It's been a rough week and a half for Joe Paterno and the Penn State Football Program. All of this has been brought on by the horrific actions of one man, Jerry Sandusky. We are told that complicating the matter was a cover-up by Paterno and others at Penn State University. Sports talk radio, and many other media outlets, have been quick to toss Paterno to the wolves for his alleged inaction and his roll in the cover-up of the terrible things that happened to innocent children at the hands of their alleged attacker, Sandusky. Notice how I did that? See how this works in today's world? Since there are criminal charges against Sandusky, we say alleged. But Paterno? Not so much. But was this inaction on the part of Paterno or, worse yet, an active cover-up? Let's take a look at what we know so far before we rush to judgement.

Billionaire Warren Buffett recently wrote an op ed for the New York Times in which he complained that he just wasn't being taxed enough. He griped that he and his "mega-rich" friends had been "coddled long enough" and it was time for our Government to get serious about "shared sacrifice". President Obama seized on this opportunity to propose the "Buffett Rule", which would ensure that millionaires are taxed at a higher rate than their non millionaire counterparts. We are supposed to pay no attention to the fact that the average American pays 16% of their income in federal taxes, while the average millionaire pays 20%, which means that this is already happening without the Buffett rule. I suppose that we are also supposed to pay no attention to the fact that Warren Buffett not only has the opportunity to pay more taxes than he already is, but he also has a damn good reason to.

Recently, Paul Krugman was on CNN describing how an alien attack would help our economic recovery. If you have not already seen it, no, this is not a joke. He said it and repeated it, so it was not a slip up either. In the video below, I have a little fun at his expense pointing out how silly of a notion it is, and discussing what it means for the Obama economic efforts if some far out scenario is needed to make his plans work. What I did not address in the video is the intellectual dishonesty contained in Paul Krugman's statement. In 2003, Paul was speaking at Berkley when he said the following. (below video)

It's amazing how much can change in 3 years. In 2008, it was a Senator who told us that it was the policies of a President that were responsible for the shape of the economy. Now that Senator is President, and he is telling us that it is the failure of the Senate to work with him that is shaping our economy. 3 years ago, 7.2% unemployment was the worst economy since the Great Depression. Today, 9% unemployment is a recovery. $8 trillion in debt was unsustainable then. $12 trillion isn't enough now. It has been only 3 short years since the man who is complaining about Congress not working with him told us we should not vote for the other guy because he voted with the President 80% of the time. Yes, a lot has changed in the last 3 years. But do you remember then Senator Obama's reaction to Phil Graham's take on the economy?

As much as it pains me to do this (ok, maybe it doesn't) it is that time of the election cycle once again. It seems that every four years, Ron Paul shows up at a debate and says some things that are so good on domestic issues that some Republicans forget the insanity of his foreign policy and they start getting excited about his candidacy. Perhaps you are one of those people. If not, you may know one. If you are not one and you don't know one, you can usually find one on an internet forum board typing in all caps with horrible spelling. If you recognize any of these traits in yourself, or someone you know, please read this and share it with the others. Ron Paul will never be President of the United States, and his candidacy is a complete non-starter to most Republicans because Ron Paul is a bigot. Now I know, that is strong language. And perhaps you don't want it to be true so badly that you will convince yourself it is not. That is fine too, because you will see here that I can make such a convincing case that it doesn't matter if it is true or not. He can never win.