These are the words of one janitor who observed former Penn State University assistant coach and convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky, engaging in inappropriate conduct with a young boy years ago and didn't say anything because he was afraid of losing his job.
“Football runs this university.”
This is why the molestation of young boys could be brushed aside. Because football ran Penn State university and nothing would be allowed to get in the way of continued success on the field. And, this highlights, in my opinion, what is seriously wrong with our university sports programs nationwide. It's all about money and on-field success.
Think a moment on what could be done upgrading academic programs.
Think a moment how future students could be helped who do not have the financial means.
Think a moment how new important research could be generated benefiting more than those touched by football fever every fall.
Look, I enjoy watching college football and I am certainly not advocating for the demolition of sports programs. Nonetheless, I believe our national priorities are seriously skewed. Wealthy donors provide huge sums of money to sports programs for personal motives such as getting their names on training facilities. Taxpayer money is used for improvement of these same programs and yet, tuition continues to rise steadily, making it near impossible for anyone other than the wealthy to get an education without accruing such debt it takes decades to pay off.
Everyone deserves the chance at further education. Everyone deserves the chance to make their dreams come true, not just those who wish to buy a piece of immortality.
And, everyone deserves to be safe from predators enabled by big-money interests.
A new direction for the Other Side of my Mouth. Since I am blogging semi-regularly at Blogging Blue, I've decided to put into action a dream of mine. It's for fun, too. It's called "A Day at Eats." I hope it will become a regular thingy. It's simply the story of an ancient restaurant, its customers, baseball, some politics done in a humorous way, and a lake that moves.
I'm still developing the characters and storylines. I hope you enjoy it. I know I will.
Chewbacca Bozell’s little brother, L., still hasn't graduated from playground taunts. This was demonstrated in a letter he wrote to CNN host Piers Morgan regarding CNN's and the other librul media's coverage of Rush Limbaugh's 453rd gaffe. Basically, his letter can be boiled down to this: “Neener-neener you got no wiener”.
Whew. Why, you may ask, does L. resort to such childish playground retorts. I don’t know. Maybe it’s because of a recessive conservative gene. Maybe it's because the kids in his neighborhood once tied him to a tree and left him. Nobody likes a tattletail.
Anyway, L.'s defense of the indefensible Limbaugh centers around this: Rushie-pooh has apologized why doesn’t the liberal media go after Bill Maher? I’ll let you read the self-aggrandizing letter yourself. But before you leave at Intertube speed, here is part of an opinion piece CNN contributor David Frum wrote regarding the attempts by L. to cleanup what Limbaugh barfed.
Most fundamentally, why the impulse to counter one outrageous stunt by rummaging through the archives in search of some supposedly offsetting outrageous stunt? Why not respond to an indecent act on its own terms, and then -- if there's another indecency later -- react to that too, and on its own terms?
Instead, public life is reduced to a revenge drama. Each offense is condoned by reference to some previous offense by some undefined "them" who supposedly once did something even worse, or anyway nearly as bad, at some point in the past.
I was at the library today doing some work on my laptop and downloading a new version of Norton. The download was taking some time, so I looked over to the shelf to my left and saw the book Nixon, by Stephen Ambrose. I had scanned through this book several years ago, so my interest piqued I grabbed and opened it to a random page. This section caught my eye.
Ambrose was writing about the post-election blues Nixon was facing. Nixon faced problems not related to Watergate that vexed him. The Democrats controlled Congress so he knew he was in for a tough time. While Nixon had managed to place four men on the Supreme Court, a number of issues he felt strongly about such as Miranda v. Arizona (not overturned), prayer in schools (not reinstated), banning of pornography (not banned), and the court's refusal to allow prior censorship of the Pentagon Papers also had him in a funk. Additionally, the rights of welfare recipients was upheld.
All of this caused Nixon to quiver, especially with Watergate looming.
What I found especially interesting was this comment from Ambrose.
With regard to the fourth estate, Nixon had no cause for complaint. In the 1972 campaign, American newspapers had overwhelmingly endorsed him (753 newspapers endorsed Nixon, to 56 for McGovern). Both the press and the television news had given him magnificent coverage of his trips to Peking and Moscow. In addition, they had supported him on the opening to China, on detente, and on SALT. And they had cooperated in downplaying Watergate.
Yet, Nixon still accused the press of being too liberal and used choice phrases such as "cut them", "hit them" and such, and instructed his minions to go after the press.
This reminds me, that as far as conservatives go, the more time goes by, the more things stay the same.
Only in the bizarro world of Rick Santorum and his fruitcake followers. A little more than a month ago the piously-puritanical candidate for the Republican/Teabagger nomination said this during an attempt to clarify his position on abortion (h/t Wonkette):
"I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created -- in the sense of rape -- but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given you."
A gift? Sure, and this gift was delivered through the gift of rape accompanied by the other wonderful God-given gifts of pain, anguish, fear, psychological terror and sometimes the gift of suicide. What a God. What a candidate.
Stretching a bit, does this mean Adolf Hitler was a gift as well?
Santorum is seriously twisted. The Repugs/Teabaggers deserve him. Truly a gift to the nation from God.
I wonder if Politico "reporter" Donovan Slack and local Racine wannabe gauleiter, Fred Dooley, went to the same School of Stupid?
If you recall, back during the last presidential election, Dooley made the fantastic claim that the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party were breaking election law and, horrors, cheating, because of their claim you could bring a registered voter to the polls to vouch for you, enabling you to vote. It was "reporting" at its finest. Even RedState (an extreme right Völkischer Beobachter-type blog) picked up on his story.
A "story" it certainly was because if Dooley had done even a cursory investigation of Wisconsin election law he would have found his claims untrue. Rather than admit his mea culpa like a man, he zapped the post, rendering it past tense.
Now onto Donovan Slack (I wonder if she had Jessica McBride as a teacher).
Anyway, Slack discovered something interesting during President Obama’s visit to unionized Masterlock. Gasp, next to the America flag was a flag for the local Wisconsin 1848. Hilariously, this “reporter” wrote that we now knew where Obama’s sympathies laid.
Aside from the obvious (Obama is a Democrat, dumbass) if our intrepid “reporter” had investigated a bit more she would have found that the flag was actually the Wisconsin State Flag, not the flag for a local union.
In true “conservative” fashion, Politico zapped the post.
Here is a video from CPAC - you know the "big tent" Rethuglican clambake where one can be introduced to all sorts of interesting people like white supremacists, misogynists (is dad29 there I wonder?), homophobes, Joseph McCarthy wannabees, and white rappers with no talent who think using the word "knickers" in place of that more inflammatory word (rhymes with jigger) all Rethugs secretly think we should all be able to use with impunity. One attendee (black gentleman) leaves. Listen to the comments directed at him as he leaves.
Oh, those funny rethugs. This line in the comments was classic.
The thing that kills me about the conservative mentality, particularly as often expressed by their younger male co-hort, is their need to steal and co-opt the symbols of oppression to burnish their martyrdom and unfounded feeling of victimhood.
I seem to recall Patrick Dorwin of Badger Blogger attended one of these in the past, or was it that Egg guy? Could be wrong, though it would not surprise me. Remember, too, this is the party Rick Esenberg (shill extraordinaire) supports. Right on, Phil.
... and so does Ellen DeGeneres. Commenting about a statement by the misnamed group "One Million Moms" that JC Penney continuing to keep DeGeneres as a spokesperson will cost the company traditional values shoppers, DeGeneres said:
"I usually don't talk about stuff like this on my show," she confessed. "But I really want to thank everyone who is supporting me, and if you don't know me very well, if you're just watching for the first time or maybe you are just getting to know me, I want to be clear. Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That's what I stand for."
I'm confused by the continual ranting of the right about taxpaters rights, and the blame heaped on public union members. Excuse me, are they not taxpayers too? Just another example of conservatives trying to take away the rights of others.
Just when I thought the world could not get any weirder, former senator (soundly defeated I might add when seeking re-election) Rick Santorum actually won three caucuses and has, for the moment, returned the Republican presidential nomination process to "up-for-grabs" ... again.
Lest anyone forget, he really is the more frightening of the remaining candidates. Why? Because of inane comments like this tweet he sent after Prop 8 (anti-gay marriage) in California was reversed: "7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit Court judges. As president I will work to protect marriage."
I'm trying to figure out what rights were stripped away. Straight people can still get married. No one is being forced into gayness or into gay marriages.
It amuses me that the only rights the near-Nazi right embraces are those it continues to lose, in this case the right to oppress others.
The preceding post incorrectly labeled Fred Dooley as the author of the dumbass post about President Obama's comments at the National Day of Prayer breakfast. The post was actually written by a contributor, Golfing Granpa. Still a nitwit, though.
In any case, I apologize. For Mr. Ethically-Challenged (Dooley) this is how you correct a mistake, not by zapping it away.
“Christian” Fred Dooley, perhaps the largest hypocrite among local righty blogs, has decided that his version of Christianity is superior to our president’s. In his epistle, Dooley claims that President Obama got it completely wrong when he quoted Luke 12:48 at the National Day of Prayer breakfast.
The President had this to say: “And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.
"But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'"
Fred’s reply is indicative of the blackness of his heart. “Apparently sitting under the teachings of Rev Wright all those years the Emperor was never taught that applying scriptural principles REQUIRES they be applied in CONTEXT. The context of Luke 12:48 is very clear that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with taxes. It is a discussion about the responsibility of "managers" to be good stewards of what they manage - be it people or money - and to handle it as though the manager's superior may return from a long journey and expect to see that the manager has handled the affairs of the superior properly while he was gone.”
I happen to agree with the President. In this life there are those more blessed than others. Don’t you think that a fair and just God would apply the principle of "to whom much is given, much is required" with perfect fairness? Yes, the President did tie this to his ideas of tax fairness, but so what? What today is less Christian than the gulf between the wealthy and the poor?
Fred the “Christian” would do well to think twice before accusing someone else of a lack of context considering his racist views on the stimulus package ("Got my stimulus package in the mail today. It contained watermelon seeds, cornbread mix, and ten coupons to KFC.").
Though I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. KKK members said they were “Christians” too.
I was reading Leonard Pitts' column about Newt Gingrich and his embracing what Pitts' called "practicing the politics of racism." Gingrich is especially good at this as are local conservatives, especially bloggers (remember Fred Dooley and his stimulus package). It was this final paragraph that really caught my attention. Pitts' recounts a parable that was shared with him by a student of his.
A rich white man sits with a poor white man and poor black man at a table laden with cookies. The rich white man snatches all the cookies but one, then turns to the poor white man and says, 'Watch out for that darky. I think he wants to take your cookie."
This paragraph is too good. From Sadly No! finally comes the real reason why the Democratic Party and the poor are so at odds. It's because libs support public transportation and you know what that will lead to ....
Whoomp, there it is: the mac and cheese argument. Air-conditioned public buses will make the poor want to stay poor forever because they can get on an air-conditioned bus anytime they want and luxuriate their lives away rather than working hard to buy their own air-conditioned car. If you made all poor people walk to work, every single fucking one of them would be richer than the Koch Brothers in just a few months.