Name-calling in New Hampshire

[Lucky]

The words weren't said in the confines of a clubby male locker room, nor were they embodied in a thread on a message board appealing to gay men who hire escorts. Rather, they were said in a very public forum, and involved the head of New Hampshire's Republican legislature and a very important Catholic bishop:

A top Republican in New Hampshire on Friday called Bishop John B. McCormack of Manchester a “pedophile pimp” on his Facebook page.

The Republican, State Representative D. J. Bettencourt, the House majority leader, was responding to criticism from Bishop McCormack that state budget cuts would hurt the most vulnerable members of society.

“Would the bishop like to discuss his history of protecting the ‘vulnerable?’ ” Mr. Bettencourt, a practicing Roman Catholic, wrote. “This man is a pedophile pimp who should have been led away from the State House in handcuffs with a raincoat over his head in disgrace. He has absolutely no moral credibility to lecture anyone.”

More of the story at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/us/02bishop.html?_r=1&ref=politics

[Guest CharliePS]

The words weren't said in the confines of a clubby male locker room, nor were they embodied in a thread on a message board appealing to gay men who hire escorts. Rather, they were said in a very public forum, and involved the head of New Hampshire's Republican legislature and a very important Catholic bishop:

A top Republican in New Hampshire on Friday called Bishop John B. McCormack of Manchester a pedophile pimp on his Facebook page.

The Republican, State Representative D. J. Bettencourt, the House majority leader, was responding to criticism from Bishop McCormack that state budget cuts would hurt the most vulnerable members of society.

Would the bishop like to discuss his history of protecting the vulnerable? Mr. Bettencourt, a practicing Roman Catholic, wrote. This man is a pedophile pimp who should have been led away from the State House in handcuffs with a raincoat over his head in disgrace. He has absolutely no moral credibility to lecture anyone.

More of the story at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/us/02bishop.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Technically, I suppose it is libel (the normal definition of "pimp" doesn't fit what the bishop was accused of), but I'm not the lawyer here. It was a comment about a specific individual, not a group, so I don't see its relevance to the brouhaha in the other thread. I'm surprised he was foolhardy enough to make such a comment in a state with a very large number of Catholic voters, but no one ever said Republican politicians were smart (see: I can make snide remarks about groups, too!).

[TampaYankee]

Just one more example that the GOP is really the party of Newt Gingrich. GOP office holders everywhere are overplaying their hands much as Newt did in the govt shutdown of 95 accentuated with his personal life pecadillos which eventually drove him from office. The NH politican could have chosen a more effective, less inciteful way to attempt to rebuff the charge.

Look at the governors of Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Maine, and Florida for starters. They have activated the liberal base while alienating their traditional support from police and firefighters. Scott/Florida has even alienated his GOP in multiple ways and proclaimed an executive order that all state employees be subjected to mandatory quaterly drug screening at state expense. Incidentally, he transferred ownership of a drug testing company to his wife for conflict of interest reasons instead of selling it off.

The bad press doesnt stop whether it is Scott/MN and his GOP legislature steam rolling laws through the legislature while violating state law and a court order suspending enactment of the law until the legality of the legislative process is reviewed. Or how about the MI governor and GOP controlled legislature enacting the power of the Governor to dissolve towns/cities at his whim if he deems them to be in financial jeopardy. (Marshal law anyone?) The Maine Governor wants to roll back child labor laws to increase the number of hours worked and permit work to 11 PM on school nights and to reduce under 18 minimum wage by $2 /hour, all of which will throw more adult workers out of work as cheaper child labor will be able to compete with adult workers. Bad for school kids and bad for adult workers.

Let's not forget the congress cranks and quacks from Minnesota (Bachmann), Iowa(Steve King), North Carolina(Virginia Fox), Georgia (Broun), Texas(Gomert)... the list is very very long here. The utterances and beliefs of these wackos is beyond rational belief and logic. I could spend a good portion of my remaing life recounting their ceaseless stunts and idiocies. Nevertheless, they find an audience. How depressing!!

Add to that the latest GOP clown circus held Friday as the GOP goes for payback against the AARP for supporting health care reform. Held by the oversight and health subcommittees of the House Committee on Ways and Means, watching the production showed it clearly to be a witch hunt in the same vein as Peter King's (R/NY) investigation of Muslims in Ameica, and will end up just as big an embarassment. The Chairman of the oversight committee, Wally Herger (R-Ca), proved embarassment through his imcompetence as the Grand Inquisitor, unable to explain the source and funding for a mysterious 'investigative report' on the AARP prepard 'ostensibly' by himself and another congressman. The exercise was not only shameful politics but transparently so. Too bad, because some questions raised are worth nonpartisan investigation, say by the GAO.

Even all of the above just scratches the surface. Yeah, I know the other side does it too. But are they as effective at shooting themsleves in the foot when they do it?

The new Congress has been one big joke, led by the GOP controlled house. From opening with a reading of the Constitution, well the parts they liked and didn't forget, to passing the ‘Government Shutdown Prevention Act’ last week. The bill formally criticizing the Senate for failing to pass a spending bill, and stipulates that if the Senate does not pass a long-term resolution by April 6, the measure passed by the House in February, H.R. 1, and it’s $61 billion in spending cuts, would be law. Not just Democrats but even some Republicans complained that the bill was unconstitutional.

Fortunately the GOP House has decided to take three weeks out of every month off or it would be worse. The GOP promised jobs in the election campaign. All we have gotten is spotty reading of the Constitution, abortion legislation along with a bogus budget ballet that is a platform for codifying the GOP social ideological agenda into law.

I have no doubt that these crazies are solidifying support among the far right. They will definitely have 20% of the electorate tied down. As for independents and moderate Republicans, I think they may be taking on water. They still have about a year to show that they can govern in compromise with the Democrat Senate. I doubt they have the will to do it. If they do it will tear asunder the GOP for the next primary season. There could be worse things.

It is possible that none if this matters eventually as Citizens United may play a more significant role in the next election than the measured GOP performance against rhetoric.

[Guest BeachBoy]

(Marshal law anyone?)

I feel like a dumbass asking this, but did you mean martial law? Am I having a brain fart?

[Guest epigonos]

Don’t be too certain about how all of this is going to play out. Public employees are under the microscope right now and many workers in the private sector aren’t too happy with what they are seeing. I taught high school in California for 36 years and I have friends who are absolutely scandalized about the amount of my pension. The public is beginning to wonder why police officers and fire fighters are allowed to take early stress retirement with full pension rights after only twenty five or thirty years of service regardless of age. An interesting aside being made public is that, in any given year, more public school teachers in California are assaulted than either police officers or fire fighters. There have been numerous articles in local papers enumerating the large number of former city, county, and state public employees receiving pensions in excess of $100,000 a year. There was a time when school teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and nurses were sacred cows. Those days are long gone or are fast disappearing.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, in many ways D.J. Bettencourt wasn’t wrong in what he said. In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles the recently retired Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahony settled with the plaintiffs and paid out tens of millions of dollars just before he was to be called to testify in court regarding his shielding of pedophile priests. Archbishop Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston was forced to resign after he was show to have sheltered pedophile priests for years. He now lives a very comfortable life in Rome and is a highly respected member of the Vatican hierarchy. Many Catholics all over the country would chuckle reading what Bettencourt said. I have heard many Catholic friends say the exact same thing

[Lucky]

I am not sure what you are saying here, Epigonos. I assume that your friends are shocked at how high your pension is after 36 years? My experience is that most government workers have average pensions. It is the police and firefighters who have managed the most sweetheart deals, getting to retire after only 20 years of service and usually keeping full benefits. Teachers, as far as I know, have never received any sweetheart pension deals. If you did, well, keep it. But I think those railing against public pensions are throwing the baby in with the bathwater.

[Guest epigonos]

During the fat 90's California teacher pensions where greatly enhanced. Up until that time the most a teacher could expect to receive on retirement at age 62 with 30 or more years teaching was 60% of the average of their highest three consecutive year’s earnings. At that time the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) was rolling in money. On the recommendation of Governor Davis the State Legislature expanded teacher retirement benefits. Maximum retirement benefits were achieved at age 61½ with thirty or more years of service. A teacher now receives 2.4% of their highest single years earning for every year taught. Most teachers receive ten day of sick leave each year which can be accumulated and used as additional time at retirement. Thus at retirement I had 36 years teaching plus1½ of accumulated sick leave. 37½ X 2.4 = 90% of my final (highest year earnings). During all my teaching years I contributed 8% of my salary toward retirement and 2% toward union dues. When I retired retirement contribution and union dues ceased. Because there was so much money in the state retirement fund it was decided that anyone who had taught 30 years would receive an EXTRA $200 a month, anyone who had taught 31 years an EXTRA $300 and anyone who had taught 32 or more years an EXTRA $400 FOR LIFE. Now what this all means in my case is that even though the teachers received a salary increase in the fall after I retired my take home pay was $50 a month more than it would have been had I continued to teach.

P.S. I hope this all makes sense

[MsGuy]

P.S. I hope this all makes sense

Are you being clear in your exposition of the the problem?

Yes.

Does awarding retiring teachers full pay pensions w/o making any provision for paying them make sense?

No.

(and the unspoken question) Will the rest of the country bail out Cali so you can indulge yourselves in even more of this foolishness?

NEVER!

----

Epigonos, the Miss. State Teachers Retirement Fund (fully funded, thank you very much) had the same 'problem' of excess assets back in the late '80s. The first thing they did was fight off a raid by the legislature and establish the money was theirs and not the state's. Later the teachers trustees set up a "13th payday". The Board annually determines a prudent sum to award retirees from the excess income of the Fund. Thanks to careful management of the assets this bonus payment has been roughly an extra month's pay for nearly 2 decades. The last couple of years the bonus payment has been about half that. And the Fund (and that of the State Employees) is still fully funded.

[Guest CharliePS]

What many people don't realize is that teachers who get public pensions cannot collect Social Security, unlike workers in the private sector who can get SS in addition to their pensions.

What really pisses off many of us are the police and firefighters who can retire at 50 with a pension because they supposedly can no longer handle the physical requirements of the job, then take other jobs with similar physical requirements, or those who retire early with a supposed disability, then quietly take another job claiming they have no disability, like the recently exposed police chief in Bell, CA.

I taught in a public college with no pensions. Instead, according to our contract, I had to be vested in a TIAA retirement plan and contribute a certain portion of my salary, and the college would do the same. Once I retired, the school/state had no further financial responsibility for me, and it was up to me to manage my retirement assets. I don't understand why more states haven't used that model for public employees.

[Guest epigonos]

An interesting aside regarding the California State Teachers Retirement System is that it was a one time a totally separate fund NOT available for use by the state government. Then during Ronald Reagan's term as governor the state found itself in need of money and Reagan decided to raid the Teacher Retirement Fund. A state wide vote was proposed by Reagan with the stipulation that any future shortfall in the system would be made up out of the State’s general fund. Teacher vehemently opposed the proposition preferring NOT to have their pension fund in any way dependent on the state general fund. Reagan campaigned strongly for passage and it passed. Teachers were furious. Now the state finds itself in a position where it is indeed finding it necessary to supplement to fund.

[TampaYankee]

I feel like a dumbass asking this, but did you mean martial law? Am I having a brain fart?

It was late and btw, the Marshall is out of town.

[MsGuy]

during Ronald Reagan's term as governor the state found itself in need of money and Reagan decided to raid the Teacher Retirement Fund.

This is pretty much what was attempted in my state, Epigonos. Here the teachers and state employees went ballistic & were able to fend off the pols and retain control of their retirement money.

Maybe it helped that red state folks just don't trust politicians with their money.

[BiBottomBoy]

Back to the original point of this thread - are we supposed to be shocked that someone called a Bishop a "pedophile pimp?"

The fact is that for decades the Church knew about priests fucking young boys and instead of going to the police or providing some sort of support for the young boys, just moved the priests around.

In general their strategy was to move the priests to poor areas where the children would be less likely to complain (and where they would be easier to manipulate with offers of free food, candy and other small bribes.)

When your church's policy is to put grown men in positions where they can use money, power and authority to get blow jobs from nine year olds, I'm not sure "pedophile pimp" is all that out of line.

[TampaYankee]

Back to the original point of this thread - are we supposed to be shocked that someone called a Bishop a "pedophile pimp?"

The fact is that for decades the Church knew about priests fucking young boys and instead of going to the police or providing some sort of support for the young boys, just moved the priests around.

Pardon me but I don't think this is the point of the thread either. I think the point of the thread is this: Is it appropriate for a politician to respond to voiced concerns about the effects of budget reduction choices on the ill, the poor, and children with an ad hominem attack?

One of our principles about posting at MER is: discuss the topic not the poster. I think it should also apply to our community political discussions as well.

This Bishop may well be at fault about previous pedophilia issues. That does not and should not be presumed to be a legitimate response to the present issue at hand. The politican should be taken to task.

If the Bishop has something to be called on then it should be pursued in the proper forum. Certainly both issues are important enough to recieve attention on their own and not get wrapped around each other when they have nothing to do with each other.

[Guest BeachBoy]

Pardon me but I don't think this is the point of the thread either. I think the point of the thread is this: Is it appropriate for a politician to respond to voiced concerns about the effects of budget reduction choices on the ill, the poor, and children with an ad hominem attack?

One of our principles about posting at MER is: discuss the topic not the poster. I think it should also apply to our community political discussions as well.

This Bishop may well be at fault about previous pedophilia issues. That does not and should not be presumed to be a legitimate response to the present issue at hand. The politican should be taken to task.

If the Bishop has something to be called on then it should be pursued in the proper forum. Certainly both issues are important enough to recieve attention on their own and not get wrapped around each other when they have nothing to do with each other.

I totally agree. If I had an idea that was disagreeable or even abhorrent to someone, I'd want them to discuss that idea - not talk about the fact that I'm gay. (Yes, even if the idea was about a gay or perceived-gay issue.)