Category: Guest Authors

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  

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.

Bill Ayers Rape Story Via Donna Ron

Bill Ayers Rape Story — The touching concern Democrats and their enablers are now expressing regarding rape has inspired us to join in their crusade to protect womanhood and excerpt this 2006 article from FrontPage Magazine about Barack Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers:

By Donna Ron

I read occasionally of former Weatherman Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, both now not only accepted, despite their bombing campaign against America in the 1960s and 70s, but successful ,establishment educators whose opinions on social issues are taken seriously.  Every time I see Ayers’ name I shudder with fear and rage and realize that I will never be able to erase the mark he left on my life one evening 40 years ago.

It was at the Undergraduate Library at the University of Michigan on a Friday night in November 1965.  I was a sophomore and was living in a sorority house — Alpha Epsilon Phi. I was walking down the stairs to leave the library.  Billy Ayers was standing on the first floor and started talking to me.

I thought he was cute.  There seemed to be jovial kind of instant connection between us.  As I am writing this now I think he must have noticed me before ,  boys were attracted to me in those days ,  and planned to try to pick me up. As we struck up a conversation, Ayers told me very quickly about his leftist activism as if he knew this would intrigue me. In fact, I had made attempts to join SDS and the anti Vietnam War Movement on campus during my freshman year but had been put off by what hustlers the young male “activists” were. They talked in lofty ideological abstractions, but they also used their political sophistication as a lure for young women who wanted to be on the right side of the great social issues of the day. I picked up on that cynicism early and so spent much of my freshman year at Michigan trying to figure out how to act. I was politically idealistic back then and believed in Tikkun Olam — that we had to do something to make the world better. 

 

My freshman year at Michigan I attended the Teach-Ins and the campus demonstrations against the Vietnam War and studied hard for my Chemistry exams once a month. At the same time, I decided to pledge a sorority, partially just to prove I could and partially because young women’s options for campus living arrangements were still quite limited in those years.

 

Despite the caution I’d learned about young ideologues on the make, I was charmed by Bill Ayers and by his savvy talk of politics and the children’s school he was involved with. He asked me to go to a party with him and I did. I have a vague memory of the house where the party was and the people there. I think he got quite drunk and I suppose I drank too. I remember walking home with him. He was very open about himself and told me he was one of 5 children and that he was from Chicago and that his father was rich. 

 

I felt comfortable with Bill.  Throughout my life I had always had a friendly buddy-kind of connection with certain boys and felt that I was developing such a connection with him.

 

I remember going back to his attic apartment — he describes it in his book Fugitive Days.  He had a roommate — a black man who was 23 and married with children. There was a couch, a table, a stereo and a sink in the room. There were two beds – Ayers’ and his roommate’s on each side of the attic wall.  I slept with him there.

 

I came there a few times afterward to talk and to listen to his LPs. I especially loved Glen Yarbough’s album Come Share My Life. I met Bill’s roommate who also worked at the children’s school. I also met Bill’s younger brother Rick. Bill was a year older than I and his brother was a year younger. He spent a lot of time at Bill’s apartment.

 

Bill Ayers’ apartment was around the corner and a half a block away from the sorority house. The more time I spent there, the more out of place I felt with my sisters.  Sometimes I would stop by just to keep from having to go back to a place I had begun to think of as boring. I guess it was one of those evenings — maybe on the way back from the library, maybe just to get out of the sorority house, I don’t remember exactly. What I do recall is that when I was getting ready to leave Ayers told me I couldn’t go until I slept with his roommate and his brother.

 

(excerpt from FrontPageMag.Com)

 

Bill Ayers Rape Story

Bill Ayers Rape Story

So Who’s Abusing Children Now?

Here’s the latest from Jim Vanore of Good Writers Block.

NCAA President Mark Emmert recently placed punitive sanctions on Penn State University for allowing a known pedophile to victimize boys on their campus from 1998 to 2011. That felon has been dealt with by the legal system and is now facing a lifetime behind bars.
The “big four” administrative department heads responsible for allowing this abuse of children, are University President Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and head football coach Joe Paterno.  Paterno died earlier this year, and the other three face their own day in court.
Emmert said, “…the cultural, systemic, and leadership failures at Penn State had to be addressed, and that the NCAA’s  approach demands that Penn State become an exemplary NCAA member by eradicating the mindset that led to this tragedy.” 
His words.  You see, he just wants to eliminate the “mindset” that placed football above the welfare of innocent children.
So who is he punishing? Obviously, Emmert thinks that the football team (all of whom were in grammar school when this crime began) must answer for those who were complicit in these crimes. That’s sort of like the IRS telling your children that they must take a year off from their 7th grade studies and do time in prison, because you cheated on your tax return.
 
 
 
 

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

Say It Ain’t So, Joe

Jim Vanore gives his take on the Freeh Report and Penn State at his site, Good Writers Block

 
I was hoping I’d never have to write this piece, but recent revelations regarding the Penn State cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s sexual predations dictate that I do.
If the information uncovered by the Freeh investigation is accurate—and I’ve little reason to believe it isn’t—then Joe Paterno did indeed take an active part in hiding the deeds of his assistant coach. Deeds that were both illegal and monstrous.
The damaging evidence can be inferred from the “Timeline” section of the report on page 23, wherein the plan devised by University President Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Timothy Curley on February 26, 2001 includes a three-fold action: 1. Confront Sandusky, 2. Notify the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), 3. Notify the Board of the Second Mile Foundation.
However, this plan is “downgraded” to just confronting Sandusky after it is discussed with Paterno. The ‘new’ plan is to offer Sandusky professional help. If Sandusky does not then cooperate, the notifications to the DPW and Second Mile can proceed.
I read this as Paterno having the ultimate authority here. What else could I infer?
I at first gave Paterno the benefit of the doubt—doubt motivated by my lack of knowledge about what exactly he knew, and what exactly he could have done. I believed he followed the rules strictly and took what action he was mandated to take.
Now, e-mails attributed to Paterno indicate that he not only advised those around him to keep silent about Sandusky’s crimes, but his inaction even allowed this predator to continue his odious assaults for more than 10 years following the discovery of the crime.
Say It Ain’t So, Joe

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