Sunday Morning Copy & Paste: Frank Rich

La Cage aux Democrats
by Frank Rich

THE most potent word in our new president’s lexicon — change — has been heard much less since his inspiring campaign gave way to the hard realities of governing. But on Tuesday night, the irresistible Obama brand made an unexpected and pointed cameo appearance on America’s most popular television show, “American Idol.” In the talent competition’s climactic faceoff, the song picked for one of the two finalists, Adam Lambert, was Sam Cooke’s soul classic, “A Change Is Gonna Come.”

Cooke recorded it in January 1964. Some four months earlier he had been arrested when trying to check into a whites-only motel in Shreveport, La. “It’s been a long, long time coming,” goes the lyric. “But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will.” Cooke, who was killed later that same year in a shooting at another motel, in Los Angeles, didn’t live to see his song turn into a civil rights anthem. He could not have imagined how many changes were gonna come, including the election of an African-American president who ran on change some 44 years later.

Cooke might also have been baffled to see his song covered by Lambert, a 27-year-old white guy from San Diego, on Fox last week. But the producers of “American Idol” knew what they were doing. With his dyed black hair, eyeliner and black nail polish — and an Internet photographic trail of same-sex canoodling — Lambert was “widely assumed to be gay” (Entertainment Weekly), “seemingly gay” (The Times) and “flam-bam-boyantly queeny” (Rolling Stone). Another civil rights movement was in the house even if Lambert himself stopped just short of coming out (as of my deadline, anyway) in the ritualistic Ellen DeGeneres/Clay Aiken show-biz manner.

In the end, Lambert was runner-up to his friendly and blander opponent, Kris Allen, an evangelical Christian from Arkansas. That verdict, dominated by the votes of texting tween girls, was in all likelihood a referendum on musical and cultural habits, not red/blue politics or sexual orientation. As the pop critic Ann Powers wrote in The Los Angeles Times, the victorious Allen also has a gay fan base, much as Lambert has vocal Christian admirers.

This is increasingly the live-and-let-live society we inhabit — particularly younger America. In a Times/CBS News poll in April, 57 percent of those under 40 supported same-sex marriage. The approval figure for all ages (42 percent) has nearly doubled in just five years. On Tuesday the California Supreme Court will render its opinion on that state’s pox on gay marriage, Proposition 8. Since Prop 8 passed last fall, four states have legalized gay marriage and New Hampshire is about to. This rapid change has been greeted not by a backlash, but by a national shrug — just as a seemingly gay “American Idol” victory most likely would have been.
And yet the changes aren’t coming as fast as many gay Americans would like, and as our Bill of Rights would demand. Especially in Washington. Despite Barack Obama’s pledges as a candidate and president, there is no discernible movement on repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy or the Defense of Marriage Act. Both seem more cruelly discriminatory by the day.

When yet another Arabic translator was thrown out of the Army this month for being gay, Jon Stewart nailed the self-destructive Catch-22 of “don’t ask”: We allow interrogators to waterboard detainees and then banish a soldier who can tell us what that detainee is saying. The equally egregious Defense of Marriage Act, a k a DOMA, punishes same-sex spouses by voiding their federal marital rights even in states that have legalized gay marriage. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the widower of America’s first openly gay congressman, Gerry Studds of Massachusetts, must mount a long-shot court battle to try to collect the survivor benefits from his federal pension and health insurance plans. (Studds died in 2006.) Nothing short of Congressional repeal of DOMA is likely to rectify that injustice.

The civil rights lawyer Evan Wolfson, who is executive director of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry, notes that the current stasis in Washington is a bit reminiscent of early 1963, when major triumphs in the black civil rights movement (Brown v. Board of Education, the Freedom Riders, the Montgomery bus boycott) had been followed by stalling, infighting and more violent setbacks. Victories were on their way but it took the march on Washington and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech to galvanize John Kennedy and ultimately Lyndon Johnson into action. Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Johnson had to step up big time — and did — to prod Congressional passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (now under imminent threat from the Roberts Supreme Court).

It would be easy to blame the Beltway logjam in gay civil rights progress on the cultural warriors of the religious right and its political host, the Republican Party. But it would be inaccurate. The right has lost much of its clout in the capital and, as President Obama’s thoughtful performance at Notre Dame dramatized last weekend, its shrill anti-abortion-rights extremism now plays badly even in supposedly friendly confines.

Anyone with half a brain in the incredibly shrinking G.O.P. knows that gay bashing will further dim the party’s already remote chance of recruiting young voters to replenish its aging ranks, much as the right’s immigrant bashing drove away Hispanics. This is why Republican politicians now say they oppose only gay marriage, not gay people, even when it’s blatant that they’re dissembling. Naked homophobia — those campy, fear-mongering National Organization for Marriage ads, for instance — is increasingly unwelcome in a party fighting for survival. The wingnuts don’t even have Dick Cheney on their side on this issue.

Most Congressional Republicans will still vote against gay civil rights. Some may take the politically risky path of demonizing same-sex marriage during the coming debate over the new Supreme Court nominee. Old prejudices and defense mechanisms die hard, after all: there are still many gay men in the party’s hierarchy hiding in fear from what remains of the old religious-right base. In “Outrage,” a new documentary addressing precisely this point, Kirk Fordham, who had been chief of staff to Mark Foley, the former Republican congressman, says, “If they tried to fire gay staff like they do booting people out of the military, the legislative process would screech to a halt.” A closet divided against itself cannot stand.

But when Congressional Republicans try to block gay civil rights — last week one cadre introduced a bill to void the recognition of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia — they just don’t have the votes to get their way. The Democrats do have the votes to advance the gay civil rights legislation Obama has promised to sign. And they have a serious responsibility to do so. Let’s not forget that “don’t ask” and DOMA both happened on Bill Clinton’s watch and with his approval. Indeed, in the 2008 campaign, Obama’s promise to repeal DOMA outright was a position meant to outflank Hillary Clinton, who favored only a partial revision.

So what’s stopping the Democrats from rectifying that legacy now? As Wolfson said to me last week, they lack “a towering national figure to make the moral case” for full gay civil rights. There’s no one of that stature in Congress now that Ted Kennedy has been sidelined by illness, and the president shows no signs so far of following the example of L.B.J., who championed black civil rights even though he knew it would cost his own party the South. When Obama invoked same-sex marriage in an innocuous joke at the White House correspondents’ dinner two weeks ago — he and his political partner, David Axelrod, went to Iowa to “make it official” — it seemed all the odder that he hasn’t engaged the issue substantively.

“This is a civil rights moment,” Wolfson said, “and Obama has not yet risen to it.” Worse, Obama’s opposition to same-sex marriage is now giving cover to every hard-core opponent of gay rights, from the Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean to the former Washington mayor Marion Barry, each of whom can claim with nominal justification to share the president’s views.

In reality, they don’t. Obama has long been, as he says, a fierce advocate for gay equality. The Windy City Times has reported that he initially endorsed legalizing same-sex marriage when running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996. The most common rationale for his current passivity is that his plate is too full. But the president has so far shown an impressive inclination both to multitask and to argue passionately for bedrock American principles when he wants to. Relegating fundamental constitutional rights to the bottom of the pile until some to-be-determined future seems like a shell game.

As Wolfson reminds us in his book “Why Marriage Matters,” Dr. King addressed such dawdling in 1963. “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait,’ ” King wrote. “It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ ”

The gay civil rights movement has fewer obstacles in its path than did Dr. King’s Herculean mission to overthrow the singular legacy of slavery. That makes it all the more shameful that it has fewer courageous allies in Washington than King did. If “American Idol” can sing out for change on Fox in prime time, it ill becomes Obama, of all presidents, to remain mute in the White House.
Type rest of the post here

a little too true

xkcd.com

Countertweet

How Twitter warned of death threat at St. Louis school

By David Hunn and Jeremy Kohler

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

03/05/2009

The death threat that made a St. Louis school clear out its classrooms and send home students Wednesday had something to do with poet Langston Hughes, and how he is portrayed in an online encyclopedia.

It also had a bit to do with Twitter, a trendy Internet technology that turned a friendly troop of academics from across the country into unknowing sleuths.



It started Tuesday night, with a teacher in Virginia asking her husband for help preparing for class.

And ended Wednesday morning with one relieved school principal.

"It was so amazing," said Katrice Noble, principal at Lift For Life Academy charter school, just south of downtown St. Louis. She was the subject of the death threat.

But it was Jeremy Boggs, 29, a history student in the Ph.D. program at George Mason University, who saw the note first. Or at least the first who did something about it.

Boggs was watching "American Idol," the pop-star reality show, Tuesday night.

His wife, a teacher, asked Boggs to look up Hughes — she was gathering material on the famous poet and playwright.

Boggs found him on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows readers to
add to entries. And there was the note, about halfway down the page, sandwiched
between sections on the poet's homes and his death, and written in bold,
all-capital letters.

"I'M GOING TO SHOOT EVERYBODY AT THAT (expletive) SCHOOL," it said, in part.
"ESPECIALLY KATRICE NOBLE."

Boggs, an alumnus of Virginia Tech, site of the 2007 student shootings that killed more than 30, was unnerved.

"This really freaked me out a little bit," Boggs said.

Sure, he thought, maybe it's a kid pulling a prank. Still, it named the school, the principal and — it would appear — even the student making the threat. "You can't just dismiss it," he said.

So he sought advice from colleagues.

On Twitter.

"Found vandalism on Langston Hughes article where author threatens to shoot people at a school," he wrote, according to Twitter, the online site that allows users to broadcast 140-character messages through cyberspace and with cell phones. "Should I just remove it?"

His message instantly reached across the Midwest.

And, in Yellow Springs, Ohio, it found Marjorie McLellan.

McLellan, a history professor at Wright State University, was writing a grant proposal for Dayton public schools on her computer, when she saw the tweet from Boggs.

"I think you need to report that to editors and police — he names a name," she wrote, according to a log of the conversation on Twitter. "Probably just vitriol but you never know."

Over the next several hours — and entirely via the 140-character tweets — six or seven colleagues figured out who Noble was, where Lift For Life was, and how to reach out to authorities.

They called or e-mailed the school, police and a reporter at the Post-Dispatch.

Still, it was late, and the group's efforts mostly found answering machines.

In something of a last-ditch effort, McLellan called a small-town Ohio police department with a reputation for being tough on Internet crime.

And it was a detective, then, from Xenia, Ohio, who finally got through to Noble, at her desk at Lift For Life, Wednesday morning.

Noble called local police.

But by then police here had gotten the other messages. Before Noble could get up from her desk, St. Louis officers had arrived at the school's doors on South Seventh Street.

Noble called for an early dismissal. Students filed back onto buses. School leaders started talking to students who may have been involved. Police combed the building, and found no immediate threats.

Noble was grateful to the Twitter troop.

"What if things had not gone so smoothly?" she asked. "And we had not taken that precaution?"

But Noble still had her own bit of sleuthing to do.

She called a sixth-grade English teacher at Lift For Life.

Doing any units, she asked, on famous black figures in history? Any students studying Langston Hughes?

Yes, the teacher replied. And yes.

By day's end, police had pinned down the computer used to send the message, Noble said.

It appears to be a student, who wrote and signed the threat in his friend's name. Just a prank between buddies. "They do things not realizing what they've done," Noble said.

The principal said she'll talk to the student and his parents today.

And in what may be the only tragedy to linger, it is likely she'll have no choice but to expel the prankster from school.

Tweet, tweet

I won't Twitter my life away
By LEONARD PITTS JR.

Today, I make you a solemn promise: I will never Twitter you. Or is it tweet? I'm never sure.

And here, let me pause to help the technologically illiterate catch up. One uses Twitter to send tweets (no, I am not making that up!) i.e., electronic notes, to one's online friends, family and other subscribers. A tweet, which is limited to 140 characters, (i.e., shorter than this very sentence) is supposed to bring interested parties up to date on what you are doing, seeing, thinking, in that exact moment.

When I first heard of this latest advance (?) in interpersonal communication, I pegged it as a fad that would be big among high school and college students -- i.e., young people, who frequently have the attention span of a squirrel on cocaine. Last week's presidential speech to a joint session of Congress shows how wrong I was. It turns out that, as the leader of the free world was addressing them on matters of urgent national importance, some of our elected representatives were hunched over their handheld devices madly tweeting, like 5th graders passing notes in the back of the class.

For instance, The Washington Post reported that Republican Rep. Robert Wittman tweeted the following urgent observation: ``I am sitting behind Sens Graham and McCain.''

''Place is on fire,'' said Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican from Montana.

Which is not to imply that only pols have gone Twitter mad. CNN's Roland Martin is stuck at an airport in Chicago, trying to get to snowbound New York City even as I write this: ''No flights allowed in,'' he tweets. ``I was on plane in Chicago, we pulled out, got word, now back at gate.''

NBC's Ann Curry, meantime, is in New York enjoying the snow: ``All stars are not the proper shoes for NYC today. But seeing this dark city frosted in white is worth my cold toes.''

And you and I need to know this because . . . ?

No, we are not being forced to look. But if you choose to, please reflect on the fact that life is short and you just spent some irretrievable fraction of yours learning that Roland Martin's flight is delayed and Ann Curry's feet are cold.

In the '90s, you often heard people complain of how memoir writers and afternoon talk shows had turned our public spaces into a communal confessional, intimate secrets once necessary for whispering now shouted into the ether like an order at a fast-food joint. Ten years later, we are not just sharing secrets; we are sharing lives. And not the good parts, either, but the banal, the mundane, the everyday.

I'm darned if I can see the fascination. I mean, I'm not surprised that technology allows this. But I am surprised that people -- by the thousands -- buy in to it.

Take it as one more example of the medium becoming its own message. After all, every new advance in communications from telegraphs to Twitter has been sold as a means of perfecting human relationships, allowing us to interact more easily, understand one another more readily. But it hasn't happened yet.

Indeed, you have to wonder if, as communication becomes ever easier, we have not gone in the opposite direction, crossing the point of diminishing returns as we did. More people have more ways to reach more people than at any point in history. But it turns out -- read a message board or an unsolicited email, if you don't believe me -- many of us don't have a whole lot to say. Unless, that is, you find some socially redeeming value in banality, cruelty and crudity, which have become ubiquitous.

You have to wonder what that says about us.

Now here is Twitter, which encourages you to narrate your life in real time as opposed to, well . . . living it. I'm sorry, but include me out.

I will never Twitter you.

In the first place, you have better things to do. In the second, I am not that interesting.

No one is.

Dowd Unglued: Wall Street's Socialist Jet-Setters

By MAUREEN DOWD

As President Obama spreads his New Testament balm over the capital, I’m longing for a bit of Old Testament wrath.

Couldn’t he throw down his BlackBerry tablet and smash it in anger over the feckless financiers, the gods of gold and their idols — in this case not a gilt calf but an $87,000 area rug, a cache of diamond Tiffany and Cartier watches and a French-made luxury corporate jet?

Now that we’re nationalizing, couldn’t we fire any obtuse bankers and auto executives who cling to perks and bonuses even as the economy is following John Thain down his antique commode?

How could Citigroup be so dumb as to go ahead with plans to get a new $50 million corporate jet, the exclusive Dassault Falcon 7X seating 12, after losing $28.5 billion in the past 15 months and receiving $345 billion in government investments and guarantees?

(Now I get why a $400 payment I recently sent to pay off my Citibank Visa was mistakenly applied to my sister-in-law’s Citibank Mastercard account.)

The “Citiboobs” — as The New York Post, which broke the news, calls them — watched as the car chieftains got in trouble for flying their private jets to Washington to ask for bailouts, and the A.I.G. moguls got dragged before Congress for spending their bailout on California spa treatments. But the boobs still didn’t get the message.

The former masters of the universe don’t seem to fully comprehend that their universe has crumbled and, thanks to them, so has ours. Real people are losing real jobs at Caterpillar, Home Depot and Sprint Nextel; these and other companies announced on Monday that they would cut more than 75,000 jobs in the U.S. and around the world, as consumer confidence and home prices swan-dived.

Prodded by an appalled Senator Carl Levin, Tim Geithner — even as he was being confirmed as Treasury secretary — directed Treasury officials to call the Citiboobs and tell them the new jet would not fly.

“They woke up pretty quickly,” says a Treasury official, adding that they protested for a bit. “Six months ago, they would have kept the plane and flown it to Washington.”

Senator Levin said that the financiers will not be able to change their warped mentality, but will have to be reined in by Geithner’s new leashes. “I have no confidence that they intend or desire to change,” Levin told me. “These bankers got away with murder, and it’s obscene that close to nothing is being asked of financial institutions. I get incensed at the thought that a bank that’s getting billions of dollars in taxpayer money is out there buying fancy new airplanes.”

New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, always gratifying on the issue of clawing back money from the greedy creeps on Wall Street, on Tuesday subpoenaed Thain, the former Merrill Lynch chief executive, over $4 billion in bonuses he handed out as the failing firm was bought by Bank of America.

In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on CNBC, Thain used the specious, contemptible reasoning that other executives use to rationalize why they’re keeping their bonuses as profits are plunging.

“If you don’t pay your best people, you will destroy your franchise” and they’ll go elsewhere, he said.

Hello? They destroyed the franchise. Let’s call their bluff. Let’s see what a great job market it is for the geniuses of capitalism who lost $15 billion in three months and helped usher in socialism.

Bartiromo also asked Thain to explain, when jobs and salaries were being cut at his firm, how he could justify spending $1 million to renovate his office. As The Daily Beast and CNBC reported, big-ticket items included curtains for $28,000, a pair of chairs for $87,000, fabric for a “Roman Shade” for $11,000, Regency chairs for $24,000, six wall sconces for $2,700, a $13,000 chandelier in the private dining room and six dining chairs for $37,000, a “custom coffee table” for $16,000, an antique commode “on legs” for $35,000, and a $1,400 “parchment waste can.”

Does that mean you can only throw used parchment in it or is it made of parchment? It’s psychopathic to spend a million redoing your office when the folks outside it are losing jobs, homes, pensions and savings.

Thain should never rise above the level of stocking the money in A.T.M.’s again. Just think: This guy could well have been Treasury secretary if John McCain had won.

Bartiromo pressed: What was wrong with the office of his predecessor, Stanley O’Neal?

“Well — his office was very different — than — the — the general décor of — Merrill’s offices,” Thain replied. “It really would have been — very difficult — for — me to use it in the form that it was in.”

Did it have a desk and a phone?

How are these ruthless, careless ghouls who murdered the economy still walking around (not to mention that sociopathic sadist Bernie Madoff?) — and not as perps?

Bring on the shackles. Let the show trials begin.

Podolak shuns Hawkeyes, chooses retirement over treatment

Legendary Iowa football radio broadcaster Ed Podolak has resigned after 27 years of Hawkeye coverage. The university apparently demanded he seek treatment after photos of a drunken Eddy in Tampa for the Outback Bowl surfaced on the Internets. The following is an exceptional column by my friend and fantasy football combatant.

Eddie's choice: Iowa football loses something
By Mike Hlas
Gazette sports columnist

The University of Iowa made a hard choice. So did Ed Podolak.

As a result, Hawkeyes football is losing something significant. It didn’t have to come down this way. But Podolak apparently is unwilling to change his ways and is walking away from something he loved with all his being, being part of Iowa football.

That’s a choice to which he’s fully entitled, just as the university was entitled to ask him to change the way he represented himself and the school while out in public.

Presumably under direction in this matter by Athletic Director Gary Barta, Podolak was urged to seek alcohol treatment and then be welcomed back to the Iowa football radio booth this fall for a 28th consecutive year as an analyst.

Podolak took the other option, to retire from broadcasting at age 61. It truly is something he had already been considering, by the way.

While Hawkeye football will always remain a focal point in so many Iowans’ lives, it’s immediately less than what it was two weeks ago.

You’re talking about a broadcaster who not only was able to make a chaotic game more understandable to untrained eyes like mine and probably yours.

More importantly, it was someone who did it with charisma, humor, presence, and above all, passion.

The next person who sits in the Kinnick Stadium press box chair next to Gary Dolphin might become really good. But he won’t be an icon.

All that said, Barta and his school were backed into a corner by Podolak’s behavior. Embarrassing Internet photos of an inebriated Podolak in Tampa pushed this along, but probably weren’t the origin of the ultimatum. There are too many stories out there, with less tolerance for them today in certain circles than there in days gone by.

More than a few Iowa football players have had alcohol-related incidents the last couple of years, and the university is plagued by the drinking culture of students in Iowa City.

So when a primary spokesman for Iowa football is shown to be impaired by drinking by photos on the Internet and the photos spread to Web sites hither and yon, it doesn’t play well in the university.

Nor should it. Even if it again magnifies the hypocrisy of the school and its athletic department.

The Hawkeye Huddle in downtown Tampa that was attended by thousands of Iowa fans on Dec. 30? An eyewitness said there were at least 30 beer-dispensers there. The venue was criticized by those fans three years earlier for not having enough beer. The “mistake” wasn’t made again.

As was critically noted in this section earlier this month, a beer company is a sponsor on Hawkeye radio broadcasts.

And wouldn’t it be interesting to see what effect it would have on attendance at Iowa football games if a total ban on alcohol was strictly enforced in university-owned parking lots on Game Day?

Willingly smack-dab in the middle of it all has been Podolak, a living mascot for Iowa fans.

He is the entirely approachable former Iowa football great and NFL standout. He’s the guy who always perfectly captured Hawkeye followers’ joy or frustration, then would celebrate or commiserate with them afterward at tailgates and taverns.

Frankly, he got rip-roaring drunk in public on several occasions. I’ve seen it a few times over the years. Countless camp-followers of the Hawkeyes have seen it more. It was in the public domain, whether the university wanted to ignore it or not.

Someone else can throw the stones at Podolak and get all holier-than-thou. My media brothers and sisters and I have been in a couple of those hotel bars at the same times he was present.

I’ve never run around with Podolak, but I would have loved to have spent hours listening to his stories, things that stretch beyond his vast football experiences. He’s been a real estate developer in Aspen, Costa Rica, and now northern California. He is friends with the Eagles — the band, not the football team.

Legend has it that Jimmy Buffett’s song “We Are the People Our Parents Warned Us About,” was written for his close friend Podolak.

When author Hunter S. Thompson died, I phoned Podolak for what I hoped would be on interview about his friendship with his Aspen neighbor. To my eternal disappointment, he didn’t want to do it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve had a small role on Hawkeye football broadcasts the last three years at the end of games. I’ve talked about what just unfolded on the field after play-by-play man Gary Dolphin read an intro promoting The Gazette and Gazetteonline.com.

Some of the best validation I’ve ever felt was whenever Podolak nodded in agreement with something I said.

All that said, I’m in no way pooh-poohing Podolak’s alcohol-related actions. He is an adult who has made his own choices and continues to make them. He has also had a lot of people in black-and-gold who have given him this different kind of validation: Drink, Eddie, drink.

When he was arrested for public intoxication and interference with official acts after falling asleep on the lawn of the University of Iowa’s Pentacrest in 1997, there didn’t appear to be a blip in Podolak’s broadcasting duties.

He pleaded guilty to the charges, and was sentenced to 50 hours of community service and a $50 fine. He didn’t look back, and neither did the university.

Who has been the biggest enabler over the years since when Podolak would slur his words at a Hawkeye rally? That very university. But no more.

Not to worry, though. You’ll still be able to tote your 12-packs down Melrose Avenue on the way to your tailgates.

Go Hawks!

Iowa joins teacher-student sex craze

That's right. Even in this wholesome, family-friendly state, we've got teachers hooking up with students.

Granted, this is no Pamela Short affair. But still. When did this become fashionable?

Here's the gist from the Des Moines Register:

A Des Moines Dowling Catholic High School teacher has been arrested on a charge of sexual exploitation by a school employee.

West Des Moines police said today that Erin Marie Rohwer, 27, had a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old male student.

Rohwer was arrested at her home at 3900 Bel Aire Road in Des Moines. She was released on a $5,000 bond.

School president Jerry Deegan said at a press conference today that a member of the "Dowling community" called him to report "a possible inappropriate relationship."

He declined to say whether the tip came from a student, parent or teacher.

Sexual contact between any school employee and a student, regardless of age, is against the law in Iowa. A one-time encounter is an aggravated misdemeanor, while a pattern of sexual contact is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Rohwer faces the felony-level charge.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office has prosecuted teachers, ministers, counselors and a psychiatrist in recent years. He declined to comment about specifically about Rohwer’s case.

“It’s not a daily thing,” Sarcone said. “But it’s not all that unusual."

Deegan confirmed that Rohwer is the daughter-in-law of Dowling choral director Karl Rohwer. She is the head of the English department and has taught at Dowling since 2003. Deegan called her a "very good and effective" teacher.

In a note to parents, Deegan wrote that Rohwer has been suspended.

"It is our understanding from law enforcement that this matter occurred off campus and outside of school hours," he wrote.

Five words or less

Stevens loses Alaska Senate race!

January 20th cannot arrive fast enough

by Arianna Huffington

So, $290 billion into his bailout plan, Hank Paulson is calling for a do-over. Now there is a confidence booster.

Providing "I-told-you-so" talking points to the what's-the-rush crowd, the Secretary of the Treasury announced yesterday that the government is no longer going to use any of the $700 billion Congress allocated to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to buy, well, Troubled Assets from financial institutions -- the original centerpiece of the plan.

Instead, Paulson is looking to fortify the financial industry by continuing to buy premium stock in banks (aka the Warren Buffett approach). Unfortunately, instead of sending Paulson a thank you note in the form of increased consumer lending, the banks are depositing the government checks and taking a wait and see approach. (Among the things they've seen: another $40 billion handed over to AIG.)

This is not to say that Paulson's midstream direction change is a bad thing -- indeed, the lip service he's now paying to putting the focus on consumers is encouraging -- but it shows just how uncertain official Washington is about how to keep the economy from imploding.

In the meantime, oversight of the massive bailout plan remains a mirage -- undermined by White House inaction and Congressional turf wars.

Remember all the promises that the $700 billion in taxpayer money would be closely supervised? No blank checks here, we were told. A special inspector general was going to be picked by the White House and Congress was going to hand-select an oversight panel.

But despite over a quarter of a trillion dollars having already been doled out by Paulson, so far both the inspector general position and the five Congressional Oversight Panel slots remain unfilled.

The White House appears ready to nominate New York prosecutor Neil Barofky as inspector general, though it's up in the air how quickly Congress would confirm him (if they confirm him at all). Among the looming issues, a squabble between the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Finance Committee over which would have control of the confirmation process.

"It's a mess," said Eric Thorson, the Treasury Department's inspector general, who has been doing fill-in oversight duty until the special inspector general is confirmed. "I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing."

Bartender, another round of lack of confidence for everyone.

Unfortunately, while Paulson waffles, the White House dawdles, and Congress dithers, the economy continues to burn.

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment last week -- 516,000 -- was the most since September 2001, in the wake of 9/11. And the number of people continuing to collect unemployment -- 3,897,000 -- was the highest it's been in 25 years.

"The labor market is deteriorating more rapidly than previously thought," Andrew Gledhill, economist at Moody's Economy.com, told CNNMoney.

In the past week, Ford said it would cut salaried employment costs by 10 percent, global delivery company DHL said it was cutting 9,500 jobs and financial service provider Fidelity Investment announced 1,300 job cuts. The list goes on and on: Circuit City, Pizza Hut, Morgan Stanley, Condé Nast, Yahoo, US Steel, Cesna, and QVC.

According to the Department of Labor, 240,000 jobs were lost in October, bringing the total of 2008 pink slips to 1.2 million. The unemployment rate is 6.5 percent, the highest it's been in 14 years.

On the housing front, another 84,868 homes were lost to foreclosure in October; there have been 936,439 home foreclosures since August 2007. And the housing future continues to look bleak: in October, 279,561 borrowers received at least one foreclosure-related notice, including default notices, notices of auction sales and bank repossessions, according to RealtyTrac. One in every 452 housing units received one of these. Nevada, Arizona, and Florida had the country's top three foreclosure rates.

Despite the carnage in the housing market, the White House continues to offer what the New York Times labeled "pathetic responses" and inadequate "half measures." And much-discussed legislation allowing bankrupt homeowners to rework their mortgages in court remains in a holding pattern, awaiting action from the lame duck Congress. I wouldn't hold my breath.

January 20th cannot arrive fast enough for the American people.

A long overdue cut-and-paste from Arianna

Tuesday's Second Biggest Winner: Democracy

by Arianna Huffington

Along with Barack Obama (and the other winners I've written about), there was another big winner on election day: democracy.

Based on initial numbers, it looks like over 133 million people turned out to vote on Tuesday -- 11 million more than voted in 2004 - producing the highest turnout rate in 44 years (62.5 percent). By way of comparison, the turnout rate in 1996 was just over 49 percent (that's right, less than half of those eligible to vote bothered to show up).

One of the most noteworthy trends was the makeup of the electorate.

In 2000, whites accounted for 81 percent of all voters. This year, that number fell to 74 percent, the result of an increase in both African American and Hispanic turnout. That is a huge demographic shift.

Those two groups, along with young voters, ended up having a tremendous impact on the outcome of the 2008 race.


Let's start with Hispanics, who accounted for the most dramatic swing. In 2004, Kerry outperformed Bush with Hispanic voters 59 percent to 40 percent. In 2008, the Hispanic vote went 67 percent for Obama, and only 31 percent for McCain -- a net improvement of 17 points.

Even more impressive was the shift in the battleground states with high Hispanic populations, particularly Florida. Four years ago, Hispanic voters in the Sunshine State went for Bush over Kerry 55 percent to 44 percent; this year Obama beat McCain among Florida Hispanics 57 to 42 -- a remarkable 26-point swing.

Hispanic voters made the difference in Colorado, Florida, and New Mexico. In Colorado, Obama's Hispanic support accounted for 12 percent of the electorate; he won the state by 7 percent. In Florida, Obama's Hispanic support accounted for nearly 8 percent of the electorate; he won the state by 2 percent. In New Mexico, Obama's Hispanic support accounted for 28 percent of the electorate; he won the state by 15 percent.

So much for the primary season conventional wisdom that Hispanics would be reluctant to vote for a black candidate.

Next up, young voters. Around 2.2 million more young people voted on Tuesday than did in 2004, accounting for 18 percent of the electorate -- a slight uptick from 17 percent in 2004. But they overwhelmingly voted for Obama: 66 percent to 32 percent - a 34-point spread. That's 25 percent more than the 9-point youth vote advantage Kerry had over Bush.

Patrick Ruffini at The Next Right drills it down further:

Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana. So, to clarify here: Obama's youth margin = 73 electoral votes.

We are witnessing a tremendous ideological shift among young voters - one that could reshape our politics for decades to come. From 1976 through 2004, young voters basically supported the same candidate as older voters in most elections. During that time, the average gap in presidential choice between young voters and the overall electorate was only 1.8 percent. In 2008, that gap was 28 percent, with Obama winning by 6 percent -- but carrying the youth vote by 34 percent.

And Obama's appeal to young voters cut across racial lines. Among voters 18-29, he got 54 percent of white voters, 76 percent of Hispanic voters, and 95 percent of African American voters.

Overall, over 2 million more African American voters turned out this time around. And they favored Obama over McCain 95 percent to 4 percent - a net 14-point increase from Kerry's 88 to 11 win over Bush.

Some other numbers:

Obama won among both women (56/43) and men (49/48). Whites favored McCain (55/43), but blacks gave Obama percent of their vote, and Hispanics went for Obama 66/31.

Obama carried voters 18-29 (66/32), 30-44 (52/46), and 45-64 (50/49). The only group McCain carried was voters 65 and older (53/45). This oldest group accounted for only 16 percent of the electorate.

Obama won among all education levels carrying 63 percent among voters without a high school degree, 52 percent among high school grads, 51 percent among those with some college, 50 percent among college grads, and 58 percent among those with postgraduate degrees.

Obama also won in almost every size city. He carried big cities 70/28 (home to 11 percent of voters), small cities 59/39 (home to 19 percent of voters), and the suburbs 50/48 (home to 49 percent of voters). McCain won in small towns and rural areas 53/45 (home to 21 percent of voters)

Lastly, Jewish voters favored Obama 78 percent to 21 percent -- so much for the Lieberman bounce or the Khalidi smears!

All in all, a great election for democracy.

A Halloween Story

Fear has profoundly changed us
By LEONARD PITTS JR.

Meanwhile, back at the War on Terror . . .

You remember the War on Terror, don't you? It was in all the papers. Back before presidential politics sucked the air from the room and your 401(k) shrank till it was worth maybe dinner and a movie, it was considered quite the important news story. Abu Ghraib? Extraordinary renditions? Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here? Surely you recall.

I only ask because of a news story that broke last week to a yawn of media disinterest. The Washington Post reported on two secret White House memos explicitly endorsing the use of waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- on so-called high-value terrorism suspects. This is, says The Post, the first time the still-classified memos have been disclosed. They were written in response to requests from then-CIA Director George Tenet, who worried his agents might be hung out to dry if the practice were discovered and the people or their representatives demanded someone's head.

According to The Post, the White House issued written authorizations in 2003 and 2004. Yet in 2006, President Bush told the nation, ``The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it.''

Which was, of course, a lie.

You'd think the latest proof of that lie -- yet another smoking gun to stack with all the others -- would merit attention. But a computer search Thursday turned up only seven newspaper stories mentioning the memos. Searches of the CNN and FOX news websites also came up dry, though the story did appear on MSNBC's site.

If you think my point is that the media missed an important story, it isn't. No, the point is that normal is not where we thought it would be.


You remember how it was just after Sept. 11, 2001, right? Some of us vowed we would never enter a skyscraper again. Some of us didn't want to leave our houses again. The minutiae of popular culture became staggeringly unimportant. Humorists like David Letterman and my colleague, Dave Barry, wondered if they could ever return to the business of laughter.

We were scared dry. And some of us said: Get used to it. This was the new normal.

But skyscrapers did not close from lack of use. We did not become a nation of agoraphobics. We did not lose our interest in singers and movie stars. Letterman and Barry went back to work.

Fear, which had cut through us like a hot poker, became instead a low-grade fever, ambient noise, wallpaper, something you feel without feeling, hear without hearing, see without seeing.

Then you look up one day and realize how profoundly that fear has changed your world. People are imprisoned without charges or access to attorneys, and it's routine. People are surveilled, their reading habits studied, their telephone usage logged, and it's commonplace. People, including children, end up on a secret list of those who are not allowed to fly, nobody will tell you why, there is no appeal, and it's ordinary. We swallow lies like candy, nod sagely at babblespeak, and it's unexceptional.

Torture is inflicted with White House approval, the president lies about it and it's just another Tuesday.

Once upon a time, Americans were fond of looking upon backward nations, upon places where law was whatever the king said it was, and noting with pride that we do things differently in our country. But that was a day long ago and a country long gone.

If we miss the one or mourn the other, you'd never know it to look at us. We live through what feels evermore like a Joe McCarthy fever dream. We feel without feeling, hear without hearing, see without seeing and do not protest what we have become.

Because this is normal now.

The Real Plumbers of Ohio

By Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman

Forty years ago, Richard Nixon made a remarkable marketing discovery. By exploiting America’s divisions — divisions over Vietnam, divisions over cultural change and, above all, racial divisions — he was able to reinvent the Republican brand. The party of plutocrats was repackaged as the party of the “silent majority,” the regular guys — white guys, it went without saying — who didn’t like the social changes taking place.

It was a winning formula. And the great thing was that the new packaging didn’t require any change in the product’s actual contents — in fact, the G.O.P. was able to keep winning elections even as its actual policies became more pro-plutocrat, and less favorable to working Americans, than ever.

John McCain’s strategy, in this final stretch, is based on the belief that the old formula still has life in it.

Thus we have Sarah Palin expressing her joy at visiting the “pro-America” parts of the country — yep, we’re all traitors here in central New Jersey. Meanwhile we’ve got Mr. McCain making Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a k a Joe the Plumber — who had confronted Barack Obama on the campaign trail, alleging that the Democratic candidate would raise his taxes — the centerpiece of his attack on Mr. Obama’s economic proposals.

And when it turned out that the right’s new icon had a few issues, like not being licensed and comparing Mr. Obama to Sammy Davis Jr., conservatives played victim: see how much those snooty elitists hate the common man?

But what’s really happening to the plumbers of Ohio, and to working Americans in general?

First of all, they aren’t making a lot of money. You may recall that in one of the early Democratic debates Charles Gibson of ABC suggested that $200,000 a year was a middle-class income. Tell that to Ohio plumbers: according to the May 2007 occupational earnings report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual income of “plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters” in Ohio was $47,930.

Second, their real incomes have stagnated or fallen, even in supposedly good years. The Bush administration assured us that the economy was booming in 2007 — but the average Ohio plumber’s income in that 2007 report was only 15.5 percent higher than in the 2000 report, not enough to keep up with the 17.7 percent rise in consumer prices in the Midwest. As Ohio plumbers went, so went the nation: median household income, adjusted for inflation, was lower in 2007 than it had been in 2000.

Third, Ohio plumbers have been having growing trouble getting health insurance, especially if, like many craftsmen, they work for small firms. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2007 only 45 percent of companies with fewer than 10 employees offered health benefits, down from 57 percent in 2000.

And bear in mind that all these data pertain to 2007 — which was as good as it got in recent years. Now that the “Bush boom,” such as it was, is over, we can see that it achieved a dismal distinction: for the first time on record, an economic expansion failed to raise most Americans’ incomes above their previous peak.

Since then, of course, things have gone rapidly downhill, as millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and their homes. And all indicators suggest that things will get much worse in the months and years ahead.

So what does all this say about the candidates? Who’s really standing up for Ohio’s plumbers?

Mr. McCain claims that Mr. Obama’s policies would lead to economic disaster. But President Bush’s policies have already led to disaster — and whatever he may say, Mr. McCain proposes continuing Mr. Bush’s policies in all essential respects, and he shares Mr. Bush’s anti-government, anti-regulation philosophy.

What about the claim, based on Joe the Plumber’s complaint, that ordinary working Americans would face higher taxes under Mr. Obama? Well, Mr. Obama proposes raising rates on only the top two income tax brackets — and the second-highest bracket for a head of household starts at an income, after deductions, of $182,400 a year.

Maybe there are plumbers out there who earn that much, or who would end up suffering from Mr. Obama’s proposed modest increases in taxes on dividends and capital gains — America is a big country, and there’s probably a high-income plumber with a huge stock market portfolio out there somewhere. But the typical plumber would pay lower, not higher, taxes under an Obama administration, and would have a much better chance of getting health insurance.

I don’t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit.

But that’s the point. Whatever today’s G.O.P. is, it isn’t the party of working Americans.

Actual Mavericks

The word geek in me, who is also a lefty/liberal/progressive/Democrat, got a kick out of this.

Who You Callin’ a Maverick?
by John Schwartz
from NYTimes.com

There’s that word again: maverick. In Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the Republican candidate, used it to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, no fewer than six times, at one point calling him “the consummate maverick.”

But to those who know the history of the word, applying it to Mr. McCain is a bit of a stretch — and to one Texas family in particular it is even a bit offensive.

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it, Ms. Maverick said; unbranded cattle, then, were called “Maverick’s.” The name came to mean anyone who didn’t bear another’s brand.

Sam Maverick’s grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio who lost his mayoral re-election bid when conservatives labeled him a Communist. He served in the Roosevelt administration on the Smaller War Plants Corporation and is best known for another coinage. He came up with the term “gobbledygook” in frustration at the convoluted language of bureaucrats.

This Maverick’s son, Maury Jr., was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society. He served in the Texas Legislature during the McCarthy era and wrote fiery columns for The San Antonio Express-News. His final column, published on Feb. 2, 2003, just after he died at 82, was an attack on the coming war in Iraq.

Terrellita Maverick, sister of Maury Jr., is a member emeritus of the board of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

Considering the family’s long history of association with liberalism and progressive ideals, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, “is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.”

“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ”

“He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”

What are words for?

Politics and the English language, GOP-style
BY LEONARD PITTS JR.

"We need change, all right. Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington. We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington -- throw out the big-government liberals.'' -- Mitt Romney, Sept. 3, 2008

And then the gorilla run knee socks paint porno on the Cadillac. But school laughed and didn't we sing hats?

Ahem.

Maybe you wonder what the preceding gobbledygook means. I would ask which gobbledygook you mean: mine or Mitt Romney's? If he's allowed to spew nonsense and people act as if he's spoken intelligently, why can't I? If he gets to behave as if words no longer have objective meaning, why can't I?

I mean, baffle grab on the freak flake. Really.

And again, ahem.


If you're a regular here, you've heard me rant from time to time about intellectual dishonesty. By this, I mean more than just your garden variety lie. No, to be intellectually dishonest means to argue that which you know to be untrue and to substitute ideology for intellect to the degree that you'll do violence to language and logic rather than cross the party line.

Yes, we're all intellectually dishonest on occasion. But no one does it like Republican conservatives. They are to intellectual dishonesty what Michael Jordan was to basketball or the Temptations to harmony: the avatar, the exemplar, the paradigm. They have elevated it beyond hypocrisy and political expedience. They have made it . . . art. Which returns us to the astonishing thing Mitt Romney said while addressing the party faithful in St. Paul. You want to walk around it the way you would Michelangelo's David, admiring the elegance of the workmanship. You hesitate to touch it, much less pull it apart. To do so seems almost an act of desecration.

Unfortunately, some of us are too plodding and earthbound, too blind to the seductions of art, too stubbornly wedded to some vestigial notion that intellectual honesty matters, to walk past a steaming pile of bovine excreta without calling it a steaming pile of bovine excreta.

So excuse me, beg pardon, so sorry, but I have to ask: what liberal Washington is he talking about? The federal government has three branches. The legislative, i.e., Congress, was under conservative control from 1995 until 2007. The judicial, i.e., the Supreme Court, consists of nine justices, seven of whom were nominated by conservative presidents. The executive, i.e., the president, is George W. Bush. Enough said.

Washington is already what Romney wants to make it. Our current state of affairs, love it or loathe it, is indisputably a product of conservative governance. I wish that mattered more than it does.

That it doesn't matter much at all you can credit to conservative politicians who have, over the years, trained their followers to respond with Pavlovian faithfulness to certain terms. Say ''conservative,'' and they wag their tails. Say ''liberal'' and they bare their fangs. More to the point, say either and all thinking ceases, so much so that a representative of the ideology that has controlled most of Washington most of the last 12 years can say with a straight face that his ideology needs to seize control of Washington to fix what is broken there. And people hear this Orwellian doublespeak . . . and cheer. Why not? They have been taught that words mean what you need them to in a given moment.

Sadly, it has proven an easy lesson to impart. Turns out, all it requires is a limitless supply of gall and the inherent belief that people are dumber than a bag of hammers.

And all it costs us is language, the ability to have reasoned and intelligent political discourse, the idea that words do, and should, have weight, dimension and intrinsic meaning. Maybe you disagree. In which case, let me just say this:

Piffle crack eat monkey snow. Really.