As of 5 p.m. Friday, Nov. 4, I'm no longer with the Daily Record and am moving on to a different line of work. Thanks for reading and writing me, all two or three of you.

I truly enjoyed my 12 years at the Daily Record and will always remember my time here fondly.

All my best,

Matt

A refresher: CLASS stands for Community Living Assistance Services and Supports. The Obama Administration abandoned it last week because it was fiscally ruinous. It was supposed to be a volunteer insurance program that would've offered money later in life to those seniors who contributed to it earlier.  Read Washington Post wunderkind Ezra Klein's account here.

Essentially not enough money would be going into the program in order for it to pay out later on. Meaning the government would have to run up even more staggering amounts of debt to meet future obligations. Retired-Sen. Judd Gregg slipped a provision into the law that required the government prove the system be sound for 75 years or else it couldn't be enacted. That kicked in, and the act was squashed.

What's troubling to me is CLASS' problems appeared very apparent from the get-go. The only reason it was included was because it was Sen. Ted Kennedy's darling. Kennedy died in 2009 before Obamacare was enacted, and out of respect for him, the CLASS act was left in the legislation.

So, let me get this straight: Legislators had a strong inkling that CLASS would be a killer to future budgets because of unsustainable costs, but they left it in the law out of respect of that old fiscal hawk Ted Kennedy?

Does that sound like an intelligent legislative process to you? This CLASS act is terrible and will further bankrupt America, but let's keep it because Ted liked it.

Is it any wonder the country is intractably mired in debt? The people who allowed the CLASS act into healthcare are the ones determining the nation's finances.

We're so doomed.

Credit: the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department via the Associated Press

The story's worth the read based on the above picture alone.

Dr. Jack died at age 83 in June, and apparently the proceeds from the auction for the death machine and other items from his estate sale will benefit pediatric cancer.

So that's good. But would you really want to own a machine that helped take the lives of 100 severely ill people? I mean, there's really no way to test it to make sure it works before you place the bid. And what would you do with it other than commit suicide?

It's not really something that brightens up the room. I don't care where you place it -- next to the piano, or a hutch, it doesn't matter -- it won't help accentuate anything, unless it's a decoration in a haunted house. Halloween is just around the corner.

Rather than direct their rage at Wall Street, as this opinion piece points out, why not focus it on Big Government's hand helping Big Colleges charge Big Tuition Rates? (Read the piece because it explains how government corrupts college tuitions better than I can.) 

If $4-a-gallon gasoline was outrageous enough to gin up anger at the Big Oil companies, why isn't $52,650 for one year's tuition at Harvard inspiring the kiddies to march up and down the streets of Cambridge?

Back in 2006, the average Harvard college professor salary registered at $168,700. It's bound to be more 5 years later, right?

And if you have two Harvard professors who are married, they're bringing in a combined $337,400 -- an income total that in President Obama's world translates into them being millionaires and billionaires!

I mean, really, how much money do these corporate jet-flying college professors need? Can't they all agree to take a pay cut for the good of the students who can't afford Harvard's tuition? I see no reason why a college professor can't live on $100,000 a year.

A New York Times story earlier this year reported the average 2009-10 tuition at four-year nonprofit colleges was $21,324, while the average tuition at public four-year colleges was $10,747. Anyway you slice it, that's a lot of money that people don't have.

I have no idea what it's going to cost me to send my three-week-old son to college in 18 years, but I can pretty much bank on the ridiculously high cost not being Wall Street's fault.

Maybe it's about time disgruntled parents from all over the land create picket signs and storm the campuses of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other schools that sock it to students and their parents' checkbooks. That's a movement I'd like to see.

Greedy college professors, hold on to your hats.

There was a time not too long ago when mainstream media outlets (big newspapers, cable news networks) decided to cover this emerging movement called the Tea Party.

By and large this group of American citizens fed up with runaway government spending was mocked by several in the media. Remember Anderson Cooper's tea-bagging crack?

CNN reporter Susan Rosegen took it upon herself to question these right-wing Tea Partiers and make it seem like they were ill-informed, stupid hicks (and probably racists!).

Clearly the Tea Party needed to be scrutinized and minimized because Tea Partiers, unlike The New York Times editorial board, believe massive government spending that started under George W. Bush and then mushroomed under President Obama was a threat to the country's long term fiscal well-being.

Just about one month ago, left-wing protesters began gathering in New York for an Occupy Wall Street event. Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne hinted these demonstrators on Wall Street might be the Left's Tea Party.

Only there's one difference, the motives of the Wall Street protesters shouldn't be questioned or scrutinized the way Tea Partiers were two years earlier. Case in point, CNN reporter Erin Burnett, who's taking heat for the way she approached demonstrators on Wall Street, and through her questioning, made it seem like some of those folks might've been ill-informed.

What's good for the Tea Party is not good for the Occupy Wall Street gang, apparently. Remember when the media would focus on signs at Tea Party rallies that were in poor taste/offensive/stupid?

Those signs were broadcast to impugn the entire movement when in reality they were a very small sample of the types being held by people upset with government spending.

I wonder if the media will focus on some of the signs held up by the Wall Street Occupiers and then get their big brush ready to paint the entire movement as violent, socialist wackos?

Hmm. Some of those signs seem violent to me, and I thought that was forbidden since Rep. Gabby Giffords was nearly shot to death last January. And it seems this movement hates capitalism. So what alternative do they support? I certainly hope the media calls out these protesters for possibly fomenting violence and civil unrest!

Don't you remember those Tea Party rallies where 700 people were arrested? Oh, that's right. That never happened, and if it ever did, you'd see the movement crucified. But 700 Wall Street Protester arrests, while newsworthy, and which has been reported, doesn't really call for widespread condemnation from our media superiors. Why, nobody was hurt, and disobeying the law's totally acceptable under these circumstances because we support what they're doing.

Sigh. If only the media were fair and balanced.

That's right, Sesame Street will introduce Lily, a female Muppet whose family faces "hunger struggles" during an episode meant to bring awareness to "food insecurity."

(Poverty-stricken Lily the Muppet, courtesy of Reuters)

This is not the first time Sesame Street has waded into the social awareness waters. A few years back, Sesame Street South Africa introduced Kami, the world's first HIV-positive Muppet.

Now, I understand what Sesame Street's trying to do, but can't kids grow up without having to be exposed to the world's horrors in the form of hand puppets?

My God! I loved Sesame Street when I was growing up in the 1980s because Bert would get ticked off by Ernie's tom-foolery, Big Bird would try to convince people the Snuffy actually existed, and Kermit the Frog would report fun Muppet news.

During the 1980s, I was deathly afraid of a potential nuclear holocaust triggered by the USSR, and I don't recall Sesame Street introducing a Muppet that was meant to shed light on the nuclear arms race between the USSR and the USA, do you?  We weren't subjected to Yuri, a ushanka-wearing red Muppet with an ugly splotch on his forehead who extolled the virtues of Perestroika.

Sesame Street was an escape from being scared. It's where we learned how to count and read at an early age.

How would you like to be a child who faces hunger, looking to hopefully catch a break from that grim reality, only to be reminded of it on television by something with cloth eyes and a squeaky voice?

And not to be insensitive, but take another look at Lily:

Does she look hungry to you? If Sesame Street really wants to devastate kids into seriously thinking about impoverishment and hunger, shouldn't Lily's ribs be showing? Look at her clothes, it looks like she just stepped out of GAP Kids and not the soup kitchen. I'm just trying to be consistent, people. If it's my mission to frighten the kids into poverty awareness, I'd dress Lily in a tattered burlap sack that's fastened around her waist by a shoe string.

Never in my life did I think it possible that my son, who's only a few weeks old, might learn about food stamps from a Muppet. But that's where we are today.

Tom Capano, who in 1996 killed his mistress, Anne Marie Fahey, in Delaware, died last week at the age of 61 in prison, where he was serving a life sentence.

I attended the University of Delaware at the time and well remember the front pages of the Wilmington News Journal playing up Fahey's disappearance (her body was never found).

Ann Marie Fahey served as then-Gov. Tom Carper's secretary. Delaware's such a small state that it probably would've been big news had she not worked for Carper, who now represents Delaware in the U.S. Senate. Capano, it should be noted, came from a prominent family that made its fortune in construction. So this case had it all -- an affair, a young mistress, a murder, a coverup and a trial. 

What's interesting is the following obituary. Clearly it was written by a loving family member, perhaps one of his daughters who still visited him in prison, and I don't really have a problem with it. Read it and you'll notice something is missing: no mention is made of Capano being the First State's most infamous murderer. I guess that's not really something you mention if you're trying to put the death of your father in the best possible light.

Thanks to fellow U-Del alum Ryan Cormier for pointing this out.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses Columbia University students in this 2007 file photo.

NEW YORK -- Columbia University, in what even staunch supporters are calling an unorthodox move, has named Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the the Ivy League school's 2012 commencement speaker.

"Once again, Columbia University will set an example for tolerance and understanding by conferring a Degree in Humanities upon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he addresses graduates in the spring of 2012," University President Lee Bollinger said.

"Whether it's an Academy Award-winning actress like Meryl Streep, a former Supreme Court Justice such as David Souter, or an anti-Semitic, power-mad, Middle Eastern dictator, Columbia will hear all points of view, and its students shall gain words of inspiration from someone whose accomplishments, be they good or morally reprehensible, have impacted society," Bollinger said during a press conference announcing the decision.

A smiling Ahmadinejad was linked live from Tehran, Iran, on a television screen at the conference to answer reporters' questions about what he might impart on the graduates.

"No Jews," Ahmadinejad said through an off-screen translator without even being prompted. "No homosexuals. Any supporters of the Zionist regime shall be forbidden from attending. And no women."

Bollinger immediately turned down the volume on Ahmadinejad -- who apparently was unaware because he kept speaking and pointing -- and Bollinger then told the audience, "President Ahmadinejad and I still have some logistics to work out when the time finally comes for his address, but I want to ensure the parents of our Jewish, gay and female students that they will be allowed to fully participate in all commencement activities."

Bollinger said the University's Board of Directors narrowed down the list of commencement speakers to three people: U.S. President Barack Obama, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, and Ahmadinejad.

"Frankly the choice was obvious," Bollinger said. "Honestly, even though he attended Columbia, the bloom's way off President Obama's rose, and I'm pretty sure we've already had Wiesel speak to the kids. Ahmadinejad is a fresh voice not often heard on American college and university campuses -- pretty much except for ours -- and we feel he can provide enlightening views to our future leaders of society."

Bollinger then increased the volume on the big screen television linked live to Ahmadinejad, who by then had set fire to a small Israeli flag which he waved in front of the camera.

"American students must learn the United States' days of being the world's bully are over," Ahmadinejad said. "Only when Palestine is free and the United States is in atomic cinders shall justice be done in God's name. And you can do anything you want if you put your mind to it, and also if you have an unquestioning press and military to do your bidding."

This will not be the first time Ahmadinejad has addressed Columbia's students. Bollinger invited him to speak to the school in 2007 when the Iranian President visited the United Nations.

Columbia also honored the infamous Holocaust denier in 2009 by dedicating a wing of its Butler Library in his name. Ahmadinejad attended the ceremony and immediately demanded all books by Jewish authors be burned.

Reaction to Columbia's choice of speakers ranged from positive to overwhelmingly ecstatic.

"I mean, some people say the little dude is a state sponsor of terrorism," Senior Dale Altmeyer, 21, said. "But where's the proof of that? They always blame Ahmadinejad for helping kill Americans in Iraq. Well, like, maybe the United States shouldn't be in Iraq, you know? And what's wrong with Iran helping crush civilian opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's regime? We help Canada do stuff all the time. The United States government is full of hypocrites."

Senior Rebecca Rosenbaum, 22, a member of Columbia/Barnard Hillel, said she had no qualms about hearing Ahmadinejad's address when it comes time for her to graduate.

"He might sincerely want to kill me because of my faith," Rosenbaum said. "But I'm able to look past that and I can appreciate that he's a man who has a population, a large portion of which is unemployed, that wants to work. Maybe he can provide the leadership to lift them up from poverty, and at the same time inform our leaders how to best do the same for our people."

When asked whether former U.S. President George W. Bush would be an appropriate commencement speaker for Columbia, Rosenbaum visibly bristled.

"God, no, not at all," she said. "He's intolerant."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who haven't figured it out, yes, this isn't real. (But I'm sad to say it's believeable.)

Paul Krugman on 9/11/11 posted the following on his NYT Blog:

 “What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful.”

 He went on to label Rudolph Giuliani and George W. Bush as “fake heroes” who used the attacks to cash in personally, and to bolster themselves politically. Read the whole post here.

 Naturally, Krugman’s 9/11/11 blog post didn't sit well with a lot of journalists and pundits, many of whom usually defend Krugman. Read it here.

 I found interesting the take of Wall Street Journal writer James Taranto, who did a little research on Krugman by reading his former columns. Krugman’s recent tirade jeered the pundit class who he wrote behaved irresponsibly post-9/11 and tried hijacking the atrocity for their own partisan gains.

 Taranto writes: He has half a point here. We remember one professional pundit who behaved quite badly, writing on Sept. 14, 2001: "It seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents after an act of mass murder," he observed, then went ahead and did so: "If people rush out to buy bottled water and canned goods, that will actually boost the economy. . . . The driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings."

That was former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, who added that "the attack opens the door to some sensible recession-fighting measures," by which he meant "the classic Keynesian response to economic slowdown, a temporary burst of public spending. . . . Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending, however tragic the reasons." He went on to denounce the "disgraceful opportunism" of those who "would try to exploit the horror to push their usual partisan agendas"--i.e., conservatives who he said were doing exactly what he was doing.  ###

 Game. Set. Match.

 Krugman recently replied on his blog to this kerfuffle, and essentially stuck to his guns. He did, however, add this bit, which I find very interesting:

“Now, I should have said that the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared. Muslims weren’t lynched, and neither were dissenters, and that was something of which we can all be proud.”

This astonishingly condescending revelation leads me to believe that Krugman actually expected Americans (probably ones who voted for Bush) in 2001 to run around lynching Muslims and people like himself. Moreover he was pleasantly surprised that Americans didn’t act like evil vigilantes. Krugman apparently looks at a majority of the American people as children who are expected to behave badly at all times, and to be given lollipops and a “You did a good job!” pat on the back when they don’t.

I won’t defend Krugman’s despicable tone in his 9/11 piece, but there’s no question 9/11 was used by President Bush and his administration to launch the Iraq War.

The point here is that 9/11/01 was a day when unfathomable hatred killed almost 3,000 innocent people, but it also highlighted the best humanity has to offer. Perhaps the anniversary of 9/11 isn’t the best day to voice your hatred for your fellow countrymen. Wait a couple of days the next time, Paul.