The Case For Denying Rick Santorum The White House

Hendrik Hertzberg does a nice job, without making an effort to do so, of making the case why Rick Santorum must always just be an asterik in the 2012 election cycle.

“…he calls global warming “junk science”; he wants to keep American troops in Afghanistan until they achieve “victory”; he believes that the West Bank is “Israeli land,” as Israeli as Arizona is American; he blames the rape of children by priests on “academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America.” That last item points to what makes Santorum almost certainly unnominatable (and Romney almost certainly inevitable). In his 2005 book “It Takes a Family,” Santorum writes, “Some people ask me, ‘Why are conservatives so obsessed with sex?’ ” His answer—don’t get him started!—seems to be that sex is dangerous unless closely supervised by the state under strict faith-based guidelines. Needless to say, abortion is totally out, even for women and girls impregnated by rape or incest. As for contraception, Santorum said, in October, “It’s not O.K. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”—and state governments should be free to outlaw it, along with “sodomy,” gay and straight. Last Thursday, in New Hampshire, when asked why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, he replied, “Well, what about three men? . . . Reason says that if you think it’s O.K. for two, then you have to differentiate with me as to why it’s not O.K. for three.” He got booed; it was a college audience. But Santorum may be a bit too much of a sex cop even for many evangelicals, especially younger ones, and even for some of his fellow ultra-conservative Catholics. Say this for him, though: on these issues, the man is nothing if not dogged.

Barry Alvarez Needs To Release Information On John Chadima

I am a believer that a forthcoming attitude and openness is the best remedy for  controversy and intrigue.  Though I am not a reporter, I do share and support the views of journalists who know that sunshine is the best remedy for darkness.  In addition, I have a strong belief that taxpayers have a right to know what is being done with their money.

For the past week there has been little but darkness and secrecy coming from the University of Wisconsin-Madison regarding the most peculiar case involving John Chadima, the senior associate athletic director.  Following what can only be viewed as a most serious situation John Chadima was placed on administrative leave late last week, and then in hours resigned his position.

The UW created an independent inquiry to ferret out the Chadima story which apparently came to light at the recent Rose Bowl.  But there is legitimate concern, as voiced by State Representative Nass, about the  nature of that inquiry, and its credibility. 

I rarely find myself aligned with Nass but feel his reasoning to be sound when it comes to this matter.  Representative Nass is correct in his desire to see that the inquiry panel does not consist of members with “strings or attachments” to the UW.  Such an unbalanced panel will only undermine the long-term interests of the UW.

If there is any place at the UW that deserves the brightest of lights placed, and the most examination given, it would be the UW Athletic Department.  To often it has not been examined to the degree it should since the famed plays which arouse the general public gets the attention, while the workings of the actual department gets a pass. 

That attitude must change. 

Now is not the time to be protecting the department, or creating an image of ‘circling the wagons”, which is how this inquiry appears to many who pay the bills for the UW.  Instead this is the time the public needs to become engaged in the department itself, and hold powerful people accountable.

For that to happen the UW must opt for openness and candor.

Barry Alvarez needs to squeeze himself into a suit and tie and place himself in front of the press to honestly address some of the basic questions that are at the root of the Chadima matter.  He must address the general nature of the controversy and lay open the problems inside his domain.

Tim Tebow Might Need To Say This Come Next Game

From The New Yorker