of which President was responsible for the bulk of our national debt, gave her own version of history by saying that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly until slavery was no more? Really??

Ms. Bachmann, maybe you didn't read that part of the Constitution, which you so famously wave around, written by said Founding Fathers, where they specify that slaves were to be counted as 3/5ths of a person? Maybe you never heard of a certain conflict where over 600,000 people died, a war fought largely over slavery, called the Civil War? Remember hearing about that? That was 1861-1865, Ms. Bachmann, not the 1700's. Remember a President named Abraham Lincoln? The Emancipation Proclamation? Any of this ringing a bell?

This reminds me of former Bush press secretary Dana Perino, who didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was. Yeah, a little thing like coming thisclose to nuclear war and Ms. Perrino didn't have a clue.

No wonder people say our schools are failing our kids! But what's really sad is that there are Tea Partiers out there who will believe anything that comes out of Ms. Bachmann's mouth, in part because they have an expectation, as do we all, that someone who could become a member of Congress ought to have some common sense and some idea what they're talking about. Unfortunately Ms. Bachmann does not. This is an embarrassment to this country, to Congress, to the Republican Party that she nominally belongs to, to the Tea Party, and especially to her elementary school teachers!

People of the 6th District of Minnesota -- please get a clue and elect someone next time who is at least somewhat knowledgeable about the Constitution, about basic American history, and who is worthy to sit in Congress and participate in creating legislation for all of us. Ms. Bachmann does not qualify.

Re the Tucson shootings

Just wanted to extend my condolences to those who lost friends and family. This was such a senseless tragedy, what a terrible loss of life due to someone who from all accounts was mentally unstable.

We have to find a way to make it possible for law-abiding citizens to buy weapons and yet keep them out of the hands of people like this. It reminds me of the recent case where a 10-year boy was given a rifle for Christmas (he already owned several others), and used it to shoot and kill his mother because she asked him to bring in some firewood from outside. I personally have seen a father hand his 3 or 4-year old son a loaded pistol to use for target practice. We need some common sense gun laws, beginning with making it a felony for a parent to let anyone under the age of 18 handle a gun of any kind. I would also suggest that states set up a way for schools or other organizations to report incidents of the kind that happened with the shooter in the Tucscon case, where the community college he was attending barred him from coming to class until he could prove he was mentally stable and not a danger to others. If there had been a way to warn authorities of his behavior, he could have been denied a weapons license. Instead, he was able to get a gun easily (in Arizona you are allowed to carry weapons concealed on your person with no restrictions), buy the necessary ammo, and perpetrate this horrible tragedy.

Sending good thoughts for the speedy recovery of the hospitalized victims.

-- Soapy