Category: Chris Freind

Corbett’s Penn State Folly: Suing NCAA Will Not Save Him

July of 2012 was notable for several reasons: the hottest month on record, both parties gearing up for the presidential campaign, and the voluntarily acceptance of harsh NCAA sanctions by the Penn State Board of Trustees, which includes Governor Tom Corbett.
A half -year later, all have evolved predictably: it’s cold, the President won, and Corbett has flip-flopped in an ill-fated attempt to bolster his image in the PSU/Jerry Sandusky scandal. The Tom and Jerry Show — a tragic comedy — just keeps getting better.
*****
In a nakedly obvious political calculation, Corbett has reversed himself on the penalties, and is now suing the NCAA for “overreaching and unlawful sanctions.”
Wow. What a change of heart, since it was only last July when he stated, “part of the corrective process is to accept the serious penalties imposed by the NCAA on Penn State University and its football program.”
The $64,000 question is “Why?” Why the 180-degree change, and why now, instead of when the sanctions were announced? For those answers, let’s play Corbett’s version of Let’s Make A Deal:
Corbett answer behind Door Number One: “I wanted to thoroughly research the issue to make sure we were on solid legal footing.”  Uh, sorry, but no prize.  For months leading up to the announcement, even the most remote Eskimos knew severe sanctions were a certainty. The NCAA bylaws aren’t all that complicated, so Corbett (himself a former U.S. Attorney and twice the state’s Attorney General), his General Counsel, his attorney Chief of Staff, and an army of other Administration lawyers could have easily determined — way ahead of time — if A. the NCAA could legally impose sanctions; B. if so, what sanctions should be off the table; and C. if the Administration had legal footing to sue the NCAA should it impose them anyway.  And as a Trustee, Corbett clearly would have been party to discussions with the NCAA about the forthcoming sanctions.
Corbett’s Door Number Two: He waited so that the football team could avoid another distraction.  Wrong again! Football season doesn’t start in July, and the football team was already dealing with Sandusky fallout.  Ironically, a Corbett lawsuit in July would have had the opposite effect— becoming a rallying cry for the team that someone was standing up for them.
Door Three: “I didn’t want to make the same mistake the NCAA made by carelessly rushing in.” Well, that one fits, since Corbett, as the Attorney General investigating Sandusky, made absolutely no rush to get a serial predator off the street, taking a staggering three years to make an arrest, conveniently after his gubernatorial election. True “carelessness” was Corbett assigning two narcotics agents to investigate Sandusky, while scores of agents (including child predator units) pursued a headline-generating political corruption case in which no children were at risk.
Door Four:  “After months of research and deliberation, as well as discussions with alumni, students, faculty, business owners and elected officials, (Corbett) concluded that the NCAA’s sanctions were overreaching and unlawful.” So is the suit because the NCAA is violating its bylaws, or because souvenir shops aren’t selling as many Nittany Lion magnets? And, despite the vast legal knowledge of those constituencies, since when do they factor into whether a lawsuit should be filed?
Taxpayers should understand that the substantial cost of this lawsuit will be footed by them, since neither Administration lawyers nor the Attorney General will handle it. Instead, that prize goes to top-of-the-line law firm Cozen O’Connor.  Cozen (and its attorneys and family members) contributed almost $100,000 to the Governor’s campaigns, and is the former firm of Corbett’s new General Counsel.
*****
Now let’s get serious and look at the real reasons behind Corbett’s newfound love of Penn State. While he is now busy acting like its savior, let us not forget his grandstanding, doing his best impression of a Roman Emperor wanting to raze Penn State and sow its fields with salt, just like Carthage.
Has Corbett finally realized he is about to become the first governor to lose a second term? He is already one of the nation’s least popular governors, and, with the exception of demagoguing on Penn State (when convenient), is spotted in public less than Bigfoot. Now, he is at the point in politics where they separate the men from the boys, and he is frantically reaching for something with wide appeal.
Suing the NCAA won’t help Corbett, even if his lawsuit is successful, as Pennsylvanians see right through his ploy.  Many view him as part of the process which went overboard in destroying Penn State’s reputation and giving Joe Paterno a premature death. And even more think he deliberately understaffed the Sandusky investigation — leaving children to potentially suffer at Sandusky’s hands — so that he wouldn’t alienate Penn State alumni while running for governor. Corbett’s blatant pandering has only furthered the resolve of so many to end his tenure with a resounding sack.
And maybe Corbett is trying to distract incoming Attorney General Kathleen Kane, the first Democrat ever to hold that office, who not coincidentally wasn’t consulted about the Governor’s lawsuit.  Kane, it is worth noting, just won more votes than anyone in Pennsylvania history (including the President), a feat directly attributable to one issue: cleaning up Harrisburg, starting with an investigation into how Corbett handled the Sandusky investigation.
Put another way, would Tom Corbett have filed this lawsuit had his hand-picked candidate for Attorney General beaten Kane?
But we do have the lawsuit, and with it, two more major Corbett inconsistencies: 1. “conservatives” like the governor always rail against activist judges — until, like now, they need one.  And 2. Corbett stated that, if successful, he will urge the Board to use the $60 million to help groups working against abuse. While a nice thought, is that not completely undermining his argument that the fines are creating an unacceptable burden on so many in the PSU community? Is there anyone in the Governor’s office who has really thought this lawsuit through?
Truth is, this woefully miscalculated effort will accomplish only one thing: a major backfire.
*****
For the record, this author stated his opposition to the sanctions when they were first imposed. A courageous Board of Trustees would have fought the NCAA as former UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian did — who eventually won a multimillion settlement. But they, including Corbett, chose not to pursue action, voluntarily accepting the punishment from an organization to which Penn State voluntarily belongs.  One can debate the prudence of the Board’s decision, but the University’s message is clear: it wants to put the Sandusky matter behind it as quickly as possible, which is why it is not party to the lawsuit.
Corbett had his chance, but for whatever the reason — indecisiveness, incompetence, political motivations — he failed to act, and that ship has long sailed.
But the Tom and Jerry Show is far from over. The Governor is on a collision course with voters (especially his own Republicans) who demand answers about Sandusky — answers that Corbett refuses to give. These are questions that go to the very core of Tom Corbett’s true character. And they are questions that may well lead him to the dustbin of political history — or, depending on what Kane finds, worse.
How will this show end? Attorney General-elect Kane, the floor is yours.

 

Republicans Blame Everyone But Themselves

By Chris Freind

“Define irony: Bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.” So said Steve Buscemi’s character in Con Air as the criminals rocked out to Leonard Skynyrd.

Don’t look now, but the Republican Party is giving that definition a run for its money. Consider these two ironic beauties:

– Leading Republicans trying to steer a new course for the GOP so it can “reinvent itself and win elections,” despite being the very same people who not only championed the abysmal 2012 campaigns but guaranteed a Romney “landslide.”  That’s like Andy Reid pontificating on how to win the Super Bowl.

-Still on the movie theme, how ironic is it that the Republicans, despite their misguided bashing of all things Hollywood, unwittingly used a classic Tinseltown flick as the basis for their entire campaign?

*****

Let’s dispense with the wildly inaccurate post-mortems from GOP “experts” who got their derrieres kicked on election night (Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, George Will and especially Dick Morris, to name just a few) and look at what went wrong for the hapless Republicans, using none other than Animal House as our guide:

“Face it. You (screwed) up. You trusted us.”  That’s the message the GOP gave to America.

The people were looking for a real leader, but instead got Mitt Romney.  Mitt’s colossal disaster, the U.S. Senate debacle, and Pennsylvania’s abysmal failures courtesy of Tom Corbett are overwhelming evidence that the initial trust in the GOP was misguided.

Despite President Obama presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression, voters still rejected Romney — including Republicans, as three million fewer voted for Romney than John McCain!  Yet this should not have been a surprise to anyone paying attention. Freindly Fire spelled out precisely why Romney would lose back on March 16 , which predictably angered many Republicans who refused to acknowledge the facts.

Polls show what common sense already tells us — and if they don’t, they’re wrong. In that regard, two exit polls tell everything we need to know: a majority of voters believed 1. America was on the wrong track, and 2. government was too large.  Yet a majority pulled for Obama.  Why?

Because Romney ran to win an election, not the argument.  A horrible candidate, he was incapable of relating to the middle class and thus never sealed the deal with those voters. The overall ABO (Anyone But Obama) strategy backfired, just as predicted here, because it’s never enough to run against something. The Romney/Ryan ticket was wholly unable to articulate what it stood for, resulting in, ironically, an ABR (Anyone But Romney) backlash.

In response to a question on the progress of his novel after four years, Professor Jennings (Donald Sutherland) replies, “It’s a piece of s**t.… anyone like to smoke some pot?”

Like Jennings, the Republicans were also smoking something.

During the past four years, the Republican strategy has been to whine and complain, bashing Obama on meaningless issues rather than advocating a better course for America.

Obama is a Muslim socialist from Kenya who hates America and wants to destroy it.  And since he isn’t a citizen, he is a treasonist who should be impeached. Oh, and the liberal media, Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie are responsible for his reelection. 

Blah, blah, blah.

Most amazing, that wasn’t just the lunatics talking, but many in the mainstream GOP.

Those propagating such garbage don’t understand that doing so drives voters away from the GOP. Rather than intelligently trying to win the Great American Middle — the voters who decide every election — Republicans spewing insane rhetoric made swing voters reluctantly return Obama to Washington.

At least Sutherlund made some progress in four years.  The Republicans lost ground.

“Do you mind if we dance with your dates?” In the priceless scene at the Blues bar, the white fraternity guys had no idea how to relate to the black people in the club.  In the same way, the Republican Party never looked more awkward in dealing with Latinos, Blacks and even women.  Rather than being proud Republicans, explaining in clear, populist terms how GOP ideas are better for everyone, Romney and Company went back to the playbook of pandering.

Instead of winning over these large blocs, Romney got slammed, just like his predecessors (Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections). Incomprehensibly, no one inside the GOP has yet realized they are getting the worst of both worlds: pandering never wins votes, and drives away the Party faithful.

Reinventing the GOP by acting like Democrats eliminates the need for the Republican Party. Not exactly a recipe for growth.

“You guys playing cards?” Flounder’s immortal line reflected a deer-in-the-headlights, out-of-touch Republican mentality, one that projected cluelessness instead of a bold plan. And nowhere was that more on display than with Romney. At times, the Gaffe King made John McCain look like Daniel Webster (the $10,000 bet; talking about how many NASCAR team owners he knew; telling the unemployed he knows what it’s like despite a $300 million net worth; stating that companies are people too; criticizing the 47 percent; etc). The list could fill volumes.

And yet, too many Republicans chose to believe that a few solid debates magically erased Romney’s aloofness. It didn’t.  That’s wasn’t wishful thinking.  It was denial. There’s a difference.

“And could you get three dates for my friends?” Obama perfectly executed the classic bait-and-switch on Romney, just like Otter (Tim Matheson) when he secured dates for his friends after pretending to be the boyfriend of deceased Fawn Liebowitz.

Rather than focusing on the horrid economy, rising gas prices and unpopular Obamacare, Romney took Obama’s bait by discussing Bain Capital and whether he would release tax returns. Instead of seeing Obama’s trap and avoiding a no-win situation, Romney himself set the stage by running a stagnant and defensive campaign all summer.   It became so bad that leading national Republicans publicly scolded Romney for his inaction. But it was too late.

Dean Wormer: “Here are your grade point averages. Dorfman, 0.2 — Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life! Blutarsky — zero point zero!”

When will the Republicans get it?  How many failures will it take to realize that coronating candidates based on wallet size and “whose turn it is” never works?  Not only do they lose the presidency, but ensure disastrous results for every down-ticket Republican.

Given the climate, Republicans should have won not just the White House but at least four and probably six Senate seats. Instead, they lost two.  Even Hollywood, where suspension of belief is a necessity, would not have scripted that feat.

But lately, it seems that no one is more adept at snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory than Republicans. Now the only debate is whether the GOP has a .2 GPA, or a Blutarksy-like zero-point-zero.

Bluto: “Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f***ing Peace Corps.”

It is now 28 years since the GOP put up a truly solid candidate — Ronald Reagan — who just happened to unify the country by winning 49 states with his Republican ideals. If the Party of Reagan doesn’t hire a proctologist to locate its head — quickly — it might as well follow Blutarsky’s advice. But don’t get your enema out just yet, because if history is any indication, Republicans will once again repeat their mistakes, parroting Kevin Bacon while being spanked:

“Thank you, sir! May I have another?”

Republicans Blame Everyone But Themselves

Republicans Blame Everyone But Themselves

I Was A Hurricane Hunter

In 2009, Chris Freind rode with the Air Force’s bravest into the heart of a mammoth storm — a bare-boned, white-knuckled experience.  Here is his story meeting Hurricane Bill.

 

A pilot’s view from a WC-130 while hunting a hurricane.
 
 

11 Hour Mission Covered 3,000 Miles Over Roiling Atlantic 

“Jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft is not a natural act. So let’s do it right, and enjoy the view.”—Clint Eastwood’s U.S. Marine character in “Heartbreak Ridge.”

ABOARD A U.S. AIR FORCE  WC-130 “HURRICANE HUNTER” — With all the celebrity status afforded “Bill,” being that he was the top story nationwide, it seemed like a good idea to make his acquaintance. After all, it’s not every day you get to meet someone, or in this case, some thing, with a magnitude as great as Bill’s.  At least, that what I kept telling myself after receiving a call on a Friday evening from the U.S. Air Force “Hurricane Hunters” squadron asking if I could be at Andrews Air Force base in 24 hours. They had front-row seats to the Hurricane Bill show, and I was on the A-List.

                                                                         *****

A variation of Clint Eastwood’s words echoes in my mind as we sit on a rainy runway at Andrews AFB, just outside Washington, D.C:

 “Flying a perfectly good aircraft into the heart of a hurricane is not a natural act.” It is midnight, and I keep telling myself that the crew will “do it right,” so I should “enjoy the view.”

The WC-130 is a venerable aircraft, so successful in its design that it is still being manufactured after 50 years.  The four mighty turboprops that would carry us into the storm fired up, and we were ready to roll.  Nothing could stop us now.

Except, of course, for a parade of ducks and ducklings that proceeded to waddle in front of this mighty aircraft, without a care in the world. The eight-man aircrew, one of the most seasoned to ever fly a hurricane mission, were as giddy as little kids, even snapping photos of the unusual sight.  I take this light moment as a good omen.

Moments later, after a surprisingly short sprint down the runway, we are airborne, heading east.  Flying over the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, we pass over South Jersey, where my three little children are sleeping far below. A moment of brief anxiety sets in, because, for the uninitiated such as myself, it’s only natural to think about “worst case” scenarios. We are doing the complete opposite of what normal people do when a hurricane approaches.  Instead of fleeing, we are chasing.  It was going to be an interesting night.

                                                                    *****

The biggest difference between a WC-130 cockpit and that of an airliner is the number of windows. While a typical passenger jet has four panes, our plane has 18, affording a view not just straight ahead and to the left and right, but above and below.  As we progress out over the Atlantic, the first of what would be many contrasts strikes me. The sky is crystal clear, with more stars than can be described. Hard to believe that in a short period of time, that view will be clouded over, literally, by a massive storm.

Among the numerous monitors and screens in the cockpit is one which depicts not just our plane’s heading, but everything in our flight path.  In short order, there he is, in all his glory. Bill’s familiar hurricane shape took form, and we are closing fast.  It’s showtime.

                                                                    *****

The most common question asked by the public is how the Hurricane Hunters’ planes can withstand the power of a hurricane, since wind speeds can approach 200 miles per hour.  As Major Jeff Ragusa, commander of our mission, explained, the ride is not usually as bumpy and one might expect. This is because the plane, as a moving object, is not subject to the same stresses of land-based structures. Stationary objects, such as trees, cars and buildings, either withstand a hurricane’s winds, or get blown away when they reach a breaking point.

Maj. Ragusa likened our plane to that of a swimmer in a strong current.  Whether the current is 20 miles per hour or 40, the swimmer is not physically harmed because he isn’t stationary.  He is simply moving with the water.  Likewise, since the plane moves laterally in the hurricane’s winds, and does so at an angle, called “crabbing,” the turbulence from that force is minimal.

However, that doesn’t mean the flight is a cakewalk. The crew has to be constantly aware of extremely powerful downdrafts from the thunderstorms inside the hurricane.

For various meteorological reasons, the standard altitude for entering the hurricane is 10,000 feet, at which time the plane slows to 200 mph from its cruising speed of 320. There is another reason that the 10,000 foot level is one most often adhered to by the crews – it provides a larger margin of safety.

In 2005, Hurricane Wilma progressed from a Category 1 to a Category 5 (the most powerful) faster than any other storm in history.  It remains the most powerful hurricane on record, with the lowest pressure ever recorded. During a Hurricane Hunter flight into Wilma in which the plane was considerably lower than 10,000 feet, a downdraft slammed the plane 2,500 straight down in a matter of seconds.  Having the ocean rush up that quickly, and be that close, is not something an aircrew wants to experience.

On Hurricane Hunter missions, the planes are an island unto themselves.  Our navigator tells us during a briefing that we are the only aircraft remotely close to the storm. And since cargo ships avoid the shipping lanes affected by the hurricane, there are no surface vessels for hundreds of miles.

Waves generated by Bill exceed an almost inconceivable 60 feet, and are clearly visible from two miles above (upon entering the eye, the wind speed drops to zero and there is a clear view of the ocean below). There are no parachutes on board, so should the plane have to ditch at sea, the crew would be on its own for a considerable amount of time — and that’s assuming anyone would survive the impact into the monster waves.

Since the Hurricane Hunters have never lost a plane (they have 10), and they have been through hurricanes’ fury countless times, I rest a bit easier knowing the odds are on my side.

                                                              *****

The Hurricane Hunters comprise the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (WRS) based out of Keesler AFB in Biloxi, Mississippi. According to the unit’s public affairs office, it is a one-of-a-kind organization, the only operational unit in the world that engages in weather reconnaissance on a routine basis. An Air Force Reserve unit, its primary mission is to perform aerial weather reconnaissance of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico and the central Pacific Ocean. In a unique arrangement, the WRS is effectively directed not by the Department of Defense, but by the Department of Commerce’s National Hurricane Center. The squadron’s mission calls for the unit to be able to engage in continuous operations 24 hours per day, with the ability to fly into 3 storms at a time. Based on these requirements, the WRS is staffed with ten full-time and ten part-time aircrews.

Each aircrew includes a pilot, co-pilot, navigator, aerial reconnaissance weather officer, and a weather loadmaster. There are often several backup pilots and co-pilots, since typical mission duration is 11 hours, with some lasting 18.

The flight meteorologist acts as flight director, observing and recording meteorological data at the horizontal flight level, while the loadmaster collects and records vertical weather data by using dropsondes, devices shot out of the airplane while inside the storm which measure temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed and wind direction. Dropsonde information is relayed back to the plane twice per second, which, after being tabulated with the horizontal data via an advanced computer program, is relayed to the National Hurricane Center at regular intervals. Other weather instruments determine rainfall amounts, ocean temperature, and wind speeds at the sea surface.

An analogy often used to describe why Hurricane Hunters fly into storms is that hurricanes are like tumors. Their presence is known, but critical details must still be ascertained, such as size, whether it is growing, how it is spreading, and the precise type of entity being studied.

Hurricane forecasters use the Hunters’ data to determine if a storm is intensifying, and where it may be heading.  The mission of the Hurricane Hunters is immensely valuable because it increases the accuracy of hurricane predictions by 30%.  In addition to saving countless lives, the WRS saves millions of dollars, since it costs approximately one million dollars to evacuate every one mile of coastline.

                                                                       *****

The flight continues for hours, penetrating the eye eight times. We fly over Nantucket and as far north as Halifax, Canada.  While visibility is limited flying through the storm, there are breathtaking views when the plane is out of the hurricane.  Despite the raging seas and fierce winds so close to us, we witness a spectacular sunrise above the clouds and a rainbow for the record books.  The views give an almost surreal feeling, as these tranquil scenes are occurring within sight of a savage hurricane.

After our last pass through the eye, we head for home, weary from the mission duration, the ever- present turbulence, the noise level (earplugs are worn at all times), and the utilitarian accommodations. The WC-130 is a workhorse, and it does its job flawlessly, but a comfortable airliner it is not.  Metal-framed canvass seats with mesh backing are standard in the cargo hold, and there is a port-a-potty with a curtain for a bathroom.  The “refrigerator” is a cooler strapped to the floor.

The WRS crew, underneath their friendly exterior, are no-nonsense, tough-as-nails airmen who face elevated risks every time they take to the skies. They perform their mission with the utmost professionalism and poise, knowing that what they do saves lives and property.  Seasoned in a way unmatched by other airmen, they are the best of the best.

After sitting in the cockpit for a picture-perfect landing, I step out onto the tarmac with a newfound respect for solid ground under a clear blue sky.

While I encountered a hurricane but once, these airmen face substantial risks flight after flight.  That’s true courage.

As I look back at the WC-130, thinking about the tempest we, and more importantly, it – just endured – Maj. Ragusa hands me a 53rd WRS squadron patch.

For 11 hours, I was a Hurricane Hunter – a truly unforgettable experience.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  

Obese News Anchor Sinks Over Weight Issue

By Chris Freind

Part 1 of 2 on obesity, bullying and the lack of shame in America

Think just because there’s a presidential election there aren’t other “big” issues? Believe that, and pigs can fly.

In fact, there is a large — huge, even — discussion eating at many Americans, the girth of which we are still trying to get our arms around. 

What is this weighty issue that once again has been feasted upon by both sides?

The massive rate of obesity in America, and whether publicly calling attention to it, as well as obese individuals themselves, should be on the table.

The obesity issue got cooking again after overweight news anchor Jennifer Livingston of WKBT in La Crosse, Wisconsin, received a private email from a viewer.  Kenneth Krause called her weight into question, asking whether she considered herself “a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular,” and adding, “Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain.” He ended by hoping that she would, “reconsider (her) responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.”

Since Livingston’s skin was surprisingly thin for someone in the public eye, she responded with a four-minute on-air editorial rebuking Krause.  

But rather than giving viewers food for thought regarding her perspective on obesity, she left everyone wondering “Where’s the beef?” by barely weighing in on the issue at all. Instead she had a cow, ranting incessantly about bullying.  Yes— bullying. To the point where she even blubbered about how those struggling with sexual preference, skin color and even acne needed to stand up to bullying.

Bravo!  And since anchors often sink, that classic bait-and-switch tactic ensures Ms. Livingston a long political career should her day job not pan out.

However…

While many other media outlets are fawning over Livingston’s diatribe, Freindly Fire won’t serve up Grade A compliments so freely.  This is far too much at steak — stake, sorry — to allow her to duck the meat of the issue.  

*****

First item on the menu are the facts:

1. Livingston received a private email, and chose to go public with it. Krause didn’t “bully” her, but offered his opinion to a public figure —which Livingston certainly is. She could have responded privately or simply ignored it. Getting nasty emails is part of the job.  Hell, Yours Truly gets pummeled so often — including occasional death threats — that a “bullying” email like Krause’s would be a dream. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the…kitchen.

And would someone please explain how a non-vulgar, non-threatening email can be even remotely considered bullying?

2. Every single aspect of the obesity epidemic needs to be discussed in an open, straightforward and respectful manner, whether feelings are hurt. That’s not bullying. It’s constructive dialogue, something quickly disappearing from the American scene.

3. The vast, vast majority of obesity cases — which includes nearly 40 percent of the American adult population — are due to lifestyle choices, namely, immense overeating and a lack of physical activity. Only an extremely small percentage is related to medical conditions.

4. Let’s put a fork in the myth — perpetuated by so many obese people — that thyroid conditions are more prevalent than the common cold. Not only are they rare, but there are numerous medications which treat that condition, combating weight gain. Interestingly, Livingston never mentioned during her editorial that she had a thyroid condition. That morsel only came out after the story — and Livingston herself — became an international headline.

*****

In fairness to Livingston, it would seem that Krause formulated his opinion not knowing if she did in fact have a medical condition that has contributed to her obesity.  While the odds were certainly in his favor that she did not, it would have been more prudent to have addressed that question in his correspondence.

That said, as big as Livingston has become, given her appearances on national television shows, she is not the issue. Nor is Krause.

But before we get to the skinny on obesity, it is equally to important understand what this issue isn’t about — namely bullying.  Does it exist? Of course. Always has and always will. And reasonable efforts should be made to fight it. But “bullying” has become the catch-all phrase we use whenever someone feels jilted, offended, or bad about themselves.  The truly tragic part is that combating real bullying has taken a backseat to an all-appeasing political correctness running rampant throughout America.

From social media to the schoolyard, we’ve reached the point where children are no longer permitted to fight their own battles, instead seeing the authorities swoop in at the first sign of conflict.  Sounds nice, and sometimes such intervention is necessary, but for the most part, that paternalism leaves children woefully unprepared for that pesky thing called The Real World.  And now we are seeing the results of that crib-to-college coddling: our businesses are “sanitized” risk-averse petri-dish experiments for social engineering, our wars are fought so as to not offend the enemy, and scoreboards are often turned off in youth sports so a team down by 5 goals doesn’t cry and quit.  But no worries! Everyone gets a trophy so all can feel good about themselves.

Maybe if America prioritized growing up and not out, we’d be a whole lot better off.

The real issue is how to gnaw away at the exploding obesity rate, an epidemic that is all-consuming.  Obesity-related medical costs are soaring (over twenty percent of all health care spending) as cases of diabetes, heart disease and stroke meteorically rise.  Health insurance premiums for everyone increase in order to subsidize the obese. Worker productivity is down. Even energy costs are up.  

But perhaps most alarming, America’s young people are being de-sensitized to obesity and all of its negative effects.  In what is fast becoming a “do-whatever-makes-you-feel-good” society, that makes for an extremely dangerous recipe.

And the best way — maybe the only way — to change that fatitude is shame, a value in thin supply.  Part Two will chew that fat on how shame, correctly utilized, can lighten the load on America’s youth.

Corbett’s Response On Sandusky Fails To Answer Questions

By Chris Freind

In a speech before the world’s press, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said, “We must keep in mind that when it comes to the safety of children, there can be no margin for error, no hesitation to act.” It was the same authoritative tone he took when chastising Joe Paterno for not doing more to stop Jerry Sandusky.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

It is Tom Corbett himself who is most guilty of hesitating. Hesitating to appropriately staff the Sandusky investigation, and hesitating for years to make an arrest – both of which may have jeopardized the safety of children. That hesitation, and the stonewalling that Corbett has now employed, has created an intense firestorm around the governor.

Given the unprecedented nature of the Penn State scandal, this issue is not going away. In fact, if Corbett doesn’t come forward with answers, it promises to be the Number One issue in his 2014 re-election campaign.

Last week, the Governor responded to Freindly Fire’s Open Letter, which had requested specifics on key issues. But rather than answering any questions, the Corbett response raised even more red flags.

The Corbett response stated, “Grand juries take time. Evidence in decades-old molestations must be reassembled. A moral certainty of conviction must be reached … Where does Mr. Freind think that decade’s worth of evidence came from? It had to be gathered, reluctant witness-by-reluctant witness, with accompanying corroborating evidence.”

Absolutely correct – and precisely Freindly Fire’s point. Corbett is admitting that this high-profile case required a tremendous amount of work. So why were so few investigating it?

Here’s the bottom line. The Sandusky investigation took three years, was reportedly staffed by a single investigator at the outset, and later spearheaded by two narcotics agents, neither of whom had any experience in child molestation cases. Compare to this to the army of investigators Corbett used in the Bonusgate political corruption probe, including, sources say, agents from child predator units.

Given those facts, it seems logical that there can be only one of two explanations:

1. Politics

It doesn’t take a genius to know that sullying the reputation of the state’s largest university and taking down its legendary football coach would be a monumental challenge to any candidate running for governor. This would have been particularly true in Corbett’s case, given that his opponent, Dan Onorato, was a Penn State alumnus.

And the might of Penn State’s massive alumni network was just illustrated, where 76,000 alumni donated much of the $208 million the university raised this year.

So was the understaffed investigation dragged out in such a fashion that the arrests were not made until after the 2010 gubernatorial election?

2. Priorities

Or was the Sandusky case mishandled because Tom Corbett did not prioritize catching child predators?

If politics played no role, then Tom Corbett clearly prioritized corrupt politicians, who we will always have, over taking a serial child rapist off the street. One can only wonder how many more victims Sandusky molested while he was under investigation.

There are a number of quotes, some by Corbett himself, that are quite telling.

Randy Feathers, the head of the Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Office in State College who eventually headed the investigation, stated, “During the Bonusgate investigation, we had a shortage of investigators in Harrisburg.” (Altoona Mirror, June 24, 2012)

Corbett was obviously proud of the fact that he pulled no one from Bonusgate, stating, “We used a completely different unit from Bonusgate … (the agents working the Sandusky case) were pure narcotic investigators from up in that region.” (Corbett press conferences, July 12, 2012, and July 14, 2012).

And Corbett admitted worrying that Sandusky could still be victimizing boys during the lengthy investigation, stating, “It was a calculated risk.” (CBS Philadelphia/KYW New Radio, June 26, 2012)

So Corbett knew of the risk, and yet decided that investigating a child-victimizing monster was worthy of only two investigators.

What’s even more telling is the fact that, upon Corbett becoming governor, he immediately ordered state police resources to the case. Why wasn’t that done before? So again, the question has to be asked whether Corbett, as attorney general, ever requested additional assistance from then-Gov. Ed Rendell, himself a highly respected former prosecutor. It’s not a trick question, and only requires a Yes or No answer.

And did Corbett ask the Feds for assistance, especially if additional state police resources were denied by Rendell and no one could be pulled from Bonusgate?

If the answers are in the negative, as they appear to be, what were Corbett’s motives in choosing to stay with such a bare-boned investigative staff?

♦

No one has suggested that Sandusky should have been arrested before evidence was gathered. Common sense dictated that at least two or three solid cases be assembled before an arrest was made, and numerous prosecutors with no ax to grind have stated that strategy would have been a viable one.

But, as has been stated in the media, Corbett waited to have at least 10 cases before making an arrest, which just boggles the mind.

Once several victims were identified and an arrest was made, with the spotlight on Sandusky, more witnesses would come forward. More importantly, Sandusky would have been closely watched and children would have been safe. But that didn’t happen.

Instead, a predator was given three more years to victimize his prey.

No wonder the governor doesn’t want to answer questions.

So the stonewalling continues. There are still no answers as to why Bonusgate investigators were not ordered to work the Sandusky case, and why, sources say, Attorney General agents, including those in child predator units, were pulled from other cases to assist with that corruption probe.

♦

Gov. Corbett also failed to answer the Open Letter’s other questions, including why he did not consider it a conflict of interest to serve on the Penn State Board of Trustees while simultaneously investigating it, and why he approved the $3 million taxpayer grant to Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, when he could have simply done nothing or vetoed it without raising one eyebrow.

The latter is particularly compelling since $640,000 in campaign contributions were made from Second Mile board members and affiliates to Corbett’s Attorney General and gubernatorial races.

♦

The Open Letter received an astounding response from across the political spectrum. It was Facebooked and Tweeted thousands of times, published in media outlets and websites across the nation, and was the hottest topic on talk radio, with Freindly Fire discussing it from coast to coast. Most telling is that 99.9 percent of that dialogue had one common theme: why was there so much hesitation to act by Attorney General Corbett?

Rather than invoking “space aliens,” as he did in his response, Gov. Corbett would be better served by coming clean with the only thing that matters: the truth.

There is no such thing as “fair and balanced.” There is only truth and accuracy. It is time for Tom Corbett to tell the whole truth – accurately – regarding the very troubling Jerry Sandusky investigation.

The best place to start? Answer the questions. And the truth shall set you free.

 

Corbett’s Response On Sandusky Fails To Answer Questions

Questions For Corbett Regarding Sandusky

By Chris Freind

An open letter to Pennsylvania’s governor, who refuses to answer disturbing questions about his role investigating the Penn State sex scandal:


Bursting with righteous indignation, his cheeks flushed with rage, the governor banged the podium in disgust while berating a journalist – in fact, chastising the entire media – for the audacity to ask questions on the issue.

We’re not talking about New Jersey’s Chris Christie, who gets away with such outbursts because of his stellar track record and pure gravitas.

No, this tantrum came from Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett after being queried about his incredibly long investigation of child predator Jerry Sandusky

And it backfired in spectacular fashion. Why?

Because Tom Corbett is no Chris Christie.

Since questions on this matter remain unanswered, it seems only fitting, on behalf of the media and public, to pen an open letter to Mr. Corbett.

For the record, no media commentator in Pennsylvania supported Corbett’s ideas more than Freindly Fire during the 2010 campaign, from increased Marcellus Shale drilling to school choice to liquor privatization. In fact, FF even backed Corbett’s decision to subpoena Twitter during the Bonusgate corruption probe – a highly unpopular position. Bottom line: this isn’t personal, and it’s not partisan. It’s only about one thing: the truth.

Dear Gov. Corbett:

Since there are a number of questions which you have failed to answer concerning your investigation of Jerry Sandusky, on behalf of the media and the public, I respectfully ask for clarification in the following areas:

1.  Based on a decade’s worth of evidence of Sandusky’s predatory activities, why did it take the Attorney General’s Office three years to arrest him? I fully understand that it takes time to conduct an investigation, but as numerous prosecutors have stated, you could have arrested him quickly and continued building the case.

Tragically, it is probable that Sandusky continued to molest victims during your epic investigation, as predators do not stop preying unless forced to do so. Had he been arrested early, (standard procedure in many cases with a lot less evidence), Sandusky would have had to post bail, had restrictions placed upon him, and, most important, been under an ultra-intense media and community spotlight – every minute of every day until his trial.

In short, children would finally have been safe. And contrary to your assessment, this would have created a much more favorable environment for additional witnesses to come forward, knowing their bigger-than-life demon could hurt them no more. Arresting Sandusky quickly would have in no way jeopardized the strength of the case.

One of two things seems to be true, as there is no third option. Either   you were an incompetent attorney general, which virtually no one believes, or the investigation was deliberately understaffed and drawn out because you did not wish to be the gubernatorial candidate who took down fabled Penn State – with its massive and intensely loyal alumni network – and the beloved Joe Paterno. Since doing so would have presented difficult campaign challenges, many are asking if politics was placed above children’s safety. Which leads to the next question.

2. Why was the investigation so understaffed? Yes, you just now claimed – after eight months – that media reports are wrong that only one investigator was assigned the case for the first 15 months. The real number, as you now state, was a whopping two. We know you were busy with Bonusgate, but political corruption never threatens anyone’s physical well-being, particularly defenseless children.

And the two investigators assigned were narcotics agents. While Sandusky’s heinous crimes were many, drug offenses were not among them.

Yes, they were former police officers. But wouldn’t the reasonable course have been to assign agents with experience in child molestation cases? Did their inexperience lengthen the investigation more than normal … say, past your election in November 2010?

Additional resources were available. Upon becoming governor, you placed state police on the case. You could have made that same request to Gov. Ed Rendell, and, given the stakes, there is virtually no possibility he would have refused. And since you are a former United States attorney, you undoubtedly realized that federal assistance was also available.

3. Do you believe ethical and moral lines were crossed when, after investigating Penn State as Attorney General, you then participated as a member of the Board of Trustees upon becoming governor?

In other words, knowing full well that the investigation was still in full swing, conducted by your handpicked attorney general successor, you nonetheless chose to sit on the very board you had been – and still were – investigating!

Did you ever consider recusing yourself from board activities until the investigation was concluded? Since governors rarely attend board meetings, this would have in no way raised suspicions.

4. As governor, why did you personally approve a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant to Sandusky’s Second Mile charity, given your knowledge that Sandusky was under investigation for multiple child rapes?

Your statement that blocking the grant would have tipped people off to the investigation is utterly disingenuous, particularly since the media reported on the investigation in March, and you did not approve the funds until July 2011.

Vetoing the charitable grant would have simply been viewed as another financial cutback in a budget full of slashed programs.

So one has to ask if the $640,000 in campaign donations from board members of the Second Mile, along with their businesses and families, had anything to do with your actions?

If not, fine. But how did such a massively significant point slip your mind – until the media brought it up? And was that question also out of line?

Since these are matters of grave concern, I and many others look forward to your immediate response.

The media talks about Penn State’s Big Four casualties: Joe Paterno, former President Graham Spanier, Senior Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley. But perhaps they are missing the biggest: Tom Corbett.

He has always claimed to hold himself to a higher standard, and has roundly criticized Paterno and others for not doing more to stop Sandusky. But when it came down to it, when Corbett had the power to put a speedy end to Sandusky, he didn’t.

If mistakes were made, fine. People can accept that. But to stonewall reasonable questions on such an important matter, and then stalk off , is something that should not, and will not, be tolerated.

Tom Corbett has a choice, perhaps the biggest of his career. He can either answer now – or in 2014.

 

Questions For Corbett Regarding Sandusky

Corbetts Colossal Cockiness Castrates His Credibility

By Chris Freind

“Stevie Welch sat on a wall (of cards); Stevie Welch had a great fall (winning a mere two of 67 counties). All of King (or is it Joker?) Corbett’s horses (jackasses), and all the King’s men (endorsements by 27 County Commissioners and 35 State Legislators), couldn’t put Stevie’s candidacy together again (4 of 5 Republican voters rejected the Welch-Corbett-Obama “ticket”).

And so Freindly Fire’s prediction that Governor Corbett-endorsed U.S. Senate candidate Steve Welch would come in a whoppingly-bad third place was proven correct, though it didn’t take a political genius to guess that result.  After all, asking — strong-arming, actually — Republicans to support the Obama-voting, Joe Sestak-supporting Welch was anathema to common sense and political savvy.  And the resulting carnage is everywhere: the endorsement of the state Republican Party is as meaningful as being valedictorian of summer school; getting backed by Corbett now carries substantial negative baggage, and GOP legislators will think long and hard about aligning themselves with the Governor on his signature issues (are there any?), fearing that his promises of support could be akin to political suicide.

And all of this occurred just 15 months after being ushered into office with a ten-point margin and solid majorities in the House and Senate. And ironically, so easily preventable.

Many insiders will claim the blow to Corbett’s prestige will be a fleeting, short-term event. As is most often the case, those “experts” will be wrong. The political reality is that next month, when the Governor wants his ill-fated and unpopular voucher plan for only low-income families (which ignores the middle class) to pass, he will fall short, as his Party walks away from him. When he attempts to garner support for his proposed education cuts in the budget, he will meet substantial resistance. And should he try his hand at privatizing liquor, many in his GOP caucuses will cut and run.  Very few will risk their neck for a Guv who in the best of times was invisible, preferring the shadows to the bully pulpit. Now, Corbett has become a liability.

(Sidenote: Corbett’s low-income voucher allies made that issue the only issue this election, losing all of the races in which they were involved.  In particular, they spent big money trying to defeat West Philadelphia State Representative James Roebuck and mid-state Senator Pat Vance –who only ran again because she was “not going to be pushed out by any Political Action Committee.”. Both won easily — another reason Corbett will have a difficult time with that issue.)

Not only is Corbett’s popularity plummeting, but his reputation has been cemented as a lightweight empty-suit who simply can’t deliver.  The fact that he poisoned his own Party and made it a national laughingstock is icing on the cake.

In addition to Corbett’s endorsement of Welch (and the fact the he personally recorded the voice vote of every State Committee member during the GOP endorsement process), he went to the mat for his boy through mailers, phone calls, fundraisers and speeches.  Yet his election night was a disaster. Consider:

-The Corbett- Welch-ObamaDrama Ticket had all the advantages going into the race. With Santorum out of the presidential contest, many conservative-leaning Republicans did not vote — and low turnout elections almost always favor the endorsed candidate (especially the hand-picked favorite of a Governor).  The Party’s organizational structure and resources are usually sufficient to propel the anointed candidate to victory, but many Party committee people rebuked the Governor by openly supporting non-Welch candidates.

– Even better for Welch, there were two other major candidates in the race (Tom Smith, Sam Rohrer), both of whom would split the anti-establishment, anti-endorsement vote (and the remaining two candidates, David Christian and Marc Scaringi, did the same, taking 18 percent collectively). It should have been an easy “divide and conquer” campaign for Welch. Instead, it was a Kamikaze mission.


-There was a large snowstorm the day before the election across much of western Pennsylvania — Smith’s critical home base. Any dampening of that vote should have proven beneficial to the endorsed candidate, but it was Smith’s supporters who out-performed the once-vaunted statewide GOP machine.

– It should have been a slam-dunk for Welch to raise millions from Corbett and the big GOP donors.  But he took in an embarrassing $150,000 in the entire first quarter —half of Smith’s total and, quite possibly, even less than Smith’s dog. That lack of gravitas is quite telling.

– There was one bright spot: Welch’s campaign consultants reaped the benefits of the $1 million Welch personally gave his campaign.  The effectiveness of how they spent that money is another story, since there was no Philadelphia broadcast TV, limited media, and, come to think of it, virtually no campaign at all — usually not the best way to win an election.

-By far the most surreal moment of the night was Welch crying poor, complaining about being outspent 5-1 —even though he is accurately described in every news article as being the self-funding millionaire entrepreneur.  All self-funders claim that they will only spend a fixed amount, and, of course, exceed that after consultants convince them they are “closing fast.”  That never happened with Steve.  The irony is that he was always perceived as a self-funder (and no one wants to contribute to a rich candidate), but he clearly wasn’t able to micturate (look it up) with the big dogs in the tall grass.  Playing the rich-guy card (against a really rich guy like Smith) without having the aces in your hand isn’t just a bad bluff. It’s a dead-man’s hand.

Kind of makes you wonder what the hell the point was in going for the endorsement — or running at all.

*****

So what happens from here?  Prosecutor Kathleen Kane, who whipped the whining Patrick Murphy despite his endorsements from all the wrong folks (career pols Rendell and Nutter), is in the driver’s seat to become the first Democrat Attorney General. And expect the Penn State scandal to be front-and-center in the fall election, with Kane pounding away about what former Attorney General Tom Corbett knew, and when he knew it.

Not only would a Kane victory reflect negatively on Corbett (since the Dems would have captured that prize on his watch, and in doing so, beaten the Governor’s hand-selected candidate in what should be a Republican-leaning election), but his image and effectiveness will be further compromised as more is learned — and publicized —about his role in how the Penn State investigation was handled.

From having it all just a year ago, Tom Corbett will witness his own Party run away from him on the issues and in the election — and helplessly watch as the Democrats make him the issue.

It took George W. Bush six years to get to that point.   If Tom Corbett’s goal was to best the former President, well…Mission Accomplished.

Corbetts Colossal Cockiness Castrates His Credibility

Pa Attorney General Race

Pa Attorney General Race
By Chris Freind

Well, primary election day is almost here, and some of the races have gotten downright nasty. From disingenuous, mean-spirited campaign ads to a Democrat masquerading as a Republican accusing his opponent of being a Democrat, there’s something to satisfy everyone’s entertainment needs.

Perhaps the ugliest race is the Democratic contest for attorney general, pitting a woman against a whiner: prosecutor Kathleen Kane and former congressman Patrick Murphy. Murphy certainly can’t run on his record (there isn’t one), so instead he has charged Kane with being a millionaire trucking executive. (Note: If you can figure out how being married to a trucking company owner would prevent a career prosecutor from being an effective AG, please let me know. Perhaps she would look the other way on the rampant truck-on-truck crime in Pennsylvania?)

Of particular concern to many is that Murphy, who as a congressman perfectly personified the deer-in-headlights legislator (remember the Hardball interview with Chris Matthews on the Iraq war?), is running for the state’s top law enforcement job despite never prosecuting a single criminal case in Pennsylvania.

Murphy will need all the help he can get to pull out a victory, and apparently that help has arrived. Sources tell me that elements of the Republican Party have been covertly (and even overtly) pulling out all the stops for the young doe. And for good reason: They see him as infinitely easier to beat in November than an articulate (and better-looking) female prosecutor.

***

Speaking of Republicans helping Democrats, for your reading pleasure I have a letter from Governor Tom Corbett pushing Steve Welch, the Obama-voting, Joe Sestak-supporting U.S. Senate candidate he personally endorsed (and strong-armed the Republican Party into endorsing). So in the spirit of accuracy, I’ve “corrected” the Governor’s letter to reflect the truth, though we will leave the bad sentence structure intact. My commentary in bold:

Dear Friend,

In less than two years we have turned the tide [by being just like Ed Rendell?], and are righting the wrongs of the liberal agenda here in Pennsylvania [yes, that same “liberal agenda” that, in fact, was passed by an overwhelmingly Republican state senate]. We brought a new way of thinking to Harrisburg after inheriting a recession and a $4.2 billion dollar budget deficit in 2011 [Sorry, Guv, but despite the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget, those deficits still exist because no one—Republican or Democrat—will address the issues that led to those deficits. Examples abound, such as the $400 million in I-80 tolls used to “balance” a prior budget—even though that interstate never became a toll road, and the money was never “repaid.”]. While we have witnessed others in the past attempt to solve our state’s problems by spending more of your hard-earned tax dollars, I have employed a fiscally conservative approach to our economic issues [Yes,by finishing Rendell’s spending legacy of bailing out the Philadelphia shipyard to build ships with no buyers, constructing a new stadium for the  [obviously poor] New York Yankees’ AAA baseball team, funding the multimillion dollar Arlen Specter library, spending Delaware River Port Authority funds [AKA taxpayer dollars] on projects having nothing to do with the bridges while tolls continue to increase … we’d love to continue, but column space is limited to 10,000 words].

Together with the General Assembly, we have put our state’s economy back on track [uhhh, the natural gas industry is leaving the state, in part because of no political leadership, and the unemployment rate has not measurably dropped], not by demonizing the private sector, but by lowering taxes [Really? The job-killing taxes haven’t been touched, such as the nation’s second-highest corporate tax and the 18 percent tax on every bottle of wine and booze to rebuild Johnstown from the flood—of 1936!], cutting government spending [let’s be honest—that’s only because the federal stimulus dollars dried up],balancing the budget on time and giving businesses the ability to create jobs and drive economic growth.

Unfortunately, we have a government in Washington, D.C. stuck in the same liberal trap that Pennsylvania was suffering in. We started the fight in 2010 by talking about real change and real reforms  [Very, very true. It was, and remains, all talk.] With your help and support, I was elected along with a Republican State Senate and House Majority, U.S. Senator Pat Toomey and 12 Republican congressmen to cut wasteful spending and promote economic growth. This year, we have to continue our efforts and send U.S. Senate candidate Steve Welch to join the fight! [The irony is just dripping here. Pennsylvania elects all those Republicans to stop the “liberal” Obama agenda—and Corbett is pushing an Obama-voter who was, until fairly recently, a Democrat. Go figure].

I endorsed Steve because he has the passion and ability to take our shared Pennsylvania values to Washington, D.C. and get our federal government’s reckless spending back under control. He is a businessman who has worked tirelessly to achieve the American dream, creating a successful living for himself and creating jobs for hundreds of others. In the private sector, Steve has helped young entrepreneurs achieve their own dreams of launching a successful small business [In keeping with the “dream” theme, who in their right mind could possibly dream that endorsing an Obama supporter would rally the Republican Party?]

Steve is running for the U.S. Senate because he believes in the same values you and I do! [Wait, whose values? Obama’s or Sestak’s? Or both? And do most in the GOP share those values? Admittedly, the Party’s pick for Prez is the architect of government healthcare, but still … ]Steve could no longer sit back and watch as President Obama and Senator Bob Casey continue to spend our way into oblivion and add more debt onto the backs of future generations [Damn! If only Welch didn’t vote for Obama, that line may have worked!!]. Steve wants to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington, D.C. and help others achieve the American dream, as he has. [Unfortunately for Corbett and Welch, that’s not going to happen. There are no points for second  [or third] place. Sorry, Bob Casey: It doesn’t look like Christmas is coming early for you.]

Remember that we have a great slate of statewide candidates including Steve Welch—David Freed for Attorney General, John Maher for Auditor General and Diana Irey Vaughan for Treasurer—who need your support over the next few days. You can visit www.pagop.org to learn how you can help.

Most importantly, I hope you will join me on April 24th and cast your ballot for Steve Welch for U.S. Senate and our entire statewide team! [Too bad Democrats can’t vote in the Republican primary, since that would at least give your man a fighting chance … ]

Sincerely,

Tom Corbett
Governor [well, at least until 2014…]

Pa Attorney General Race

Is Archdiocese Lying Or Just Incompetent On School Closings?

By Chris Freind

“I don’t know Chief…this shark is either very smart, or very dumb…”

So was the famous line uttered by the legendary Quint in Jaws, as he was trying to figure out the intentions of the great white.

After
the recent roller coaster ride regarding Archdiocesan school closings –
and now the many reprieves – Catholics across the Philadelphia region
are wondering the same thing. Is the church hierarchy very smart (in a
conniving way), or very dumb?

Or are they, and the “Blue Ribbon” school commission deciding the fate of so many, just downright incompetent?

There isn’t a fourth option.

At
issue is that a whopping 75 percent of Catholic elementary schools that
appealed their closings were successful, meaning that their doors are
staying open, at least for now.

Last Friday, it was announced
that of the 24 appeals, 18 won. While it seemed like a “Good Friday” to
many, something tells me it may turn into a day of regret, closer in
fact to a Black Friday.

This is not meant to rain on anyone’s
parade, as there is obvious cause for celebration for many Catholic
families. After all, they had been told last month that their beloved
schools – 49 of them -were slated for permanent closure. While there was
an appeals process, based solely on factual errors committed by the
commission, virtually everyone figured there would be very few
successful appeals, if any.

And with good reason.

In
January, the chairman of the Commission, John Quindlen, former chief
financial officer of DuPont, made it crystal clear why schools were
closing and consolidating.

“A lot of this should have been
done 10 years ago…(but)… naivete and an unwillingness to face reality”
kept many pastors and archdiocesan leaders from halting long ago the
“death spiral” of declining population and rising tuition at so many
schools, he said, according to Philly.com.
“They would say, ‘I can make this work … But we had to come along and
finally say, ‘God bless you, but this has got to stop.’ ”

Fast
forward one month to the church’s about-face, and Quindlen’s comments
tell a starkly different story. “I celebrate the results and pray they
all survive in the long term … Neither the commission nor the
archdiocese was in a rush to close schools. Our focus was on how to
sustain them.”

What? Did he seriously say that with a straight face?

How
can you make the leap from a “death spiral” to “celebrating the
results” and talking about sustainability in less than one month?

Give
the archdiocese credit for one thing: if they are trying to anger as
many Catholics as possible in the most bumbling manner while ignoring
all rules of good communication and PR, they are succeeding beyond their
wildest dreams.

Let’s cut through the emotions tied to school
closings and look at this situation objectively. In doing do, one has to
ask: Why the games? Why did the Church say one thing – that in
retrospect now seems very suspect – and then almost completely reverse
itself, all the while talking in platitudes that didn’t remotely address
the questions and concerns of many?

It has left many scratching their heads, and even more seething.

So
here are the questions that absolutely must be addressed in order for
the archdiocese to have any credibility moving forward, and to prevent
the exodus of loyal, but very bitter, Catholics:

1) Is Catholic
education too expensive to sustain in most if not all of the 49 schools
that were originally slated for shuttering? If yes – which is what the
archdiocese has been telling us, and selling us, for quite some time –
then how can three out of four appeals have been successful? What
changed? Did a billionaire step up and write a big check to keep the
schools open? If so, we don’t need a name, because charity should be
anonymous, but we do have a right to know if that happened (extremely
unlikely as it is).

2) If the opposite is true – that those
schools are in fact affordable – then why have we been told something so
radically different for so long? It’s like being pregnant: you are or
you aren’t. Either the church can operate these schools efficiently, or
they can’t. There is no in-between. But that’s exactly where this
situation is – in no-man’s land, and their equivocation has just added
to the confusion.

3) Is incompetence to blame for the
contradictory messages? We were told that appeals would only be
considered if factual errors were made in determining which schools
closed. Well, by that logic, that’s a heck of a lot of errors. If a
student makes “factual errors” on 75 percent of a test, his grade is a
25. Which, unless you attend a public school in Philadelphia, is an F.
Not exactly a stellar track record.

4) Were we lied to from the
get-go? And if so, why? Was the threat of closings a grand conspiracy to
flush out big contributors as well as lighten the wallets of the
rank-and-file even more? Don’t scoff. The archdiocese has a history of
not being straightforward.

Just look at its red face regarding
its mishandling – and lack of truthfulness – involving one of its
schools in Philadelphia. According to a news report, a group starting a
public charter school stated that it was assured by the archdiocese that
it could rent Our Lady of Mount Carmel school for that purpose – two
months before the commission recommended closing the school! Mount
Carmel appealed its closing. Any guesses as to how that turned out? It
begs the questions as to why the archdiocese would even allow the school
to appeal when its fate had apparently already been determined.

Since
we are on the topic of education, perhaps a refresher is in order. The
8th Commandment tells us that we should not bear false witness against
our neighbor. In layman’s terms, playing loose with the truth – and
outright lying – doesn’t bode well for a Church preaching morality and
in desperate need of credibility and trust.

5) What about the
folks at all the other schools who wanted to appeal but were dissuaded
from doing so because the odds were so long for success? Common sense
tells us that if they had known such a large number of schools would win
their cases, many others would have appealed. Now, those parents and
students feel even more burned than they did a month ago – a remarkable
feat in itself.

6) The appeals have thrown schools that were
thought to be “safe” into chaos. Nativity BVM in Media, for example, was
originally intended to stay open, absorbing students from St. John
Chrysostom in Wallingford. St. John’s won their appeal though, and now,
in a stunning reversal, Nativity is shutting its doors and the new
school will be located at St. John’s.

Not only do parents and
teachers feel completely betrayed by this out-of-nowhere blindside, but
there’s an even more unjust twist: Nativity apparently does not have the
ability to appeal like all the other schools did. Talk about rubbing
salt in the wound.

And it’s exactly that type of move,
accompanied by virtually no communication, which drives fuming
parishoners to leave the Church. Hence the decline in church attendance
and school enrollment.

7) How can the church push for school
choice when it does not allow choice for its own members at the
elementary school level? So some families in Annunciation parish in
Havertown, for example, whose school closed because its pastor refused
to file the appeal that so many parents begged him to do, must send
their children all the way across town to St. Denis, when in fact they
live within walking distance to Sacred Heart? How ironic that the very
church fighting the image of hypocrisy born from the sex scandal now
engages in more hypocrisy: fighting for school choice as long as it
doesn’t apply to its own flock. When will they learn?

8) There
are no guarantees in life, but what assurances can the church give that,
in the next few years, those 24 schools, as well as any others, will
not close? Since it is impossible to believe that the problems of
declining enrollment, rising costs and overall unsustainability have all
been solved in the last 30 days, woe to those parents who take the
recent reprieves to be a sign of long-term viability, for they may well
be revisiting this exact situation in the near future. And that just
isn’t right.

•

The point of this column
is neither to agree with nor criticize the specific school closings and
successful appeals, but to implore the archdiocese to come clean with
all the facts.

Quint had to figure out what the shark was doing
and why. For all the blood, sweat and tears Catholics have shed for
their Church over the years, they should never have to question the
motivations of their Catholic leaders. They only seek the truth, and
deserve no less. It’s time to give it to them.

And that’s no fish story.

 

Is Archdiocese Lying Or Just Incompetent On School Closings?

Would Bon Jovi Get Half Staff

Would Bon Jovi Get Half Staff

By Chris Freind

With the sparse media coverage of Whitney Houston’s death
and funeral, it’s not surprising that her years of military service
have gone largely unnoticed, as were her activities as an undercover cop
in New Jersey (was she really killed after a sting went bad?). After
all, she must have done these dangerous things to warrant all
New Jersey state flags being flown at half-mast in her honor, as ordered
by Governor Chris Christie.

Because the opposite simply defies common sense. If Houston was not a
police officer gunned down in the line of duty, nor a military hero
killed in a war zone, that means that the hugely significant act of
lowering the flags in deference to her was because she was … a singer?

Really, Governor? A singer? That’s what it’s come down to in Jersey?
Sure, Whitney Houston was a Jersey native, proud of her Garden State
roots. And undeniably, she was one of the most dynamic pop stars of all
time, changing the musical landscape forever and inspiring some of the
brightest performers of today.

But she was just a singer. That’s not to minimize her
accomplishments, as they are many, but let’s cut through the emotion and
talk brass tacks. She was a popular singer, past her prime, with a
not-exactly-stellar personal history.

Play word association with most people about Whitney Houston, and they will tell you two things: great singer and crack addict.

That’s reason enough not to elevate Houston to god-like status. While
Christie can’t control the media’s nauseating coverage of all things
Whitney, he certainly could have sent a message by NOT lowering the
flags for her. By doing so, Houston is now perceived, more than she ever
has been, as a special role model, one for whom the government has
issued its seal of approval.

Where does it end? What is the litmus test for getting flags lowered on your behalf—once
the hallowed territory of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in
service of their country? Christie has changed the rules forever.

If Jon Bon Jovi happens to meet his maker next week, will the Guv give him the same special treatment? And what is the threshold? Record sales? Movie appearances? Rehab stints?
More ominous is to ponder Bon Jovi’s flag fate had he died before
Whitney. Would Christie have honored him the same way? And if not, would
that have been because Bon Jovi wouldn’t have provided the same
perceived political benefit?

Houston fans will take this as a personal affront to Whitney and her
family, but the point remains a valid one, and that bring us to two
possibilities.

1) Is Christie’s move a political calculation,
pandering to constituencies that are not in his camp? And if so, is the
Governor’s attempt at making inroads with the black community and young
hipsters done to seem more “moderate and compassionate,” both perceived
necessities if Christie is running for president or vice-president?

If that is the case, it is a massive miscalculation on three counts.
First, he won’t win over those constituencies because he lowers flags.
He can only do so by sticking to his core convictions, explaining to
them why his vision will benefit them more than failed Democratic
policies will. Second, he has now alienated an influential part of his
natural base—active and retired police and military personnel. Last,
such perceived political posturing doesn’t sit well with the vast
majority of regular, non-political citizens. They may not see his
motives as politically calculated, but many see his decision as a total
lack of good judgment.

2) Of course, there may be absolutely no political calculation
whatsoever, with Christie making his decision on a human level only. I,
for one, would certainly like to think so, as no media commentator has
defended Christie’s bulldog approach to tough issues more than Freindly Fire (and, to be fair, hammered him when he was wrong, such as “HelicopterGate”).

But that is exactly why politicians should not be lowering flags and
honoring anyone they happen to like. The nature of politicians is such
that everything they do is perceived to be calculated, that behind every
move is an ulterior motive to curry favor with a particular
constituency.

Why wasn’t the solemn act of lowering flags to honor real heroes left
intact? Why is nothing sacred anymore? Why is common sense so
incredibly uncommon these days, even by those from whom we expect more?

Perception is reality, and the growing perception—from both the
media’s nonstop Whitney coverage and Chris Christie stamping his
imprimatur on her entire life—is that she should be emulated and admired
as one of the nation’s great role models.