Category: Guest Authors

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

If the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) could compete for an Emmy, it would definitely be a winner.  Its “Security Theatre” has become a cutting-edge soap opera, replete with comedy, drama and ultimately, tragedy.
And the latest episode is making the biggest headlines yet.
The TSA has sliced and diced a prior position, and is now permitting passengers to carry knives onto planes.
Yes. Knives. Those sharp, pointy things that can puncture a pilot’s jugular in a heartbeat, make flight attendants talk like Stephen Hawking, and create total pandemonium at 35,000 feet.
If so many people’s lives, not to mention the entire economy, were not jeopardized by this warped decision, it would be funny.  But this is definitely no joke.
However, you can take solace.  The TSA has shown great sensitivity to the 9/11 attacks by keeping box-cutters banned, despite the steely fact that their blades are but a fraction of those on the permissible knives. Another oxymoron we call “TSA Consistency.”
Even more comical is the TSA’s criteria for the knives. If the blade is no more than 2.36” long and a half-inch wide, it will fly the (un)friendly skies. The blade must also be one that folds away, which is, presumably, because the TSA thinks a 2.36” folded blade (which is locked when opened) can’t kill someone. More reassuring, the knife cannot have a molded handle, which should be a huge relief to everyone — except those who actually fly.
Why the monumental shift in TSA policy? In addition to wanting to be more in-line with Europe (honest to God, that’s no joke), it says security lines are congested because TSA screeners are confiscating thousands of such knives, and these items don’t pose a 9/11-type threat anyway.
Oh. So because druggies and shoplifters create logjams in our courts, we should just give in and make their actions legal?
And how exactly will lines be shortened with TSA screeners now using tape measures to ensure that 2.37” knives don’t slip by? Although, truth be told, they could all just emulate the Philadelphia Airport, where everything seems to get through.
The TSA is convinced that a 9/11 hijacking can never occur again because so much has changed: steel cockpit doors, a vigilant flying public, air marshals and better intelligence.  And there you have it: TSA’s  “risk-based” security plan. Which is really great, except the parts about the steel cockpit doors, a vigilant flying public, air marshals and better intelligence.
Let’s review:
1. Yes, cockpit doors are strengthened, but since there aren’t self-contained bathrooms in the cockpit, pilots are absolutely vulnerable every time nature calls.
2. Is the TSA expecting passengers to work “fight-the-knife-freak” duty? And how many people are the TSA willing to sacrifice? It’s not just the doped up or drunk passenger who stabs the flight attendant because he hated the in-flight movie. It’s a handful of Mohammed Attas coordinating a vicious attack, each wielding several legal weapons. Sound familiar? It should, since box-cutters were legal on 9/11.  Once the attack commences, then what? Maybe they gain entrance to the cockpit, and maybe not. But when you’re dealing with fanatics who can’t wait to meet Allah and all those supposed virgins, it’s going to be a bloodbath. And since sophisticated terrorists always utilize surprise, they will gain the upper hand immediately.
Can’t wait for the TSA press conference after an aircraft lands with 300 dead passengers and crew. “Yeah, they all got stabbed to death. But hey! We didn’t lose the plane!”
And guess what? The economy would collapse anyway.
3. Air marshals? Sorry, they’ve been sequestrationed, and only fly on a small percentage of flights anyway. For the record, they vehemently oppose the TSA knife policy. Next.
4. Better intelligence. Really? Where? Like in New York in 2010, when the Muslim fundamentalist Times Square bomber was caught by Lady Luck? You may remember him. After fleeing Manhattan, he went to the airport, bought a one-way ticket to the Middle East — in cash —, boarded the plane, and almost almost took off. And best of all, he was on the No-Fly List!
Or the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber who, only through sheer ineptness, didn’t bring down a jumbo jet over the U.S. He was also on our watch lists, and his own father repeatedly warned our intelligence communities of his son’s intentions, yet he too almost succeeded.
Out of curiosity, does that “better intelligence” include the countless alphabet-soup agencies that still wage turf wars with each other and don’t share information? Just wondering.
*****
Of course, there is a much better solution. It’s called profiling, and it works really, really well.  Just ask the Israelis, who know a thing or two about terrorists. (El Al has only been hijacked once).
But out of deference to possible hurt feelings, we refuse. In fact, because of our affinity for political correctness, we do the opposite. The TSA actually announces who doesn’t have to take off their shoes (all children under 12), and who won’t be subject to pat-downs (children, the wheelchair-bound, and pretty much anyone who complains). Which is all well and good except that the Brotherhood of Mohammed Atta has no problem sacrificing their kids, so guess on whom they will hide their explosives?
*****
In 2007, the then-TSA chief lifted the ban on lighters and matches, admitting that policy was “security theatre.” Nothing has changed, as the TSA continues with policies that not only aren’t keeping the skies safe, but actually make them more dangerous.
Unfortunately, Security Theatre has become an all-too-true reality show, playing out every day at thousands of airports. And it’s only a matter of time before it crashes and burns.

But in the meantime, in the hope that Security Theatre can jump to the big screen, the least we could do is suggest some appropriate movie titles. Not sure if the copyrights have expired on these, but here’s taking a stab at it:
Jagged Edge, Blade Runner, Con Air, Fight Club, Skyfall, Airport ’13, and, in honor of when TSA officials fly, Snakes On A Plane.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

Pope Resigning Is Miracle For Church

Thank God for small miracles. Or, in this case, huge ones.
The decision of Pope Benedict XVI to step down — the first resignation in 600 years and only the fourth in history — has given the Catholic Church an unprecedented opportunity to save itself. And since the eleventh hour is upon the Church, the Pope’s action could not have come at a better time.
Whether the conclave of Cardinals takes advantage of this blessing or blows it all to hell remains to be seen.
As one of the Catholic faithful, I desperately want to believe it will choose the right path.
I want to believe the Church, without hesitation, will do whatever is necessary to rebuild the greatest, most benevolent institution the world has ever known.
I want to believe the Church will admit and address, head-on, that its hard times — the scandal, corruption and genuflecting at the wrong altar (that of political correctness) — are sins of its own making.
I want to believe the Church has finally learned to practice what it preaches, that humbleness will replace arrogance, and that it fully appreciates the value of not just forgiveness, but asking to be forgiven.
I want to believe that the new Pope will inherently understand that, in order for the Church to survive, it must adapt — not in ways that undermine the pillars of its divine theology, but by approaching its critical “earthly” issues with an honest, fresh perspective.
I want to believe that the Church will strive to better understand the value of perhaps the most powerful tool in the 21st century: public relations.
And I want to believe that the Catholic Church, once and for all, will cease being a paper tiger, resurrecting its once mighty political power.
But at the risk of sounding like Thomas, I have my doubts.
Given its recent history, the Church does not exactly inspire confidence that it has learned from its mistakes and gained the wisdom (and will) to embark on the path to growth. A gambling man would wager on the next Pope being Business-As-Usual, radiating the status quo and reluctant to make waves.
That would be a good bet, but it would be a losing hand for the Church, relegating it to a house of cards.
*****
So what should the Cardinals do to ensure the survivability of the Church?
1.  For starters, choose the right-looking leader. Honorable as he may be, Pope Benedict makes John McCain look downright boyish, so picking another frail, gray-haired/white-haired/no-haired Pontiff is a surefire way to completely lose the middle-aged-and-younger generations. Like it or not, appearance matters. And that is infallible.
Proof? FDR could have never won in the television age because America would not elect a man in a wheelchair. JFK’s youth and good looks gave him a substantial advantage over Nixon in the debates. Bob Dole versus Bill Clinton? Not even divine intervention could have helped Dole in that matchup. And since the death of European Christianity has largely occurred under older pontiffs, maybe it’s time to go younger.
However, choosing a pope on ethnic appearance would be a huge mistake. Sure, a black pope helps bolster Africa (the new battleground in the vicious Christian-Muslim wars), as a Latino does for Central and South America.  But that vision is short-sighted, as it wouldn’t actually address, let alone solve, the Church’s problems.
2. Select an articulate, charismatic pontiff who, in both perception and reality, can effectively communicate that he is in touch with the true heart and soul of the Church — the rank-and-file. The new pope cannot afford to be aloof or insulated, since these are the very qualities that contributed so mightily to the Church’s decline. How bad has it become? One in ten Americans is an ex-Catholic, and the 30 million who have left the Church, if counted as their own religious group, would be the third-largest denomination in the country. Vocations are a fraction of what they once were, and the obvious stigma associated with entering the seminary keeps even more away. And the stark reality is that, within a decade, Catholic education will be largely gone, leaving churches that much emptier.
3. Ensure the new pope apologizes in an unprecedented upfront, straightforward manner, not just for the scandals but the cover-ups. And that apology should extend down to every parish. Countless Catholics are still waiting for a genuine apology, and many parents feel that they are being put through the ringer because of priests’ sins. Praying in mass for the pedophile clergy, and those who covered up their salacious activities, is one thing. But the many priests who still view the scandals as overblown makes the sin mortal, as the continuing Catholic exodus and dwindling coffers attest.
4. Start talking about the positive aspects of the Church, restoring the credibility that has been shattered by years of sex scandals, shredded documents and cover-ups. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest provider of social services in the entire world (second in America behind only the U.S. government) and administers the world’s largest nonpublic school system, yet most people are unaware of those phenomenal achievements — a massive failure in public relations. It’s time to tell that magnificent story and educate the world — again — on what it really means to be Catholic. Unequivocally, pride in Catholic identity leads to fuller schools.
5. Flex political muscle. From keeping its schools open (which saves billions in taxpayer money) to fighting government healthcare insurance mandates for abortion and birth control, success in the public arena only occurs when muscle is flexed It’s time for Catholics to take their rightful place at the political table, as all other religions do (despite having far fewer members). But that means playing hardball, unabashedly making its issues front and center in primary and general elections. The power of a newly awakened tiger — one that has shed its paper skin — would be an unmatched political force. But that power will only exist if people once again believe in their Church.
6. Allow priests to marry.  And yes, consider allowing women to enter the priesthood.  This would ease the resentment felt by many women towards a Church that treats them like second-class citizens. Even more important, women and married priests are the only measures that can ensure the Church’s survival. We can play with the numbers, pretending that seminary vocations are up, but the stark reality is that if nothing changes, there soon won’t be a Catholic Church in the traditional sense. The cock has been crowing a lot more than three times — more like 30 years — and yet the denials from Church leaders continue. The clock is ticking.
An all-male, celibate clergy has its origins in human, not divine, history. Forget Dan Brown theories as to whether Jesus was actually married. Priests were married (and possibly even a Pope or two), and were for centuries, with some historians placing that practice at over 1,000 years. While it was abolished for “religious” reasons, the real impetus was rooted in property rights. But since God invented annuities and life insurance in the 20th century, that problem has been solved. Married clergy certainly seems to be working in the other religions (who don’t have nearly the old age and pedophile problems), so the Church needs to get with the times.
*****
Keep the faith but fight the corruption.  That should be the ultimate factor in choosing the next pope.  It doesn’t get any simpler, or more poignant, than that.
If such a leader can preach a positive message, modernize without compromise, and wield a political sledgehammer, then prayers for a reinvigorated flock will be answered, keeping Christ’s Church alive far into the future.

Chris Freind’s work can be found at FreindlyFire.Com

 

Pope Resigning Is Miracle For Church

Military Heroes Oppressed By Tyrant-in-Chief

Military Heroes Oppressed By Tyrant-in-Chief
By Pat Carfagno


Just days ago, Gateway Pundit published a story which infuriated this SHREW. Being away from the studio, I passed the info along to my colleagues at tFreedom Radio and THE SHREW Tim Sumner and Anna Bee. The following is an excerpt from that article:

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you (veteran) from purchasing, possessing, receiving or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Habndgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L. No. 103-159, as implemented at 18 United States Code 924 (a)(2)”


Tim Sumner, co-founder of 911 Families for a Safe and Strong America did a little digging. The following audio is an excerpt from a discussion on our very own THE SHREW:

 

Military Heroes Oppressed By Tyrant-in-Chief

Let’s Close The Cafeteria

The unexpected resignation of Pope Benedict XVI has brought forth the expected plethora of pundits expounding on exactly who should be named to replace the pontiff. This of course is not surprising. It’s analogous to what went on when Andy Reid was fired as the Eagles’ coach after a 14-year run.

Sports talk show hosts were inundated with names of once and future coaches that the fan base put forth, ad nauseam, on a daily basis. Underlying all the speculation was the certainty that the team’s ownership would name whomever it thought was the best available choice, fan approval notwithstanding.

No educated fan would dare to believe that an owner would actually poll his season ticket holders to see exactly who he should hire. Football fans—despite the widely-held rowdy stereotype—have enough sense to realize this. Not so, apparently, with many Roman Catholics, if any of the man-on-the-street interviews published in the Philadelphia Inquirer are an indication.

                Some of the remarks:
                “I think it’s time to name a pope from Latin America…they should name one of ours. They’ve only named Europeans until now.

                “If I had my way, an African should be the next pope. …we have a black president. So let’s just feel the impact of a black pope.”
                “I hope the next pope will be a little more liberal and consider allowing …women to become priests. …part of the reason the Church is losing its members (is because) they’re not listening to the people.”
Really? They’re not listening to the people? Real Catholics—those of us who have been thoroughly schooled in the faith—know from countless classes in religion, catechism, Bible history, and theology, that the pope is the vicar of Christ on Earth. He stands in the “shoes of the fisherman,” i.e. Simon-Peter, upon whom Christ established his Church.  {Matthew 16:18}.
Christ charged the Apostles with spreading his good news. He didn’t send them forth to gather opinions like a dozen survey-takers marching through a large mall, each with a clipboard in order to “listen to the people.”
Quite the opposite, if Scripture can be utilized as a guide:
                “Going therefore, teach ye all nations…teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. {Matthew 28:19-20}
                “If you love me, keep my commandments. {John 14:15}
Jesus of Nazareth laid down the rules very clearly. The pope, as his spiritual descendant should not—cannot—veer from those directions now, checking the latest fad in acceptable popular behavior, so he can deviate from Christ’s original intention for the sake of making the Church more “suitable” to today’s culture.
Jesus called them commandments, folks; not suggestions. And his Church has endured for 2,000 years, despite the immorality, criminality, and deviancy of some of its members. He did, after all, leave his Church in the hands of imperfect beings.
And that Church has had a line of successors to Simon-Peter that stretches through the centuries, past Constantine, Muhammad, Charlemagne, Marco Polo, Gutenberg, Columbus, Michelangelo, Luther, Calvin, Copernicus, Galileo, Bach, Jefferson, Lincoln, Marx, Einstein…

That line will continue with Benedict XVI’s successor. I hope and pray it’s a man who continues the policies of Jesus, and not someone who takes a popular referendum from his flock to see where they want him to take “their” church. I rather it be someone who steers Christ’s Church—the one he founded two millennia ago.

(Excerpted from Good Writer’s Block)

Sue NFL For Concussions? Get Your Head Examined

Now that the Super Bowl is over, the really big game begins. And it’s going to be a head-knocker.

On one side we have the raiders. No, not Oakland, but the Trial Lawyers, who delight in raiding everything good and decent in America. They are representing former NFL players in their fight against the evil empire, a.k.a. the National Football League. At stake? Upwards of ten billion dollars, and possibly, the existence of the NFL itself.

And what is the nerve center of this federal lawsuit, filed in Philadelphia, that have the plaintiffs so mad they’re seeing double? What went so wrong that these former players, given a life of royalty by the NFL, now want to ring the League’s bell?

They suffered concussions playing football.  No lie.  That’s actually the basis of the lawsuit.

The sheer stupidity of such a suit makes you wonder if they really did get hit too many times, because no one of sound mind could dream up something like this.

It would seem, therefore, that their motive is rooted in something else. In the preferred legalistic nomenclature, they’re looking for a handout.

Maybe they’re bitter because they didn’t play in the era of massive contracts. Maybe it’s because they can’t function as “regular” guys after being worshipped for so long, which, for many, started in grade school. Others may feel lost, with football the only thing they know. But their commonality is thinking they are entitled to something.

****

The outcome of this lawsuit should be a no-brainer. But given the insanity in America’s civil legal system, a jackpot jury award is definitely possible.  (NFL Properties and helmet maker Riddell are defendants, too.)

The players claim the NFL hid information linking football-related head trauma to permanent brain injuries (such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease). In addition to monetary damages, they want the NFL to assume responsibility for the medical care involved for those players suffering from those health problems.

Let’s look at the case objectively:

1. This sense of entitlement is not just misguided but inappropriate. No one held a gun to players’ heads to sign lucrative contracts and become celebrities to play football.  They’re big boys, and chose their profession — with its risks — of their own free will.

2. And yes, there are risks. Plenty of them. Football is not a contact sport; it’s a collision sport. It is an intensely physical, violent profession. That’s why God made pads and helmets, but any third grader can tell you that those things only help to minimize injuries, and can never totally prevent them. The NFL is not a flag-football league, but one with punishing hits. That’s the game. Players can take it or leave it.  Not surprisingly, they take it.  Always.

3. The pass-the-buck, take-no-personal-responsibility attitude so prevalent in America is once again on full display. Players knew the risks, reaped immense rewards, and now, after the fact, want to blame the NFL for their issues. And are we really supposed to believe that the NFL willfully engaged in a grand conspiracy to keep players in the dark about the effects of hard tackling? To swallow that, we must assume that the League had every doctor in the country on the take, preventing them from speaking to any player who had questions about concussions. And that it somehow inhibited medical professionals from conducting research into concussions and brain injuries.

4. Did the NFL, the medical community and our society know as much about concussions several decades ago? No.  Is there a concerted effort now to better understand brain trauma, and to make all sports — including NFL football — safer? Absolutely.  That’s not malfeasance. It’s progress.

5. Is the NFL culture one that glorifies big hits, highlights them on NFL films, and encourages playing through injuries? Yes, but so what? Fans love when players get leveled, and players love delivering big-time jolts, which often help their team. Gutting it out has always been a source of pride for players, who do it not to secure the next big contract but because they love the game.  An admirable choice, but a choice nonetheless.

6. Where does it end? Should a firefighter who gets burned sue the fire department? Is a baker responsible because an obese donut-eater develops heart disease? And should office workers who develop carpal tunnel syndrome have legal standing to sue their company?

Some jobs have higher risks, and playing NFL football is one of them. But given the lavish rewards, it’s an acceptable risk to players — past and present.  And regarding former players who state that, if they had today’s knowledge back then, they would have opted out — give us a break.  Not a chance in the world.

7. The NFL (and the Players Association) has spent more than a billion dollars on pensions, medical and disability benefits for retired players.
The NFL also operates numerous health programs for current and former players, and offers medical benefits to former players, such as joint replacement, neurological evaluations and spine treatment programs, assisted living partnerships, long-term care insurance, prescription benefits, life insurance programs, and a Medicare supplement program, according to the League. Equipment has improved, and safety has increased, including outlawing certain types of hits.

****

Is it sad that some former players have trouble walking, concentrating and living a “normal” life? Sure.  Is it a tragedy when a few commit suicide? Absolutely.   But it’s time that these players stop blaming others for their situations and look in the mirror. They made their choices, and for most, lived a fairy tale.

If they now choose to feel sorry for themselves, or regret their choices, fine.  But it’s a personal foul to ruin the game not just for current and future players, but for the ones who allow the League — and its former players —to be so successful: the fans.

And you don’t need your head examined to see that.

Chris Freind can be found at FreindlyFireZone.Com

 

Sue NFL For Concussions? Get Your Head Examined

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.

 

Journalist Criticizes Journalist

In November, child actor Angus Jones—one of the stars of the hit sitcom Two and a Half men—publicly criticized the show that has made him a multi-millionaire. In effect, he condemned the vulgar tone of the program.

Anyone who has seen this program knows that the kid is only confirming what they already have seen and heard themselves. The plots are about sex, the characters are sex-driven, and the dialogue is not so much sexual innuendo as it is crude and openly sexual remarks that one could hear in any junior high school yard. Yes, 13-year-olds laugh like hell at this stuff.

But the success of this long-running sitcom is testament to the depths to which our culture now stoops when looking for 22 minutes-worth of mindless entertainment. I confess that I watched this program the first two years of its existence, but soon grew tired of the ever-increasing focus on the bedroom and the bathroom—the two rooms about which Two and a Half Men seems to be concerned.

In a December 1, 2012 column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, their television columnist found fault with Angus Jones, saying that he sabotaged his career by this “bizarre” rambling of his. Of course the columnist also noted that the 19-year old is “newly evangelized.”

Well, well…I think we’re finally getting to the meat of the criticism. How critical would the television critic have been if Jones say, spoke out against the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms, or passed negative judgment on the pro-life movement, or defended atheism as sober way of life? Personally, I think Jones would have been painted as a hero for speaking his young mind.

But the moment you announce that Christianity is the impetus behind your stand, you’ve committed one of the news media’s seven deadly sins: Thou shalt not try to profess your belief in God—at least not if you make your living in the entertainment industry. Morals be damned.

The columnist even went so far as to say that if the young actor was truly appalled at the bawdy nature of the show, shouldn’t he give away his hefty salary to the more needy, since this would be the truly Christian thing to do?

Just as the columnist gives his salary to the needy, I suppose.

(Read more at Good Writers Block)

Journalist Criticizes Journalist

 Journalist Criticizes Journalist

Norquest Pledge Video About Treason Gone Viral

Norquest Pledge Video — Robert Thurman, Professor of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University, released a video that questions the patriotism of several of the Republican Senators and Representatives who signed the Norquist Pledge to not raise taxes no matter what the condition of the United States.

According to Thurman, and common sense, when a person is elected to office they pledge to place the well being of the nation and the people above all other
entanglements.

In this case, since many who have signed a pledge with a person who has openly said that his plan is to “starve the beast” referring to the U.S. democratically elected government, so he can “drown it in the bathtub,” Thurman sees this as a conflict of interest and understands the desire to destroy the U.S. Government in order to carry out a pledge to a leader in corporate American as treason.

Why did Thurman make this video?

Thurman felt that this was something obvious, but something that no one was willing to say openly. When we look at the facts, as presented by Thurman and the news outlets, concerning the signing of this pledge not to raise taxes, and the actions that allowed the U.S. to be forced to pay billions of dollars more on debts because of purposeful coercion by the signators to not raise the debt ceiling until the tax breaks for the top 2 percent of the people continued, and the driving toward the fiscal cliff by the signatures now to force cuts in medicare and social security to maintain the tax breaks for the top 2 percent again, we must ask why it is so important to be more faithful to this pledge than one’s sworn government responsibilities, and what they are getting for being faithful to the pledge. Perhaps following the money trail can help us understand a bit more. Is it treason, or just being more faithful to someone other than the U.S. Citizenry?

Thurman’s video is at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fl0L

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