I'm proud to represent an area of Long Island that has been the location for many famous movies and TV shows, including Citizen Kane, Annie Hall, and the hit television series, Boardwalk Empire. It's even the setting for The Great Gatsby. Shamefully, it's also now the location for a show whose characters are disgraceful, misleading, and fuel anti-Semitic stereotypes: Princesses: Long Island.

Full disclosure: I kind of enjoy reality TV. Storage Wars and Pawn Stars are among my guilty pleasures. So the idea of watching a reality show taking place in my own backyard wasn't so far-fetched. I knew little about the show before sitting down to watch the season premiere.

Much to my dismay, the characters on the show spewed gross generalizations about the living and dating habits of unmarried Jewish women. And the stereotyping didn't stop there. In the latest episode, the characters get together for a Shabbat dinner, an important tradition in the Jewish faith and culture. As a Jew, I can say with confidence that this dinner was exactly the opposite of what the sacred Sabbath dinner is supposed to be. But for those watching unfamiliar with the holy meaning of the Jewish Sabbath, it is shown in the worst way possible, with excessive drinking and fighting.

The characters do not shy away from any Jewish stereotypes and portray both Jews and Long Islanders in the most unflattering light possible. Yes, I know this is reality TV, but it's still unacceptable.

Jews have spent thousands of years trying to dispel stereotypes. We've been repeatedly prosecuted by groups that hate based on falsities and gross generalizations. I've worked my whole life to combat this type of hatred. And I'm the product of grandparents who came to this country to escape the Pogroms of Russia and the hatred they faced simply because of their religion.

Therefore, I will not silently tolerate a show that paints Jewish women on Long Island with all-too-familiar and painful stereotypes -- money-hungry, superficial, Jewish-American Princesses. The characters on the show are welcome to live their lives however they may choose, but I don't want viewers of the show to think that they are, in any way, representative of Jews of Long Islanders.

I, for one, will not be spending my Sunday night watching Princesses: Long Island. Viewers should know that the show portrays the lives of the characters and is in no way representative of a religion, culture or geographic area. I hope that others will join me in deciding that this show is not the type of TV we should be supporting.

The first phase of jury selection in the trial of George Zimmerman concluded Tuesday with 40 prospective jurors cleared for further questioning in the high-profile second-degree murder trial.

Among the 40 jurors who have made it this far, 24 are women and 16 are men. Twenty-seven are white, seven are African-American, three are mixed race and three are Hispanic. The pool skews toward middle-aged candidates.

Zimmerman, 29, stands charged in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin as the teen was walking back to the home of his father's fiancee from a Sanford, Fla., convenience store on Feb. 26, 2012.

CLICK HERE FOR LIVE UPDATES

Defense attorneys argue that Zimmerman, then 28, while serving as a neighborhood watch volunteer, was attacked by Martin, and acted in self-defense when he shot the teen. Prosecutors have deemed Martin's death an instance of second-degree murder.

All 40 of the prospective jurors have admitted to some knowledge of the case. Ultimately, attorneys for both sides want to ensure that each member of the jury panel can be fair and impartial.

CLICK HERE FOR THE CASE TIMELINE

When the final stage of jury selection begins today, the defense and prosecution will be able to strike 10 members of the pool without cause.

Six impartial jurors and four alternates are needed for the trial to move forward. In Florida, 12 jurors are required only for criminal trials that could result in the death penalty. Zimmerman faces life in prison if found guilty.

The trial is scheduled to resume at 9 a.m. EST.

Read below for minute-by-minute updates from court Wednesday:

The Huffington Post is live blogging Wednesday's testimony. Check back here for updates.

By JULIE PACE, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BERLIN -- President Barack Obama will renew his call Wednesday to reduce the world's nuclear stockpiles, including a proposed one-third reduction in U.S. and Russian arsenals, the White House said.

Obama will make his case during a speech at Berlin's iconic Brandenburg Gate. His address comes nearly 50 years after John F. Kennedy's famous Cold War speech in this once-divided city.

The president has previously called for reductions to the stockpiles and is not expected to outline a timeline for this renewed push. But by addressing the issue in a major foreign policy speech, Obama is signaling a desire to rekindle an issue that was a centerpiece of his early first-term national security agenda.

The president discussed non-proliferation with Russian President Vladimir Putin when they met Monday on the sidelines of the Group of 8 summit in Northern Ireland. During Obama's first term, the U.S. and Russia agreed to limit their stockpiles to 1,550 as part of the New START Treaty.

It's unclear whether Obama will seek further reductions through a new treaty or a non-binding agreement that would not require congressional ratification. Republicans on Capitol Hill are likely to resist any further cuts to the U.S. stockpiles.

The Arms Control Association, a Washington-based policy group, urged Obama not to wait for a formal treaty, arguing the U.S. and Russian leaders could move more quickly by taking parallel steps to reduce warheads.

"Today's address is a good start but it is only a beginning," said Daryl Kimball, the group's executive director. "In the months ahead, President Obama must sustain the nuclear risk reduction enterprise and overcome petty partisan politics to help address today's grave nuclear challenges."

Obama's calls for cooperation with Moscow come at a time of tension between the U.S. and Russia, which are supporting opposite sides in Syria's civil war. Russia also remains wary of U.S. missile defense plans in Europe, despite U.S. assurances that the shield is not aimed at Moscow.

Also in Wednesday's speech in Berlin, Obama will press Congress to pass a nuclear test ban treaty, the White House said, seeking to revive an effort that has stalled in recent years.

Germany's foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, is a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament and has long called for the removal of the last U.S. nuclear weapons from German territory, a legacy of the Cold War. The Buechel Air Base in western Germany is one of a few remaining sites in Europe where they are based.

Under an agreement drawn up when they formed a coalition government in 2009, Merkel's conservatives and Westerwelle's Free Democratic Party agreed to press NATO and Washington for the nuclear weapons to be withdrawn, but did not set any timeframe.

Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most nations that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.

___

Associated Press writer Frank Jordans contributed to this report.

The government-appointed monitor overseeing mortgage practices as part of last year’s robo-signing settlement between five big U.S. banks and dozens of government agencies found few violations after grading the banks’ compliance with ambitious new standards, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

The finding of just three audited failures by Joseph Smith, the government-appointed watchdog heading the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight, may prompt criticism by borrower advocates, consumer attorneys, and members of Congress after numerous reports by state attorneys general and housing advocates of pervasive noncompliance with the new mortgage servicing rules the banks agreed to implement as part of the 2012 settlement.

Smith plans to point out five additional unaudited violations that were self-reported by the banks, according to people who have reviewed a report he plans to release on Wednesday. His office has yet to double-check the findings.

The deal, struck in February 2012, was supposed to reform how Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC) treat troubled borrowers who fall behind on their monthly payments, in part to ensure that practices such as robo-signing don't recur.

Over the last few years, consumer advocates and government officials have repeatedly complained of banks losing borrowers’ documents and forcing them to wait months for basic decisions on applications for loan modifications.

Regulators, including Sarah Bloom Raskin and Daniel Tarullo of the Federal Reserve, also have bemoaned the sad state of mortgage servicing, which generally gives banks incentives to provide the least amount of service due to the fixed compensation they receive regardless of whether borrowers make payments on time or fall behind.

The settlement for the first time legally requires the five banks to meet a variety of timelines when dealing with borrowers. In return for fixing their business practices and providing tens of billions of dollars in aid to distressed homeowners, the agreement largely absolved the banks from civil liability for allegedly abusing borrowers and wrongly seizing homes using shoddy documents.

Government officials have publicly celebrated the amount of reported mortgage aid provided to borrowers in distress, which the banks claim exceeds $50 billion through a combination of refinancings, debt forgiveness, loan modifications and other measures.

But in recent weeks, state prosecutors from Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Florida have either publicly criticized the banks for failing to adhere to the settlement’s servicing standards or have sent letters to Smith and the banks’ attorneys noting numerous violations. Eric Schneiderman, New York attorney general, threatened to sue BofA and Wells.

Strict timelines are being ignored, homeowners are confronting banks’ ill-prepared mortgage specialists, and written letters from the banks often have misleading or confusing information, state officials have said.

At-risk homeowners seeking to ease the terms of their loans continue to be given the runaround by the nation’s largest banks, according to regulators from several states.

“The new servicing standards were supposed to eliminate headaches for homeowners,” Lisa Madigan, Illinois attorney general, said last month. “But unfortunately, it seems we’re hearing about the same frustrating experiences.”

Smith was supposed to grade each of the five banks on 29 key standards from the settlement as pass or fail, for a total of 145 audited grades. Instead, due in part to the time it took the banks to implement the new measures, the banks received less than half of that total, or 69 combined grades, court records show.

Smith found just three potential violations based on a statistical sample of loan files, one each at Wells, JPMorgan and Citi. The banks achieved passing grades on the remaining 66 measures, for a pass rate of 96 percent.

Citi failed to timely notify borrowers who applied for loan modifications if they had deficient documents or records, according to Smith’s report. Auditors found an error rate exceeding 53 percent when 5 percent is passable. The report noted that noncompliance on this measure was “widespread.”

JPMorgan failed to quickly refund premiums to borrowers when their force-placed insurance contracts were canceled. Wells also failed to observe the settlement’s requirement that it promptly alert loan modification applications of deficient documents.

Citi was ordered to nearly double to 225 the number of staff it employs to review documents. The bank told Smith it fixed the problem. A bank spokesman said it became aware of “certain process flaws” last year and soon began to fix them.

A Wells spokesman said it missed its requirement “by a small margin” and that it “promptly initiated an action plan to improve our response to borrowers on their loan modification applications.” The bank’s internal reviews show it is now meeting that requirement, the spokesman added.

A JPMorgan spokeswoman said the bank met all requirements of the settlement. She added that the bank “quickly fixed” the potential violation cited by Smith in his report -- something Smith’s report also acknowledges.

Smith’s report to be issued Wednesday found another five or so violations, two each at BofA and Citi and an additional flaw at JPMorgan, according to people who reviewed the report. However, because those findings have not been audited, they’re not yet official and thus do not trigger special mechanisms that could lead to court-ordered fines.

Mark Rodgers, Citi spokesman, said: “We are currently working to implement corrective actions as soon as possible under the direction of the monitor.”

A spokesman for BofA did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Smith declined to comment.

The apparently glowing reviews the banks received in court filings clash with public statements and letters sent by state legal officers. Smith’s court filings also differ from reports by borrowers advocates in states, including New York and California, who found that the banks were failing to meet the settlement’s standards.

The California Reinvestment Coalition, a borrower advocacy group, said in April that its survey of housing counselors found widespread violations of the settlement. Housing counselors reported that banks were failing to honor the timelines spelled out in the settlement, were improperly denying loan modifications to borrowers, and were pursuing property repossessions while homeowners were awaiting answers on their loan modification applications, a practice known as “dual tracking.”

The survey prompted Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to write federal officials including Eric Holder, attorney general, and Shaun Donovan, housing secretary, and urge them to investigate and to “hold the banks accountable by taking strong enforcement actions.”

Last month, Josh Zinner, co-director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project in New York, said: “The banks are systematically violating the terms of the National Mortgage Settlement.”

Zinner’s organization submitted potential evidence of noncompliance to Schneiderman’s office, helping to prompt the lawsuit threat.

Martha Coakley, Massachusetts attorney general, told Smith in a letter last month that BofA’s process for reviewing borrowers’ applications for aid “has been riddled with inefficiencies and systemic problems.”

She added that BofA’s workers were “often undertrained and overworked,” though she noted that the bank had shown “great improvement.”

Coakley also singled out BofA for failing to promptly convert trial modification plans into permanently modified loans, and for misapplying payments made by borrowers.

BofA in particular is under intense scrutiny as the bank faces a lawsuit from aggrieved borrowers in federal court that includes sworn statements by former employees, who allege the bank rewarded workers with bonuses and gift cards for actions that ultimately harmed distressed homeowners.

Former BofA employees said in court documents that they were told to unnecessarily delay decisions on loan modification requests, improperly deny modifications, and unfairly place troubled homeowners into foreclosure proceedings. They also falsified records and misled the federal government when dealing with borrowers applying for loan workouts through the Home Affordable Modification Program, known as HAMP.

The bank has denied the allegations, arguing they are “rife with factual inaccuracies.”

On Tuesday, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, urged BofA’s primary regulators in Washington at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Fed to investigate the allegations.

Waters also called on the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or SIGTARP, to investigate whether BofA “may have benefitted by misleading borrowers eligible for HAMP.”

BofA has received nearly $1 billion from taxpayers to modify mortgages as part of the Obama administration’s HAMP initiative, which allocates money as part of the bank-bailout program known as TARP.

In a February report, Smith said that he had received more than 600 complaints detailing shortcomings in the banks’ dealings with borrowers. The majority of them concerned issues such as failures to decide on loan modification requests within 30 days.

The settlement also calls for the banks to notify borrowers within three business days whether they have received loan modification applications and within five days if the application is missing key details or documents.

Smith said in February that of “particular concern” were reports that borrowers were having to submit documents multiple times to their mortgage servicers, sometimes with no response or followed by requests for the same documents yet again.

In his report to be issued Wednesday, Smith planned to say that his office’s findings are broadly in line with complaints he has received from borrowers and their advocates.

Officials said the fact that there are areas of noncompliance should demonstrate the rigorousness of the settlement’s servicing standards. Had the standards been more lenient, they argued, the banks would have passed the compliance test with flying colors.

“I don’t think there's any doubt that what we're seeing is pervasive noncompliance,” said Ira Rheingold, National Association of Consumer Advocates executive director.

Rheingold said that consumer advocates began warning federal and state regulators of mortgage servicing failures years before reports of robo-signing in late 2010 prompted banks to temporarily halt home seizures and forced regulators to comb through some loan files.

“The banks should’ve gotten their act together five years ago,” he said.

Alys Cohen, a former regulator at the Federal Trade Commission who now works as a staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center, said the servicing standards in the 2012 robo-signing settlement set a “great example” by forcing companies to give borrowers basic protections.

“The problem is there is little compliance with those standards,” Cohen lamented.

WASHINGTON -- There's no guarantee that President Barack Obama's health care law will launch smoothly and on time, congressional investigators say in the first in-depth independent look at its progress.

But in a report to be released Wednesday, the congressional Government Accountability Office also sees positive signs as the Oct. 1 deadline approaches for new health insurance markets called exchanges to open in each state – in many cases over the objections of Republican governors.

Additionally, the report discloses that the administration had spent nearly $400 million as of March to set up the infrastructure of a sprawling system involving major federal agencies, every state, hundreds of insurance companies, and millions of citizens, among them many individuals seeking coverage for the first time.

"Whether (the administration's) contingency planning will assure the timely and smooth implementation of the exchanges by Oct. 2013 cannot yet be determined," the report concluded. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.

The administration is taking the lead in setting up the markets in 34 states, the report said – a heavy lift unforeseen when the law was passed. The computerized clearinghouse for the entire system – a federal "data hub" designed to deliver real-time eligibility rulings – has only undergone initial testing. And states have yet to complete many of their assignments.

"Much progress has been made in establishing the regulatory framework and guidance required for this undertaking, and (the administration) is currently taking steps to implement key activities of the (exchanges)," the report said. "Nevertheless, much remains to be accomplished within a relatively short period of time."

Translation: most of the specs have been written, but the all wiring hasn't been laid, and what will happen when they flip the switch nobody really knows. And remember, Oct. 1 is less than four months away.

GAO also issued a similar assessment for small-business health insurance markets scheduled to open concurrently.

The study shows "this law isn't ready for prime time, and come October millions of Americans and small businesses are going to be the ones suffering the consequences," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement. Hatch is the ranking Republican on the Senate committee that oversees health care financing.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has steadfastly maintained the new insurance markets will open on schedule in all 50 states and Washington, DC.

Middle-class people with no access to job-based coverage will be able to buy private insurance, in most cases with new tax credits to help pay premiums. Low-income people will be steered to public programs like Medicaid in states that opt to accept an expansion offered under the law. Coverage starts Jan. 1.

An estimated 7 million individuals are expected to sign up through the exchanges next year, while Medicaid rolls will grow by 9 million. Those numbers are projected to steadily increase as Americans get more familiar with the law and its benefits. Exchanges are supposed to deliver the same basic service, connecting consumers with new coverage, whether they're run by states or by the federal government.

Most people currently covered by employers are not expected to see major changes, although some companies with many low-wage workers may decide it's better for their bottom lines to drop their plans.

The GAO report did not address one of the major obstacles to the rollout of the health care law – entrenched opposition from Republicans in Congress and from many GOP state leaders.

Having failed to get the Supreme Court to strike down "Obamacare" last year, Republicans in Congress have kept trying to repeal it, managing to block administration requests for additional implementation funds. In the states – with some notable exceptions – Republican governors and legislatures have generally refused to set up state-run exchanges or expand Medicaid.

However, the report found that some states where the law has run into resistance also seem to be simultaneously trying to accommodate it. GAO said that of the 34 states in which the federal government is taking the lead in setting up the new markets, 15 are expected to carry out at least some functions of the exchanges. That could be a stepping stone to full state control later.

The report also included a breakdown of spending on the federal exchanges and the data hub, which the administration had not previously provided, despite ongoing requests by media organizations.

As of March, the administration had spent almost $394 million, mostly through payments to 55 different contractors. That figure does not include the salaries of hundreds of government officials dedicated to the massive project. That project is forever linked to Obama's legacy.

The largest single ledger item: $84 million for the federal exchange computer infrastructure, being designed and built by CGI Federal, Inc., a Virginia-based government contractor.

The contractor building the data hub, Maryland-based Quality Software Services, Inc., received $55 million.

Third on the contracting totem pole was Booz Allen Hamilton, which received nearly $38 million to provide technical assistance for enrollment and eligibility.

The report said the administration will need another $2 billion in the next fiscal year to establish and operate the federal exchanges. Of that, Congress would have to provide $1.5 billion, while user fees paid by insurers account for the remainder.

It's unclear if congressional Republicans will sign off on the funding.

The divide in pay between top executives and regular workers is out of control. A recent Bloomberg News calculation concluded that chief executives on average take home 204 times more than their rank-and-file employees.

But that average gulf in pay is merely a stream compared to the pay disparity at some companies. McKesson, a leading pharmaceutical company, pays its CEO 313 times more than its average worker. J.C. Penney's CEO earned a whopping 1,795 times more than the average worker employed by the retailer. Abercrombie and Fitch paid its CEO 1,640 times more than the average worker. At Simon Property Group, it was 1,594 times more.

Three years ago, a provision in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law said the companies themselves have to reveal the difference between worker pay and CEO pay. That reform still hasn't been implemented. And now the CEOs' lobbyists are pressuring House Republicans to repeal it.

Today the House Financial Services Committee will consider legislation, HR 1135, that strips the wage-gap disclosure requirement from Dodd-Frank.

The CEOs should be embarrassed by the disparity of riches. But that's not their argument for repealing the disclosure requirement. They insist that calculating the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is too hard for them to do.

It is simply not credible for companies to say they don't know how to collect data or that it is too burdensome. The Teamsters know from 100-plus years of collective bargaining that companies quantify a dollar cost for just about every aspect of work possible.

And as pension fund investors, we need the information required by Dodd-Frank to evaluate an investment. If a CEO is allowed to loot a company, the morale and productivity for its rank-and-file employees will suffer.

The Teamsters are one of more than 250 groups that make up Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), a coalition of labor, consumer, civil rights, investor, retiree, community, religious and business groups that came together to reform the financial industry. In a letter sent to lawmakers last month, AFR noted the passage of HR 1135 will shield CEOs from the shame that would come from the public learning about their outrageous compensation while axing an important provision of the law.

"Disclosure of CEO-to-employee pay ratios will encourage Boards of Directors to limit CEO pay levels. Part of the CEO pay problem is that the existing disclosure rules encourage companies to focus on what other companies pay their CEOs. Because CEOs believe that they should be paid above average, this 'groupthink' compensation process leads to ever-spiraling pay increases for CEOs."

Congress must remain firm on implementing these fixes instead of gutting the law before it even has a chance to work.

Marc Ambinder, The Week

Sen. Rand Paul, Bloomberg

Thomas Friedman, New York Times

Jonathan Chait, NY Magazine

Niall Ferguson, Wall Street Journal

Holman Jenkins, Wall Street Journal

Gov. Christie,

I guess it's a busy time of year for you. With your proclamation that the Jersey Shore is "open for business," you've been making the rounds all across our beautiful Garden State, helping bring more money into a state that desperately needs it. I imagine your work schedule is the reason that you haven't returned my calls or emails. Or maybe -- oh, gosh -- are you just not that into me?

Well listen, I know this is going to sound crazy. I know you're married, and I'm married, but -- oh, jeez -- why am I so nervous? OK, Anthony. Take a deep breath. Steel yourself for possible rejection.

Gov. Christie, will you be my date on Saturday?

You see, I'm going to be in Erie Park in Montclair on Saturday at 4 p.m., walking with Garden State Equality. We're going to be walking to raise money to override your veto, and I just thought that maybe you should be there. You know, without you, none of this would be happening. We're going to have a really wonderful afternoon, with New Jerseyans from all across the state joining together.

Really, we kind of owe this to you. If we had one of those governors who just believe in equality for all, I'd probably be home on my couch watching Game of Thrones this weekend. Thank goodness you had the courage to stand up and veto our civil rights!

Now, there's this term called "accountability." That's that thing where you recognize when you've done something untoward and you step forward to take responsibility for it. "Responsibility" is that thing you did with Hurricane Sandy, then abandoned again. And I'd like to take accountability (see above if you've forgotten the term) for the things I've said about you in the past.

I've used words like "coward" and "bully" and "selfish" and "hypocritical." And I recognize now that those words came from an angry place inside me. This is a time when we should be coming together as New Jerseyans, not tearing each other down.

So allow me to apologize, Gov. Christie. Though it's particularly challenging in this instance, I need to be the bigger man here. I am sorry for calling you names. I am sorry if my words or actions caused you or your family any pain. I'm an Italian New Jerseyan, so these apologies don't come easily. Am I right, Chris?

To make up for it, I'd like to invite you on a date. Now, I want to be very clear here: This is a platonic date. No funny business, sir! In fact, I would love for you to be a member of my team. Not that team, Governor. My Equality Walk team!

Our team is titled "On the Right Side of History." My team captain is Nicole Signorelli, and she's great. I think you'll really like her. She's funny, like you, and she likes really great music. We'll be walking with her boyfriend Steve, her sister Tina, and Tina's husband Russ. My brother Brian, a recent New York college graduate, has just moved to New Jersey to start his post-college career, and he'll be walking with us as well.

OK, the next walker on our team is going to take some explaining. Bear with me; shout out suggestions if you can. He's my husband. Well, OK, he's not technically my husband in New Jersey. He's my... civil union spouse? No, wait. He's my civil partner? Jeez, what is the term? My civil union roommate? My in-house man-friend? That doesn't seem appropriate.

You know, I've called you "shortsighted" in the past, but I know that you're a really smart man. Maybe you can help me figure out a term this weekend. Give me something that I can use to explain to everyone else in New Jersey something that's just as easily understood as the word "marriage." I've tried really hard to find a word that carries with it the full weight, history, and respect as the word "marriage" and just can't seem to come up with anything.

Your beautiful wife of almost 30 years, Mary Pat, is lucky to have lots of titles. But if you didn't have the legal right to call her your wife, what would you call her? Your lady? Your baby mama? See, it's difficult, and I'll only have had my [insert "husband" replacement title here] for 257 days come Saturday. I can't imagine what you'd do!

OK, I guess I digressed there for a moment. It's like that time when you were elected governor and promised to move the state forward, and then you had that series of years when you didn't, but now you're focused again. We'll look past that $12-million Lautenberg special election for the sake of the conversation.

I want to truly commend you on your leadership during Hurricane Sandy. I can look back and remember those days when I was proud to call you my governor, when I knew that our leader had the best interests of all New Jerseyans in his heart and mind. It was a time when you set aside what might be politically expedient and advantageous for you down the road and simply focused on doing what was right. That's the man I appeal to now.

The Garden State Equality Walk is on Saturday, June 22, in Montclair's Erie Park at 4 p.m. It's a great opportunity to get some exercise and connect with amazing people (ahem, voters) from all over the state.

Look, I know you're a big man. You can admit when you got it wrong. I don't need to harp on this thing. Just come out and talk to me, meet my team, and meet the people whose lives were impacted by your choice to veto marriage equality. Don't be the suit; be the man in the suit.

I think my team will be getting there around 3 p.m., if that helps with your planning. You can email me at 30.anthonyromeo@gmail.com or reach me on Twitter. I'm @AnthonyRomeo1 on there. Whatever works best for you.

I can save you a spot at the start line, Governor.

Respectfully yours,

Anthony Romeo
Married husband and New Jersey Devils fan
Old Bridge, N.J.

P.S. For more information on my participation in the Garden State Equality Walk, click here.

History seems to close up behind us as we move forward in our particular bubble of the present and immediate past.  The Memorial Day celebrations I attended this year started me thinking about how few World War II veterans are still with us.  Reading Senator Frank Lautenberg’s obituary a week after Memorial Day gave me a chance to see his long journey from serving in the Army Signal Corps during WWII to serving three terms as Senator before he retired. Except he didn’t really retire.  He ran again and was re-elected. He was still serving at the time of his death.

You don’t have to look far to see other examples of veterans in public service.  Senators Max Cleland and John McCain, both Vietnam veterans, come instantly to mind.  And that’s just the political scene.  What about business, science, medicine, the arts?

Our nation has a vast pool of talent in its veterans. In 1946 when Lautenberg got out of the Army and used the GI Bill to go to college, no one could have foreseen the kind of contributions he’d make to society.  The same can be said of Cleland and McCain and the countless other veterans who make this country work in a myriad of ways.

Knowing this, doesn’t it make sense to treat that pool of talent like the resource we know it is?  We’ve seen how the Greatest Generation went to college on the GI Bill and bought their family homes using the VA’s Home Loan Program. They’re proof that investing in veterans is a good bet. But I wonder how much of their talent we squandered because we didn’t understand the physical and psychological effects of the horrors of war.  So many WWII vets suffered alone, in silence.  We still get calls on our crisis hotline from them.  That’s over 65 years ago.  In a sense, we failed them and many vets from the wars in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf.

It’s true that we offer the same benefits to today’s vets that we did to those from WWII. But knowing what we now understand about PTSD, TBI and other invisible traumas, we should take the steps necessary to make sure veterans get the treatment they need. We need to make up for what we missed in our WWII vets.

It seems peculiarly shortsighted not to make the full investment in these men and women who are our future.   Whatever they need -- medical care, counseling, training, jobs, education -- it just makes sense to provide what they need to develop themselves, to heal. 

Community-based veterans organizations and non-profits like the National Veterans Foundation can play a large part.  But the real power is in the hands of citizens like you.  Consider the future.  Contact your government representatives. Urge them to demand that we safeguard the human capital that resides in our veterans by providing the kind of care and support they need to fully heal.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly True | Jeb Bush says immigrants are 'more fertile'

The aging of America draws a lot of attention as the country tries to control the rising cost of health care and sustain critical programs such as Social Security. Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida and potential 2016 presidential candidate, has a partial solution -- promote immigration. Bush, speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference in Washington, made a pitch for immigration reform, saying America needs more new workers to help pay for retirees -- "to rebuild the demographic pyramid" as he put it. "Immigrants are more fertile," Bush said. "And they love families and ...

>> More

Jack White, The Root
(The Root) -- I wish that when President Bill Clinton started spouting off the other day about the need for President Barack Obama to intervene in Syria's horrific civil war or risk looking like "a total fool," Obama had followed the example set by his wife when she was recently confronted by a heckler. I wish that Obama had leaped from his bully pulpit, got in Clinton's face and silenced him with a withering put-down. But of course, that didn't happen. Instead of resisting the intensifying pressure from political enemies like Republican Sen. John McCain of...

Some of my regular readers might remember a previous blog entitled "School Reform or Tuition Vouchers," in which I predicted that if Americans continued to see their public schools as failing their children, they would advocate for government-financed vouchers to pay for tuition at private schools chosen by parents.

Well, that time is quickly approaching.

And, if we thought the debate regarding the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, was acrimonious, we haven't seen anything yet!

The upcoming battleground is the larger issue of education--what role should the federal government play versus the states. Historically, education has been a local matter; however, the federal government has found a persuasive way to become involved, namely, by offering large amounts of money to those states and school districts which implement federal initiatives. As always, money is a great motivator.

The fed's role increased markedly beginning in the late 1980s as business and political leaders became concerned regarding the United States' economy falling behind that of other nations; at that time it was Japan. The role of the federal government increased even more in the 1990s as the debate focused upon accountability through standardized student testing--should there be national tests or state tests? That question was resolved in favor of individual state testing, then.

The Bush-era 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law propelled the debate back into center stage. Both political parties joined in passing NCLB requiring yearly testing in mathematics and language arts in grades three through eight, setting the year 2014 as the target for all students having reached proficiency in these two subject areas, and creating stiff penalties for those schools that fail to do so.

Ten years later, as the debate regarding larger or smaller federal government involvement pervaded national elections--the economy, health care, Medicaid, among others--became the defining issue between Republicans and Democrats, important constituencies of both parties began to question whether the federal government had become too involved in education.

Federal involvement in education has increased geometrically under President Obama as his Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan used 2009 anti-recession Congressionally-approved stimulus money to fund state and local school district grant programs that were focused upon student accountability through standardized testing and teacher evaluation based upon those student test results.

These strongly-pushed initiatives resulted in major push-backs by teacher unions who opposed having teacher evaluations based upon student test scores, and parents and educators who asserted that standardized testing had resulted in the narrowing of curriculum and too much time being spent on test preparation.

The most recent rallying cry for those opposed to federal involvement in education has been the Common Core standards for mathematics and language arts. Though not developed by the federal government, but adopted by 45 states, these common curricula objectives are seen as leading to a national curriculum. Some states are now reconsidering their participation.

Teacher unions, parents, small government advocates are critical constituencies for both Democrats and Republicans. How could Congress do anything but consider limiting the federal role in education?

Earlier this month, both parties in the Senate and the House Republicans released their bills which would reauthorize funding for elementary and secondary education by modifying the 2001 No Child Left Behind law.

The political winds point to moving decision-making to the individual states regarding how much testing should occur, what should be included in the tests, should the newly-developed Common Core standard be implemented nationally, how teachers should be evaluated, and what are the consequences for those schools with large numbers of failing students.

However acrimonious the debates become regarding these reauthorization questions, nothing will compare to the ensuing debate regarding the federal government providing money to be used by parents to choose their own public school or to enroll their children in private schools, programs commonly entitled "school vouchers," a provision in the Republican bill.

School vouchers, though rare 10 years ago, are now law in 17 states, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that school vouchers are constitutional since public money would be going to parents and not to private or religious elementary and secondary schools under the so-called "child benefit theory."

There are many arguments against school vouchers, especially that de facto segregation occurs when parents choose to attend nonpublic schools with children like their own.

However, it's extremely difficult to tell parents whose children are attending failing schools that their kids must remain there and continue to fail.

The school voucher movement never had a better opportunity to become federal law.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) reportedly received threats from a man who said he would kidnap, murder and burn the tea partier and his father.

The Harris County District Attorney's Office said 37-year-old Nick Gates demanded $3 million from Cruz and his father, according to the Houston Chronicle. Gates now faces a felony charge for making a terroristic threat and is being held at the Harris County Jail in Houston under a $10,000 bail.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

An intern at Cruz's Austin office told investigators that a man called the office on June 5, saying that Cruz "owed him money or a bomb would explode," according to an arrest warrant filed in the case. The man, who identified himself as Abolfazi Akbori, called again the same day after the office had closed and left a threatening message on the office's voicemail system.

Another phone message was left at Cruz's San Antonio office containing threats that the caller "would kidnap, murder, and burn Ted Cruz and his father," the arrest warrant states.

The message states, "Ted has a choice. Give me three million dollars or lose the sun." The caller said that "due to government misconduct the sun would blow up and said he might be able to prevent the sun from blowing up if he receives three million dollars," according to the arrest warrant.

KPRC reports workers in Cruz's Texas and Washington, D.C. offices were given a photograph of Gates and made aware of his history, which includes a previous felony conviction for attempted retaliation after threatening a police officer that arrested him for drunk driving.

Cruz is one of several political figures to receive death threats in recent days.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, received a death threat from a man who said he wanted to "personally blow" his "head off." President Barack Obama has received several death threats throughout his time in office, most recently in March when a man allegedly posted tweets that claimed he was "coming to kill" Obama and his family.

Click here for more from the Houston Chronicle.

In an op-ed in Politico today, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has taken a firm stand against Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. And that's great. It's about time that someone took on Bobby Jindal for doing all the stuff Bobby Jindal's been doing lately that Bobby Jindal is just sick to death of. Might as well be Bobby Jindal!

See, today, Bobby Jindal is letting the world know that he is tired of the way the Republican Party keeps on with this relentless, post-2012 election self-critique. "We've had enough," writes Jindal, adding, "Enough, already." In Bobby Jindal's estimation, "excessive navel gazing leads to paralysis" and "at present it looks as if the entire Republican party needs to go to counseling."

The overall level of panic and apology from the operative class in our party is absurd and unmerited. It’s time to stop the bedwetting.

Yeah, well, you'll have to forgive me if I point out that when I test all the dampened sheets for DNA, I get several matches for Bobby Jindal. I mean, it took all of two weeks before Jindal was publicly castigating his party's 2012 standard-bearer, Mitt Romney, who contended that he lost the election because President Barack Obama successfully promised "gifts" to young voters and minorities.

"That is absolutely wrong," Jindal said back in November, adding, "I absolutely reject that notion."

From there, Jindal basically fashioned himself the would-be king of the GOP "rebranding effort." At January's winter meeting of the RNC, Jindal demanded that those in attendance undertake a deep, navel-based pondering, telling his colleagues that they needed to stop being "the stupid party."

"I'm here to say, we've had enough of that," said Jindal, who just constantly has had "enough" of stuff.

"The Republican Party does not need to change our principles -- but we might need to change just about everything else we do," he told those in attendance, seeming to imply that a lengthy period of self-examination was necessary.

And as recently as a month ago, Jindal was still at it. At a Republican Senate Majority Committee fundraiser in Manchester, N.H., Jindal provided a keynote speech entirely centered around GOP self-reflection and self-critique, saying that the party needed "to make some changes." "I think we need to think seriously about where we go from here," said Jindal, suggesting that he was eager to do a lot of serious thinking about where the party should go from there.

Of course, a funny thing happened while Jindal was staking out turf as his party's most serious critic. First, his attempt at "innovating" -- his proposal to eliminate Louisiana's state income tax and replace it with a regressive increase in state sales taxes -- was met with stiff resistance "from the left, the center and the right." His popularity and clout diminished from there.

And so, the man who would rebrand his party has abruptly decided to rebrand himself. And with that comes a new plan for the GOP, which he helpfully laid out in Politico today:

At some point, the American public is going to revolt against the nanny state and the leftward march of this president. I don't know when the tipping point will come, but I believe it will come soon.

Why?

Because the left wants: The government to explode; to pay everyone; to hire everyone; they believe that money grows on trees; the earth is flat; the industrial age, factory-style government is a cool new thing; debts don't have to be repaid; people of faith are ignorant and uneducated; unborn babies don't matter; pornography is fine; traditional marriage is discriminatory; 32 oz. sodas are evil; red meat should be rationed; rich people are evil unless they are from Hollywood or are liberal Democrats; the Israelis are unreasonable; trans-fat must be stopped; kids trapped in failing schools should be patient; wild weather is a new thing; moral standards are passé; government run health care is high quality; the IRS should violate our constitutional rights; reporters should be spied on; Benghazi was handled well; the Second Amendment is outdated; and the First one has some problems too.

"Eventually," Jindal says, "Americans will rise up against this new era of big government and this new reign of politically correct terror." What to do until then?

"Put on your big boy pants," says Jindal, helpfully and substantively.

The short version of Jindal's new plan for GOP renewal, then, is basically 1) attack a bunch of straw men; 2) sit back and chill and enjoy a well-fitting pair of trousers; and 3) profit.

This is a far cry from the Bobby Jindal who suggested "we might need to change just about everything else we do," but I guess Bobby Jindal has had enough of that guy.

READ THE WHOLE THING:
GOP needs action, not navel-gazing [Politico]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

Wesley Pruden, Washington Times

Greg Sargent, Washington Post
The House Speaker, in a private meeting with House conservatives this morning, made a big show of talking tough on immigration reform, claiming he has "no intention" of allowing a House vote on anything that doesn't have the support of a majority of Republicans: