Cross posted from Rational Resistance.

 UPDATE: Faculty at Rutgers are now calling for the resignation of the president and for an investigation into the president and the athletic director for waiting until these outrages became public before deciding to fire the coach. 

 There's big news in the world of college sports this week, and it really opens a window on the nature of big-time college athletics.

First, you probably heard about Mike Rice, the coach of the Rutgers basketball team. He got fired yesterday after video surfaced showing him shoving, punching, kicking, and throwing basketballs at his players, as well as swearing at them and calling them such vile names as “fucking fairy” and “fucking faggot”.

Robert Barchi, the president of the university, released a strongly worded statement about the firing.

“Rutgers University has a long and proud history as one of the nation's most diverse and welcoming academic institutions. Coach Rice's abusive language and actions are deeply offensive and egregiously violate the university's core values,” the statement said.

Of course, we also know that the university had the videos of this abusive conduct since at least last November, so when Barchi talks about the “university's core values” I think we know exactly what he means: the desire of Rutgers University not to be publicly humiliated or lose any of its sports revenue.

And are they going to take any action against the athletic director for not firing the coach earlier? No, and for exactly one reason. As they admitted to ESPN, “Pernetti's job is safe” for now because of his prior work on getting Rutgers into a lucrative Big 10 deal last fall.

Stay classy, Rutgers!

Sticking with basketball we have the case of Kevin Ware, the Louisville basketball player with the gruesome tibia fracture on Sunday, the injury that was so bad that the networks aren't even showing the replays of. He had surgery earlier this week, and we're hoping he has a complete recovery that won't interfere with his continuing to pursue his education–er, his career as an unpaid minor league basketball player. This is fortunate, because under existing NCAA rules, if his injury had prevented him from playing he would not be entitled to keep his athletic scholarship.

Every tragedy is an opportunity, though, right? For instance, to honor Kevin Ware Adidas and the NCAA are marketing a T-shirt emblazoned with his number, the Louisville cardinal, and the slogan “Rise to the occasion”. You know who won't get any of the twenty-five bucks you have to plunk down to show your respect for Kevin Ware? Kevin Ware or his family. Ever.

If you're still not mad enough at the gross shame and corruption that is big-time college athletics, learn more from this great article by Taylor Branch, The Shame of College Sports, in The Atlantic.

The budget cuts caused by the federal sequestration have been in effect for a month now, and some of them are starting to roll out to the communities where those dollars were going to be spent, and now I'm confused.

Now don't tell me I don't understand economics, because I do. I listen to the Republicans year after year, so I know what works and what doesn't. And like Republicans, the one thing I know for sure is this:

“The government doesn't create jobs,” – Mitt Romney, October 16.

So can you explain what Republican congressman Dennis Ross is talking about when he doesn't want the FAA to shut down the control tower at his local airport?

The state’s largest convention, SUN ‘n FUN, which is held in April at Lakeland Linder Airport, not only provides incredible economic value to Lakeland, but it serves our children by investing $1.4 million dollars annually in education. It is unacceptable to close this important control tower. 

Maybe he needs Mitt Romney to explain to him, one more time, that the government doesn't create jobs.

No, really.

Today is Easter, which is a big deal for a large segment of the population. Not as big as Christmas (although liturgically Easter is the more important holiday), but a big deal nonetheless.

Maybe it's because it isn't as consumer driven as Christmas that we haven't heard as much about the “War on Easter” as we have about the “War on Christmas“, but that's apparently all changed.

Today, thanks to those assiduous conspiracy-spotters at Breitbart, we now know who's at the heart of the War on Easter: Google!

March 31 marks the birthday of National Farm Workers Association (later United Farm Workers) co-founder Cesar Chavez. Chavez, who was trained by Saul Alinsky in the tactics of community organizing, has become a cult figure in California due to his organization of agricultural workers. March 31 also happens to be another important date this year: Easter. So, naturally, Google’s current logo features a graphic of Chavez’s face, rather than anything having to do with Easter.

Set aside the fact that apparently Google never observes religious holidays in its doodles, the Breitbartniks know better. In the cultural war, when you really want to know what's happening on the front lines, where else would you go to find out?

Oh, and why did I absolutely have to post this today?

It's pretty simple, really. If I'd waited until tomorrow you would have bet money that it was an April Fool's prank. Fortunately, though, the people at Breitbart are fools every day of the year.

It’s been a revealing week, I guess.

First off, we all learned that Rob Portman, the conservative Republican who spent most of last year campaigning for Mitt Romney, has decided he’s in favor of marriage equality, and all it took was learning that the issue personally affects his son.

We also learned something important about other Republicans.

You might have seen the story in the New Yorker about Eric Cantor*, the nasty piece of work in charge of the Republicans in the House (actually, he’s only Number Two, but he doesn’t take a back seat to anyone in being a nasty little prick).

What I thought was very striking was this line about Ramesh Ponnuru: He argued that too many voters believe that the Party’s economic agenda helps nobody except rich people and big business.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/repor…

Wait. “Too many voters believe”? So they have an image problem? Well yes, that’s exactly what Cantor believes. Or, as he explained it with an analogy to Domino’s Pizza, when Domino’s realized their problem was that their pizza sucked they decided to fix it so it wouldn’t suck so bad.

If the Republican Party is the pizza, here’s Cantor’s solution:

Since the 2012 elections, the Republicans have been divided between those who believe their policies are the problem and those who believe they just need better marketing-between those who believe they need to make better pizza and those who think they just need a more attractive box. Cantor, who is known among his colleagues as someone with strategic intelligence and a knack for political positioning, argues that it’s the box.

Maybe this was the week for the new box, and what better packaging to prove that people are wrong, that the Republicans are not just for the rich people and big business. The vote was to increase the federal minimum wage, surely an opportunity to show whether the Republicans are purely on the side of rich people and big business.

227 Republicans voted against raising the minimum wage. How many voted in favor of it? Well, that would be none. Zero. The Republicans were unanimous in opposing an increase in the minimum wage.

Where’s that new pizza box?

And using Rob Portman as an example, I guess we know that none of the Congressional Republicans have kids trying to live on minimum wage.

*Correction: The diary originally got Eric Cantor’s first name wrong.

The almost unanimous tide of opposition to Governor Shumlin's plan to impose draconian time limits on Reach Up continued today with the release of this press release from the Vermont Commission on Women. This is not a group that takes political positions lightly, but they were clearly compelled by the necessity to defend poor women against this terrible proposal.

 For Immediate Release

 

Contact: Lilly Talbert

Program & Communications Coordinator, Vermont Commission on Women

802-828-2841 / Cell: 802-498-8806

**

VERMONT COMMISSION ON WOMEN OPPOSES TIME LIMITS TO REACH UP BENEFITS

(Montpelier)  The Vermont Commission on Women (VCW) voted yesterday to oppose the current proposal establishing new time limits to Reach Up benefits.  The VCW, a non-partisan state agency dedicated to legislative, economic, social, and political fairness, heard from all sides of this issue, carefully weighed the matter, and deliberated before taking this position.

The VCW is aware that the overwhelming majority of Vermont households receiving this cash assistance are women, and limits to this program will disproportionately affect female-headed families with children.

A number of facts lead the VCW to this conclusion.  The lives of these families are complex.  They often include challenges, such as lack of transportation, education and child care; mental health concerns; care of a child with a disability; or trauma from having survived domestic violence.

 

Executive Director Cary Brown summed up the VCW’s stance:  “These are Vermont’s most fragile and vulnerable families.  The Commission believes that budgetary concerns should not be balanced on the backs of those least likely to be able to function without government assistance.”

***

About the Commission:   Launched in 1964 by a call to action from President Kennedy, The Vermont Commission on Women (VCW)  is charged with reducing discrimination and encouraging opportunities for women.  Sixteen volunteer commissioners and representatives from organizations concerned with women’s issues guide the VCWs public education, coalition building, and advocacy efforts. VCW offers many services to the public, including a toll-free information and referral service at 1-800-881-156 and many publications, including the latest:  The Legal Rights of Women in Vermont.   For more information, visit www.women.vermont.gov. 

It's not the biggest thing we do here, but you may have noticed that we will occasionally highlight some of the Dem/Prog fisticuffs in Burlington politics. After all, as Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley observed, politics ain't beanbag.

Still, what we have heard from the Progs today seems way, way over the line.

The issue is last week's Burlington School Board election, which was so close that it was reasonable for the candidate who apparently lost, write-in candidate Kyle Dodson, to request a recount; in fact, he picked up a few votes and narrowed the margin to four.

The Free Press reported this morning that the recount confirmed that Keith Pillsbury, a twenty-two year incumbent, was the winner. Although seats on the school board are nonpartisan, the subtext is that Pillsbury used to be a Prog and ran in the Democratic primary for state representative in 2010. 

What the Progs did that, as I say, goes way over the line, was to call on Pillsbury–the winner, remember?–to resign, not just before the recount, but before they humiliated him by making their request public.

 According to the Free Press:

 In an email Wednesday to Pillsbury, [Progressive Councilor Vince] Brennan wrote: “I’m giving you the opportunity to seriously think about this offer of conceding before I make my request public. It would be far more graceful for you to step down rather than have public pressure make it hard for you to govern.”

Progressive Councilor Rachel Siegel made the same request. 

Remember, this is the Progressives, the party that so zealously guards the sacred right of political participation that they seem to consider it a mortal sin to accuse someone of being a spoiler, but here they are demanding that one of the candidates–the one who got more votes, remember?–withdraw from the race to avoid the embarrassment of being publicly pressured to resign.

I guess Burlington could have saved a lot of time and money if they had just dispensed with an election and asked Vince Brennan and Rachel Siegel who they wanted on the School Board.

Oh well. Maybe next year. 

UPDATE:  Thanks to our legacy media colleagues Paul Heintz at Seven Days and Joel Banner Baird at the Burlington Free Press for linking to this diary.

(Facebook wall, that is.) 

I just noticed some interesting developments in the Burlington City Council race coming up next week. In Ward Two, Democrat Emily Lee is running against longtime Progressive council member Jane Knodell. Jane Knodell is an old line Prog who held a seat for fourteen years, while Lee is a young newcomer to city politics.

If you've been watching the election on Facebook you might be excused for a bit of confusion about which of these candidats has the endorsement of Mayor Weinberger.

For instance, if you go to Knodell's campaign Facebook page you will see a photo of Senator Tim Ashe with the message encouraging you to vote for Knodell “If you want to see Mayor Weinberger succeed with his initiatives.”

Then, if you go to Lee's campaign page you will see this picture:

So wait a minute: who actually gts the mayor's endorsement? 

I put that question to the Knodell campaign, and here's the response I got:

 No it's an observation from Senator Ashe regarding the importance of having experience on the Council

As I say, one might be excused for thinking that Weinberger is supporting Knodell, or at least that the Knodell campaign wants you to think that Weinberger is supporting her. The fact, though, is that Weinberger has endorsed Emily Lee, no matter what you might have otherwise inferred from Facebook.

And if you're just curious about who will help advance Miro Weinberger's initiative, well, Miro thinks it's Emily Lee. 

You've probably heard that the new darling of the Right is Ben Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon who recently spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and supposedly was all brave and everything because President Obama was so mad about what he said.

Except I haven't seen any indication that Obama was mad about anything, and except for some mindless prattling about flat taxes and health savings accounts, Carson didn't say anything particularly exceptional.

He made up for it when he was on NPR's On Point this week. Feel free to listen to the whole thing if you want to hear a conservative Republican pretending he's not a Republican, and trying to duck any questions about progressive taxation, but that's not really what I'm interested in. (You'll hear some typical Republican tropes, including, “Your position is ideological, mine is common sense,” and a reprise from the Prayer Breakfast: “If ten percent is good enough for god, why isn't it good enough for the government?”)

If you skip forward to about minute thirty-five and start listening there you will hear him claim that there is no evidence for evolution. Or, to be specific, you'll hear him make the specious distinction between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”, and claim that there is no evidence that any species has ever evolved into (or presumably, evolved from) another species.

Yes, this is the guy who is a famous doctor, and whom the Wall Street Journal is endorsing for President.

He'll fit right in.

Following on the killing of Macadam Mason by Taser a bill has been introduced to establish a statewide policy regarding training for and use of “electronic control devices”.

H. 225 is sponsored by Jim Masland, who represented Macadam Mason in the House, Anne Donahue from Northfield, and more than thirty other legislators.  It would provide for substantial regulation of the use of Tasers, including recognition that Tasers are deadly force, they should only be used when deadly force would be justified or to prevent a person's death through self-harm, must not be used for punishment or compliance, and must be used with the recognition of the special risks to people with cognitive disabilities or in emotional crises.

Advocates have been asking for action ever since Macadam Mason's death last summer and this bill, which has been referred to the Committee on Government Operations, is the first step to address those concerns.

The bill's sponsors and other supporters will be speaking at a press conference in Room 10 of the State House at 2:15 this afternoon.

Speaking at the press conference will be Rep. Anne Donahue of Northfield and Rep. Jim Masland of Thetford, lead sponsors of the bill; Ed Paquin, executive director of Disability Rights Vermont; Allen Gilbert, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Jack McCullough of the Mental Health Law Project of Vermont Legal Aid.

If you've been paying attention we've been doling out an entirely deserved rash of shit to Bruce Lisman and his phony nonpartisan group Campaign for Vermont. Also, if you've been paying attention you know that all that Lisman & Co. have to offer is the standard warmed-over Republican prescriptions of cutting social programs as a way to cut taxes on the rich.

 Still, the payoff to pushing a phony nonpartisan agenda is that if you keep it neutral-seeming and content-free you are going to get people to like you, at least if all they read is the headline. I guess that must be how they arrive at almost 3,000 “likes” for their latest Facebook posting.

There's just one thing, though. Some people actually do read what they're posting, and when that happens it doesn't always turn out so well for Messrs. Lisman and Pelham.

Here's a sampling of some of the comments left on their latest Facebook post:

I agree that we need a campaign to continue to strive for excellence but when I read this group's position papers on issues such as health care reform, I realize this is a Republican Trojan Horse– a nice idea but an intention that is really not about the issues I care about.

Or:

 Vermont graduates the highest % of high school students in the country. Too bad that over half of them can't afford to go to college.

Or:

  I ask how can we be a model for the nation when we rank 49th in funding for post secondary education?

Or:

 Call me skeptical, but I don't think the former chairman of global equity for JP Morgan Chase (Bruce Lisman, one of the three individuals who claim this effort to “reform”) has Vermont's best interests in mind