Conservative Hypocrites Continue Hot Streak

By David Litsky
Sex scandals involving politicians from both major political parties are nothing new (see Presidents Hart and Edwards), however the recent escapades of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Nevada Senator John Ensign continue an astonishing pattern of hypocrisy involving some of the most self-righteous Conservatives in the country—many of whom have spent their careers lambasting the moral failings of others.

In fact, Sanford’s admission that he has been carrying on an extra-marital affair for the last year is only the latest in a string of sex scandals involving current and former members of the House of Representatives that voted to impeach President Clinton in 1997. Sanford (who served as a U.S. Representative from 1994-2000) is not the first, second, or even third, but the SIXTH such congressman to be caught in a similar situation to that for which they attempted to destroy Clinton.

First was the very man who led the movement to impeach, Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, whose steadfast commitment to family values led him to serve his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer. She then had to sue him for support for herself and their daughter. On top of that, he then proceeded to have an affair at the very same time as he was leading the charge against Clinton.

Ohio Representative Steven LaTourette was the next to cheat, carrying on an affair with his Chief of Staff from 2002 through 2004. Republican Vito Fossella Jr. of New York took things a step further, not only did he cheat on his wife, but he had a child out of wedlock with his mistress in 2007. Perhaps the most hypocritical of the bunch was Republican Mark Foley from Florida. The details of his sordid case were highly publicized at the time, but let’s refresh our memory shall we? Congressman Foley, a staunch advocate of children’s rights, who led the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children and introduced the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act of 2002, was then discovered to have repeatedly sent sexually explicit text messages and e-mails--to teenage congressional pages!

The two instances that have brought this double standard to the public eye most recently are those of Sanford, who not only carried on an affair, but spent taxpayer money to visit his mistress--in ARGENTINA, and Ensign, current Senator and then Representative from Nevada, who not only cheated on his wife from 2007 to 2008, but recently admitted to paying the woman thousands of dollars in hush money to keep the affair private.

The Republican Party has spent the better part of four decades decrying the moral failings of its opponents, while marketing itself as the party of family values and morality. That moral megaphone was never screeching any louder than during the Lewinsky Affair. The GOP's crusade against Clinton's transgressions now seems like a monumental case of the pot calling the kettle a pervert.

This continuing hypocrisy on so called moral values is a large reason why the Republican Party seems to be floundering, and unless it changes either its rhetoric, or preferably, its actions, it will continue to haunt them for years to come.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

A Sweet & Talented Kid

By Scott Cavanagh
Michael Jackson is dead. Can that really be true? For a person of my particular age group, it’s impossible to remember a time when he was not there—on TV singing those stunningly mature vocals on the J5’s early hits; sporting the gigantic animated Afro in their cartoons; sporting an even bigger real 'Fro and freakin’ kids out with “the robot” while singing “Dancing Machine”. I miss that Michael and have for decades.

As he tried to grow up in the public eye, the sex, drugs and rock and roll culture of the mid-seventies did not jive with Michael’s innocent “man-child” persona and protected lifestyle, and that’s sad.
Perhaps in another time, he might not have been so tortured.

He created a wonderland of music and fun for other kids, but eventually had to build a fake one of his own--complete with carnival rides, hangers-on and bribed "playmates". It’s cliché now to talk about Michael's stolen childhood, particularly after he began using it in recent years as a pat excuse for his increasingly bizarre behavior, but facts are facts. While other kids played, Michael Jackson rehearsed. When other kids were eight and their Moms were tucking them in at night--Michael was working topless bars in Gary with his brothers. The kid carried that entire family on his back for over a decade. That’s one heck of a burden to drop on any child. Perhaps that kid is finally free now… and that makes me happy.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

The Bark will soon be back...

Read More......

Thirty Days in the Hole

By Scott Cavanagh
Welcome to Washington Mr. Obama... now its time to save the world.

That is pretty much the sentiment from coast to coast and from pole to pole--leaving our 49th president with more pressure on him to succeed than anyone since Superman spun the planet backwards to save Lois Lane.

Last evening's pseudo state-of-the-union address ended a tumultuous first month in office--one filled with a bunch of early successes and more than one or two unfortunate setbacks. So what have we and our new president learned about our government and its players since the 20th of January?

We learned that Bill Richardson is just as sleazy as we always thought he was (and by the way, Governor Bill--if you're facing a Grand Jury investigation, what in the Hell are you doing running for president?); Tom Daschle deserved his early retirement from the Senate all along; Roland "Tomb of the Pharaohs" Burris is the silliest little liar on the planet; and Republicans still believe every problem can be solved by tax cuts and church attendance.

We also learned some good things however. We learned that Obama is going to shut the unconstitutional PR disaster that is Guantanamo Bay--just like he said he would. We also learned that the $11 billion cut from the SCHIP health insurance program for underprivileged kids would be restored, the true costs of the Iraq-Afghanistan wars will now actually appear on the nation's balance sheet and Helen Thomas is back in the front row for presidential news conferences.

Then there is the stimulus package. Three Republicans. That's all the GOP support the new president could muster, despite presenting a plan that included about .40 cents in tax cuts for every .60 cents of stimulus. So much for bipartisanship.

Obama's bipartisan tone continued for most of last night's address, but as the speech progressed, the president left no doubt that times have changed in Washington--at least as far as the sacred cows of modern conservatism are concerned. You name it, he targeted it: overblown defense budgets, no-bid contracts, tax cuts for the wealthy, unfunded school mandates, war in Iraq, torture--they were all in the crosshairs.

Now things start in earnest. The people have heard the president's plans, along with the comically cartoonish "response" of the newest GOP fresh face with very old and tired ideas--Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Obama could be in trouble if people choose tax cuts and prayer over targeted stimulus and a new course. They won't. Only a small minority of supply -siders still believe that mantra--if they ever even did--and the average American just has to look at his or her own bank account or 401k to know who is on the correct side of this argument.

Odds and Ends--
The selection of Jindal to give the GOP response to the president's address is one of the funniest pieces of political Jujitsu I have ever witnessed. Only three months ago, the entire conservative case against Obama revolved around his lack of experience, his rise from the sewer of Chicago politics, his childhood conversion from Islam to Christianity and his funny name. Now 90 days later, Republicans are all a flutter over the prospects of a 37-year-old-governor that was a Hindu until his 20's, took his American name from the Brady Bunch (think the GOP will be referring to him as "Piyush Jindal"--ala Barack Hussein Obama--any time soon?) and hails from the squeaky-clean state of Louisiana. Its almost as ridiculous as them crying about the size of the stimulus bill after doubling the national debt in less than a decade. You just can't make this stuff up.

Speaking of hypocrisy, did anyone catch John McCain's infamous "helicopter question" at Obama's open Q & A the other day? The Arizona senator grilled the president about the costs of a new presidential chopper to be unveiled next year. While the outrageous price tag on the vehicle does raise eyebrows, it seems a tad disingenuous for a man (McCain) that has wrecked not one, not two, but five multi-million dollar fighter jets through his own negligence and hubris (his words, not mine) to complain about the costs of the vehicle that carries the leader of the free world.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Enough Already About "Greedy" Auto Workers

By Scott Cavanagh
For a good part of the past three months, there has been an ongoing debate in this country about what constitutes a "middle class" income. As President-elect Obama touted his plan to decrease the tax burden on average Americans while raising the tax rates of those making over a quarter-million annually, many on the right cried "class warfare." "Who decides what is middle class" seemed to be the prevailing argument of many conservatives--and they had a point. While it's hard to imagine households with an annual income of over $250,000 struggling to make ends meet with anything less than a bloated lifestyle, its pretty safe to say that those who make six figures in America 2008 are not rich--but instead constitute a certain level of the middle class that is finding it harder and harder to provide the same lifestyle for their families that their parents did--despite nearly double the income. There is a big difference, however, between those that make 100k and those who make two-and-a-half times that amount, but for argument's sake, let's assume that those making a quarter million annually are part of the middle class.

What does this line of thought have to do with auto workers and the proposed $25 billion bailout of their three parent companies? Plenty. For the past few weeks, speculation has run high that the big three U.S. auto giants would soon be hitting the government up for an aid package similar to the $700 billion one provided to the financial and credit industries. That scenario came to fruition this week when the CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler came calling, hat-in-hand, to Congress.

There are so many obvious reasons for everyone to be angry about this request--from the lousy and misguided product lines these companies have produced for over thirty years, to the lack of research into fuel efficient vehicles, to the outsourcing of jobs and plant operations overseas to save a few bucks while rewarding mismanagement with outrageous salaries and bonuses. Ford lost 33% of its market share last year while its CEO received a $16 million salary--and a $15 million bonus.

Of course, simply saying no to the survival of the entire U.S. auto industry is no easy decision. With literally thousands of interconnected businesses--from suppliers, and distributors to auto credit operations and dealerships--the collapse of the big three could cause a ripple effect unseen in American history. So, what do we do? It appears that really only three options are available to us: 1) give the money to the big three and hope they have a miracle comeback and are not back at the beggar's table in six months; 2) devise some sort of creative Chapter 11 bankruptcy that would allow the companies to reorganize management and labor contracts, eliminate debts and stay afloat; or 3) allow them to fall into Chapter 7--full liquidation.

If these were different economic times, this loan would simply be made and things would probably turn around quickly, as they did two decades ago with the Chrysler bailout. But these are anything but normal conditions--and only weeks after Congress handed the Feds $700 billion dollars to bailout Wall Street, handing out even another dime seems outrageous. But while everyone appears to be in agreement that giving these management teams another $25 billion would be akin to burning it all in a dumpster, nobody wants to oversee the Chapter 7 liquidation of one of the greatest institutions in American history.

Which leaves us with Chapter 11. While the majority of Democrats, including the president-elect, favor a conditional $25 billion loan that forces the car makers' hands on issues like fuel efficiency, environmental standards and executive compensation, more and more Republicans are making the case that a Chapter 11 action is the way to go. No more good money after bad; this time it would be a fresh start with less debt and a chance to reorganize efficiently.

Unfortunately, it appears that when all is said and done, the main target of this GOP restructuring talk is not the gas-guzzling, cheaply made ugly cars and ridiculous, terrorist-funding Hummers and SUVs spat out by these corporate dinosaurs over the past 20 years. It's not even the executive pay scale that allows for $20 million failure bonuses. The GOP's main focus: labor contracts. Wow, what do ya know? Yes, it's those greedy workers with their big salaries and benefits that are running these companies into the ground. If we could just renegotiate the contracts so they got paid like Wal-Mart workers, everything would be fine, and the stock price would soar and the rich would get richer and the CEOs could keep their jets--while the workers applied for food stamps.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a conservative economist or legislator talk about the bloated salaries and benefits of blue-collar auto workers, I could bail out the big three myself. Funny how nobody talked about how much the financial wizards at AIG and Bear Stearns were making before they handed them $700 billion, no strings attached. Did anyone ask them to take any pay cuts? How 'bout cuts in benefits? Hell, that cash is openly being used to pay multimillion dollar executive packages and holiday junkets. But $25 billion to the auto industry's blue-collar workers? Only if they accept cuts to those "bloated salaries" and benefits.

And its not just conservatives that repeat this baloney over and over again. In an open editorial about the proposed bailout, CNN's Campbell Brown echoed those same sentiments, stating that some in the auto industry "make as much as $30 to $40 an hour--with benefits!" What do you think Campbell Brown makes to sit in front of a camera and look pretty? Think it's more than $30 an hour? If it is I'm sure there is NO WAY she gets BENEFITS TOO!! That would be outrageous.

A $30-an-hour job pays $56,000 a-year. Is that rich? Does that person deserve a pay cut? I was under the impression that $250,000 was middle class. Which is it? What do these critics of auto worker pay propose they make? Should they have no health care, or retirement? Do any of these critics have jobs without health care?

It's a simple point. If $250,000 is middle class, then an auto worker raising a family on $56,000 does not deserve a pay cut--he deserves a pat on the back for being able to survive.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......