Michael Steele’s Words A Sign Of Kinder Gentler Republicans … Uh, No

Here are some comments from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in reference to a question about gay marriage/civil unions:

MIKE GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

MICHAEL STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No.Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.” […]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What’s the difference?

So much for the kinder gentler Republican party under the direction of Michael Steele. I guess that tent for the Republican party is still quite exclusive. Apparently, to Michael Steele, feels gay marriage is backsliding “on a core, founding value of this country.” Wow.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/23/steele-crazy-civil-unions/

Are Republicans On The Road To Disaster?

Republicans, these days in particular, are doing a poor job picking their leaders these days. Here is a column from Media Matters for America talking the road the Republicans are on … perhaps a road to disaster.

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200902230016?f=h_top

Check Out Jay Smooth On The Racist New York Post Cartoon

Jay Smooth comes out smooth, as always, with one of his latest videos discussing the racist cartoon run by the New York Post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEpQciGXIaM

Bill O’Reilly Finds New Angle To Cry About Treatment Of The Woman He Hearts: Sarah Palin

I’m not sure what Bill O’Reilly was doing or where he was when the press was having a field day with the Sarah Palin of the late 1980s, former vice president Dan Quayle, but he sure is putting up a passionate and relentless defense against all who question, criticize or make fun of the governor of Alaska and former Republican candidate for the vice presidency. Quayle was the butt of many jokes and this was well before the age of the Internet as we know it with online blogging and instant news. Was Quayle’s treatment sexist? Or, was the treatment of the former vice president perhaps justified by his performances leading up to the election and during his four-year tenure as vice president? The teaser for tonight’s O’Reilly Factor reads, “PALIN AND THE PRESS: Inside a controversial documentaruy that blasts the media’s treatment of Palin.” Seems as though Bill is getting ready for another show notably lacking in any degree of fairness and balance while he again tries to come to the rescue of Sarah Palin. I guess time will tell if he lives up to his reputation for being unfair and unbalanced while proudly (and ridiculously) claiming to be otherwise.

Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

I Am Not Buying The “Oh, The Athletics Dept. Brings In All Of This So Everything Is OK” Defense

One more thing about this whole press conference flap involving Connecticut coach Jim Calhoun. I found an article on Fan House that had the following excerpt:

While the University of Connecticut is a state-supported university, the athletic department is self-supporting. Much like many major Division I athletic departments. This means, that while Calhoun does have his salary approved by the trustees at UConn, the money does not come from the school or state funds.

Please stop trying to push the myth that athletics are something separate from the university as a whole. It perpetuates negative myths about athletics and about student-athletes being above the university as a whole. Let us, for the sake of discussion, accept the premise of the author’s argument as right on the money (it’s difficult to do, but I will try for the sake of discussion). The author seems to feel that the athletics department is pretty much self sufficient (in other words: not really getting assistance from the rest of the university or the state).

Some things for the author to ponder:

1. The athletics department is probably not paying rent for the use of the state’s facilities for games, practices, coaching offices, etc.

2. The  athletics department is not paying its student-athletes.

3. Who pays for the police, sports information, staff, equipment, electricity, ushers and other forms of security at events?

4. Are attendees at an event parking on state-owned property? And, if so, is the athletics department paying rent for use of this parking area?

5. Is the athletics department paying the licensing fee to use the UConn logo and name?

6. Is the athletics department paying rent for summer camps that make money on state-owned property?

7. If the athletics department is self sufficient and doesn’t use state funds … then does that mean it is not bound by Title IX?

8. If the athletics department is self sufficient and Calhoun’s salary is not paid by the university (the state) then why would the board have to approve his contract?

I mean, I could go on and on. So, to make it seem as though the athletics department is completely self sufficient and essentially getting nothing from the university is ridiculous.

Fan House:
http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2009/02/21/jim-calhoun-gets-irritated-at-questions-over-his-salary/

One Husky To Another: Geno Auriemma Tries To Come To Jim Calhoun’s Rescue In Salary-Gate

Here is an excerpt from the Philadelphia Daily News about some unsolicited assistance Connecticut men’s basketball coach Jim Calhoun is getting from a familiar source in the wake of the press-conference spat heard around the country:

Connecticut women’s basketball coach Geno Auriemma came to the defense of men’s coach Jim Calhoun yesterday, a day after a heated exchange between Calhoun and an activist over the coach’s seven-figure salary.

Auriemma, who recently signed a 5-year, $8 million deal, said he doesn’t think it’s fair to ask someone who has worked as hard as Calhoun whether he deserves the money he makes, especially during a postgame news conference.

“I think it’s unfair in this setting and I would venture to say it’s unfair in any setting,” Auriemma said. “How do you answer questions about money, about your personal life.”

Auriemma pointed out that the coaches’ salaries come mostly from funds the athletic department has raised.

Auriemma is flat out wrong. As basketball coaches you are employees of the state and you are accountable to the citizens of the state. We expect transparency from our state employees and state employees are expected to submit to a high level of transparency in regard to salary. This is not the private sector, Geno. This is not a question about your personal life. No one is expecting you to necessarily expose what you’re doing with the money, but there is an expectation that what you make is going to be on the public record. I do agree with Auriemma, however, in that the setting for the question was unfair, but to say it was unfair in any setting is incorrect. Auriemma asks, “How do you answer questions about money, about your personal life?” Answer: If the questions is about your salary (and you’re a state employee like Calhoun is) you answer it honestly or refer people to the place where they can get the answer (Human Resources). Under the circumstances, I think Calhoun handled the questions better (a lot nicer) than a lot of us would have answered them.

Philadelphia Daily News:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20090223_Auriemma_defends_coaching_salaries.html

Both Men At Fault In Jim Calhoun Press Conference Confrontation

Connecticut men’s basketball coach Jim Calhoun was blindsided by a question about his salary during a press conference following a game. Calhoun was confronted  by a man named Ken Krayeske, who is some kind of freelance journalist and/or photographer.

Here is an excerpt from the AP story:

Connecticut coach Jim Calhoun got into a heated exchange at a postgame news conference Saturday with a freelance journalist and political activist who questioned why the coach of a public university was making $1.6 million in tough economic times.

“Not a dime back,” Calhoun joked as Ken Krayeske asked about Calhoun’s salary and the state’s budget deficit, which is estimated at $944 million for the current fiscal year and up to $8 billion over the next two years.

That was how it started and the fireworks were just getting started. Krayeske continued to press the issue with Calhoun (who I honestly think either thought the guy was joking or that he could diffuse the issue with a little wisecrack back … boy, was he wrong). This guy continued to try and push the buttons of Calhoun, who said, “My best advice to you is, shut up.” As you might expect, Krayeske was not willing to take that little nugget of wisdom from Calhoun, a coach of two NCAA Division I men’s basketball national championship teams of Connecticut.

Calhoun added this:

“Quite frankly, we bring in $12 million to the university, nothing to do with state funds,” Calhoun shouted back. “We make $12 million a year for this university. Get some facts and come back and see me. … Don’t throw out salaries and other things.

“Get some facts and come back and see me. We turn over $12 million to the University of Connecticut, which is state-run. Next question.”

I’ll make a couple of points about this whole uncomfortable exchange between the two men. First, Krayeske was out of line, in my opinion, to blindside Calhoun with this kind of out-of-context question (out of context in the sense that after the game you generally question a coach about issues directly related to the game). If a person at a press conference is to ask a coach about issues like this then he/she should work to schedule a sit-down meeting with the individual or a phone interview. To challenge Calhoun in that kind of forum was wrong. This line of questioning leads me to believe that the questioner was trying to gain noteriety for himself and was merely using Calhoun as a prop of sorts. My second point is Calhoun was out of line for acting as if he is some huge benefactor graciously giving $12 million to the the university every year (I would like to see some documentation of that, but that is a seperate issue). The university pays Calhoun, funds his program to go out and get these student-athletes, to travel all over creation, to have uniforms, to have facilities, to have great salaries and so on and so forth. I don’t blame Calhoun for how he reacted to the questioner (actually, I might not have been so nice … and I was a sports writer for newspapers for 12 years), but he should exercise a little humility in trying to show what the basketball program does for the university. He would be wise also to remember what the university and the people of the state do for the basketball program.

ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3924716

Sports Illustrated:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/basketball/ncaa/02/21/calhoun.salary.ap/index.html

Furor Over Kwame Kilpatrick’s New Job Is Sort Of Puzzling

I keep hearing all of these people spewing hatred toward former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick(recently released from jail after lying in the highly-publicized text messaging sex scandal). I am not going to single out any one column or blog for this particular posting. Frankly, there simply are too many to choose from and they all make the same basic points. People are upset because Detroit-based businessman Peter Karmanos (who has done unbelievable work for the city of Detroit when others abandoned it and moved to the suburbs or out of the state) has hired Kilpatrick and given him a high-paying job. People seem to be additionally upset because the former mayor has a nice house in one of the richest suburbs of Dallas. I guess these same people would be happy if Kilpatrick was working at McDonalds, collecting minimum wage and mopping floors. Of course, these same critics also would be pissed that he isn’t paying back the $1 million he owes Detroit. It’s pretty difficult to pay back $1 million working at McDonalds. If this job helps Kilpatrick pay back the city of Detroit (and all parties can move on to bigger and better things) then I am all for it. It appears (emphasis on: appears) Kilpatrick is working toward paying his debt to the city of Detroit. Hopefully he gets it done and everyone moves on. This bitterness toward Kilpatrick for having a good job is just silly. now, if he is not paying back the city of Detroit then that would be a problem that requires attention.