Would you go nude hot-tubbing with Republican Rep. Kevin Garn of Utah?

First, the strange news from NPR:

Utah’s House majority leader resigned from the Legislature Saturday, two days after acknowledging he paid a woman $150,000 to keep quiet about a nude hot-tubbing incident that took place a quarter century ago when she was a teenager.

Republican Rep. Kevin Garn’s Thursday night confession came in a speech before House colleagues and stunned this conservative state. On Saturday, he apologized in an e-mail to House Speaker David Clark for becoming a distraction.

"After discussing this matter with my family, I have decided that it is in the best interests of them, my colleagues and the people of Utah," he wrote.

Garn, 55, acknowledged the indiscretion with the legal minor immediately after the Legislature adjourned for the session.

"Although we did not have any sexual contact, it was still clearly inappropriate — and it was my fault," he said from the House floor Thursday night.

Lawmakers responded with a standing ovation for his honesty and embraced him, a move some found offensive given the nature of what Garn was saying. In hindsight, the ovation may not have been the best move, but it shouldn’t be misconstrued to indicate support for unethical behavior, Clark said Saturday.

Garn told colleagues he paid the woman, Cheryl Maher, after she began contacting reporters about the incident during his unsuccessful bid for a congressional seat in 2002. Despite a confidentiality agreement, the now 40-year-old Maher began contacting local news media last week to retell her story about being naked with Garn when she was 15, he said Thursday.

It’s unclear whether Garn was 29 or 30 at the time of the incident. He’s more than 14 years older than Maher, who now lives in Derry, N.H.

This happened a quarter century ago. She was legal (at 15???). He was conservative and Republican. They were both nude. There was no sex. (Really???) He paid her $150,000 to keep silent. What could go wrong?

I honestly don’t know Rep. Kevin Garn at all. My favorite from all of this is from Utah Republican Party Chairman Dave Hansen, who says the party will bounce back from this and the January resignation of Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack following his arrest on a charge of driving under the influence.

"I would’ve preferred neither one of them had happened, obviously, but they did," Hansen said of the Garn and Killpack resignations. "But I don’t think in the long run it’s going to have any effect."

That’s a nice attempt to spin bad news, but, somewhere along the line, we all have to surrender our sanctimony, on the left and the right.

Anyhow, enjoy the vintage Eddie Murphy video.

The arrest of a North-Central Pennsylvania man on internet child pornography charges spurred dozens of more arrests from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, state police said.

Half of the 44 men arrested since the investigation began three months ago are from Western Pennsylvania counties or connected to cases on this side of the state.

Two agencies, the Internet Crimes Against Children task force and the State Police Computer Crime Task Force, began investigating after an agent detected Ronald Paul Bellows of Richmond, Tioga County, was online sharing child pornography with other men.

Armed with a search warrant at Mr. Bellows’ residence, state police arrested him on 15 child pornography counts.

More here.

Gov. Pat Quinn on Thursday received a bill that would push Illinois’ primary election back to March.

He’s expected to sign it.

Four years ago, lawmakers moved the state’s primary election in an effort to give then-Sen. Barack Obama an early win in a big state during the 2008 presidential campaign.  But last month’s election saw voter turnout reach an all-time low.

For those of you running in the Consolidated Election next year, once signed, that will put the primary on March 15, 2011, the third Tuesday of March next year.

This also means that if you turn 18 on or before March 15, 2011, you will be able to register to vote before the election.

For the record, if you currently will  be 18 on or before November 2, 2010, in Illinois, you can register to vote NOW.

From Yahoo! News:

In a fitting show of solidarity for International Women’s Day, First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made light of the brutal 2008 battle Clinton conducted to defeat Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. As Michelle Obama launched a State Department commemoration of International Women’s Day, she briefly stumbled over Clinton’s job title. "Let me thank my dear friend, Senator – Secretary Clinton. I almost said, ‘President Clinton,’ " said the first lady to laughter and applause. "But let me thank you for that kind introduction, and most of all thank you for your friendship, thank you for your support, and thank you for your indispensable advice in getting me through this first year and helping me figure out how to get my family settled in our new life in D.C."

The exchange stood as another rebuke to a favored theme of the Beltway pundit set: that tensions between the Obamas and the Secretary of State still run high. More than that, though, the series of events that the first lady presided over drew wider attention to the stubborn lags in gender equality beyond the developed Western world. Both women stressed this issue in their respective speeches. As Secretary Clinton put it, the world "can’t solve problems of financial crisis, climate change, disease and poverty if half of the population is left behind."

It’s so nice to see this pleasant exchange. The pundits on the left and the pundits on the right want to see arguments and fights. Turns out they get along just fine.

Michelle is incredible. And Secretary Clinton is as well.

From GLAAD:

GLAAD has learned from a source that wishes to remain anonymous that sponsors of the Stars on Ice Tour, which include Smuckers and IMG Entertainment, have refused to allow 3-time US National Champion and 2-time Olympian Johnny Weir to participate because they claim that he is “not family friendly.”

To say that Weir is “not family friendly” would be a clear jab at his perceived sexual orientation. Weir is extremely involved with his family. He is putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working. Weir’s dedication to his family can be clearly documented in the Sundance series, Be Good Johnny Weir, which follows him and his family and friends through his life and career as a championship skater.

Catch that again: Weir is “putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working.”

So it goes.

A Mississippi school district cancelled a local high school’s prom on Wednesday after an openly lesbian student asked to bring her girlfriend as a date, The Associated Press reported on Thursday.

In a statement released by the Itawamba County school district, school board members state that “Due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events, the Itawamba County School District has decided to not host a prom at Itawamba Agricultural High School this year.”

The student, Constance McMillen, 18, told Jackson, Miss. newspaper The Clarion Ledger that the cancellation is retaliation for her request to bring her girlfriend to the event.

“I feel like I should be able to go and be myself and not have to worry about what clothes I’m wearing or who I am bringing or who I’m dancing with,” McMillen said.

USA Today reports today that “school officials told McMillen last month that she could not bring her sophomore girlfriend to the prom and also told her she could not wear a tuxedo. The school then circulated a memo that prohibited same-sex dates.”

McMillen then ACLU, and the school district canceled the prom.

So it goes.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Decatur police have issued an Amber Alert after two young boys, one of them a 1-month-old infant, who were abducted this afternoon.

Authorities said that J-Amarcus Upchurch and Terry Antonio Smith were taken by two men in the 1900 block of East Cantrell Street at about 3:30 p.m.

They were last seen in a silver passenger car with the partial Missouri license plate U D G, turning on to a side road off Cantrell Street.

J-Amarcus is described as a 1-month-old African-American boy, wearing a blue one-piece jumpsuit, weighing 8 pounds with black hair and brown eyes.

Terry is a 4-year-old African-American boy about 3-foot-6, 60 pounds with black hair and brown eyes. He was last seen wearing a blue T-shirt and blue jeans.

A 22-year-old man was found shot in the face and unresponsive this morning on Chicago’s South Side.

Jovan Kelly, of the 8600 block of South Paxton Avenue, was pronounced dead this morning, according to a spokeswoman for the Cook County medical examiner’s office.

Police are investigating, according to the Trib.

Any fool can shoot a gun. Put away your guns and talk to each other. That’s a skill worth developing.

Bystanders flagged down a CTA bus for help after a man and a woman were critically shot on the West Side Saturday night.

Both victims, in their mid-20s, were taken from Cermak Road and Rockwell Street to Mount Sinai Hospital in critical condition at about 7:35 p.m. Saturday night, Fire Media Affairs spokesman Quention Curtis said.

The driver of an eastbound #21 Cermak bus called for help to assist a single person who had been shot, and no shots were fired on the bus, said CTA spokesperson Sheila Gregory.

After the bus pulled over, the male victim, who was not a passenger when he was shot, then got onto the bus, said police News Affairs Officer Daniel O’Brien.

Two pools of blood were seen splattered onto the steps inside the entrance area of the bus, which was still parked at the intersection of Cermak Road and Rockwell Street as of 9 p.m. No blood was seen on the seats inside the bus.

A woman also suffered a side graze wound to the chest, said police at the scene of the shooting.

Two pools of human blood, an image no one should have to see in our society.

Any fool can shoot a gun. Put away your guns and talk to each other. That’s a skill worth developing.

Authorities say eight teenage boys were shot while leaving a Gary, Ind., skating rink where they were attending a concert.

Police Cpl. Gabrielle King says "chaos broke loose" when a fight erupted Friday night event at World of Skates. Police say the shooting started in the parking lot.

The victims were taken to three area hospitals, where some remained Saturday. Police say they ranged in age from 14 to 18, with wounds in the legs, wrist, stomach or back. King said injuries weren’t believed to be life-threatening.

Any fool can shoot a gun. Put away your guns and talk to each other. That’s a skill worth developing.

In the latest incident, a 20-year-old woman attending Georgia College & State University in Milledgeville, near Mr. Roethlisberger’s off-season home, is the alleged victim, according to Milledgeville police Deputy Chief Richard Malone.

"We had a sexual assault report," Deputy Chief Malone said during a news conference Friday night. "It is alleged that he was the perpetrator."

Mr. Roethlisberger and his legal team have emphatically denied the accusations in the Nevada case but have not come out as strongly in the latest incident.

Late Friday afternoon, the quarterback’s agent, Ryan Tollner, issued a statement:

"Last night, Ben and his friends met a group of women and everyone mingled together throughout the evening. We have spoken to law enforcement.

"Based on information currently available, an allegation was made against Ben, which appeared to be dismissed after a preliminary investigation last night.

"Obviously, given the prior accusation against Ben, we are skeptical of motive, but we will continue to cooperate with everyone involved."

Here’s the strange part:

The incident report indicates that the victim was with two female friends, ages 19 and 20. Mr. Roethlisberger’s name is obscured, but the "offender" is listed as 6-feet-5 and 241 pounds with brown hair and eyes.

241 pounds? Why not 240 pounds? Why not "between 240 and 250 pounds?" Why is "241" the magic number?

Could it have something to do with the official NFL profile of Big Ben? From NFL.com:

Ben Roethlisberger | #7 | QB
Pittsburgh Steelers | Official Team Site

Height: 6-5   Weight: 241   Age: 28
Born: 3/2/1982 Lima , OH
College: Miami (Ohio)
Experience: 7th season
High School: Findlay HS [OH]

Nailing Ben’s weight exactly is quite the coincidence.

Quite.

These men are smiling because they are now filthy rich.

Money talks.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

The Bears officially announced the signing of defensive end Julius Peppers to a six-year contract, running back Chester Taylor to a four-year contract and tight end Brandon Manumaleuna (Ma-nu-ma-li’u-na) to a five-year contract during a press conference at Halas Hall on Friday.

Taylor has agreed to terms on a four-year contract worth $12.5 million, and Peppers is expected to get approximately $12 million per year with the first three years guaranteed.

Taylor will be guaranteed $7 million, according to a source.

Money talks.

Did I say that already?

Go Bears.

The Chicago F.B.I. has confirmed a report that the First Midwest Bank, 2 Main Street, Park Forest, was robbed this morning.

According to Special Agent Julia Meredith of the Chicago F.B.I., at approximately 11:40 a.m. Friday morning, two female employees were servicing the ATM on the north side of the building when they were approached by a black male, approximately 6-feet tall.

According to the F.B.I., the man said he was armed and demanded money, which the employees gave him. The man then fled on foot. The man did not show a weapon, according to Agent Meredith.

The F.B.I. is taking the lead on this one. Acutally, the F.B.I. takes the lead on all bank robberies, since banks are federally insured.

More, and a picture of the bank here.

Washington, D.C.–March 3, 2010 – 1:50 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, all of you, for joining us today. And I want to thank Julie, Barbara, Roland, Stephen, Renee, and Christopher, standing behind me — physicians, physicians assistants, and nurses who understand how important it is for us to make much needed changes in our health care system.

I want to thank all of you who are here today. I want to specially recognize two people who have been working tirelessly on that — on this effort, my Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius — (applause) — as well as our quarterback for health reform out of the White House, Nancy-Ann DeParle. (Applause.)

We began our push to reform health insurance last March, in this room, with doctors and nurses who know the system best. And so it’s fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close.

Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and very substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. And since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made.

Everything there is to say about health care has been said — (laughter) — and just about everybody has said it. (Laughter.) So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and America’s businesses.

Now, where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can’t afford it. Businesses can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don’t get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; who can pay and who can’t. That’s the status quo. That’s the system we have right now.

Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a serious problem for America. And we agree that if we do nothing -– if we throw up our hands and walk away -– it’s a problem that will only grow worse. Nobody disputes that. More Americans will lose their family’s health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. More small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. More insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or they’ll drop people’s coverage when they get sick and need it most. And the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. On all of this we agree.

So the question is, what do we do about it?

On one end of the spectrum, there are some who’ve suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. And though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry — whether it’s state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I’m concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

So I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients. (Applause.)

Now, the proposal I put forward gives Americans more control over their health insurance and their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I can tell you as the father of two young girls, I would not want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a preexisting condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California — up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market. Those practices would end.

Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves — because if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. (Applause.)

The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance market where insurance companies give better coverage and better rates, because they get more customers. It’s an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past, before politics intruded.

And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it’s going to provide better deals for people than they can get right now in the individual marketplace, then we’ll offer you tax credits to do so — tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. So it’s the middle class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.

Now, it is absolutely true that all of this will cost some money — about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care — but a lot of it is not spent wisely. A lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. So within this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go towards making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies; set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain a lot of money and a lot of profits as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance; and we’re going to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share on Medicare.

The bottom line is our proposal is paid for. And all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small businesses and middle-class families who can’t afford health insurance. It would also lower prescription drug prices for seniors. And it would help train new doctors and nurses and physician assistants to provide care for American families.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions — families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care — ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades — brings down our deficit. Those aren’t my numbers; those are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress in terms of how much stuff costs. (Laughter.)

So that’s our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans — including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform, and curbing waste and fraud and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform — provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.

Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we’ve incorporated, many — probably most — Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I’ve put forward.

Now, some also believe that we should, instead of doing what I’m proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say we just can’t afford to help them right now — which is why the Republican proposal only covers 3 million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million.

The problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can’t prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; you can’t limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets. The insurance reforms rest on everybody having access to coverage.

And you also don’t do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they’re forced to go to the emergency room for care, to the tune of about a thousand bucks per family. You can’t get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. So the fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once.

Now, both during and after last week’s summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I don’t see how another year of negotiations would help.

Moreover, the insurance companies aren’t starting over. They’re continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade, or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can’t wait that long. So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. (Applause.)

We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for the past year but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children’s Health Insurance Program, that was used for COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts — all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.

I, therefore, ask leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. (Applause.) And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well — every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician’s assistant. Make your voice heard.

This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that’s because health care is a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. And as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

But that’s not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead. That’s not an excuse for us to walk away. We can’t just give up because the politics are hard. I know there’s been a fascination, bordering on obsession, in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. How will this play? What will happen with the polls? I will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that’s not what this is about. That’s not why we’re here.

This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. This is about what reform would mean for middle-class families who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives and get a regular checkup once in a while, and have some security about their children if they get sick.

This is about what reform would mean for all those men and women I’ve met over the last few years who’ve been brave enough to share their stories. When we started our push for reform last year, I talked to a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka. She has two young children. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband were working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt. And now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well.

This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn’t have to. (Applause.)

In the end, that’s what this debate is about. It’s about what kind of country we want to be. It’s about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.

So at stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. (Applause.)

And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.

Thank you very much, everybody. Let’s get it done. (Applause.)

END
2:09 P.M. EST

Source: whitehouse.gov

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias sought to blunt a potentially damaging political issue today about questions regarding his involvement in his family’s struggling bank, which he said he expects will likely fail in the coming months.

But questions were still left unanswered following a more than 70-minute meeting with the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board. Among them were exactly what Giannoulias knew about convicted bookmaker Michael Giorango’s criminal past when he received loans from Broadway Bank, and how many of the bank’s troubled loans were made while Giannoulias was working there.

Giannoulias also sought to explain nearly $70 million the bank paid out in dividends to him and his family in recent years, saying $29 million of that was taken out of the bank to diversify the family’s investments.

Giannoulias said he didn’t see the bank’s financial situation getting better as the election progresses.

“It’s quite likely that the bank will fail,” he said. “I hope I’m wrong. I hope they can raise the capital to keep the bank going and they’re fighting hard to do so but it’s tough out there for a lot of banks of which Broadway Bank is not immune to these same challenges.”

Listen to the audio, courtesy of WGN radio, by clicking here.

Another bank failure wouldn’t be good for anyone at this point. In the context of a political campaign, I’m not sure I can trust the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board to be objective in their interpretation. Thanks to WGN for the audio link.

Comments?