Baseball Opening Day Rant

So today is essentially Opening Day, and it's looking like Brewers-Cubs is going to get rained out. Nice job scheduling the game at Wrigley Field instead of the metamorpho-dome Miller Park, MLB schedulers. Kind of like scheduling Devil Rays-Yankees in New York (where they ended up playing in the snow) last year instead of going with the no-brainer and putting that game in Tampa. Or scheduling Arizona to open the season in Cincinnati this year. I know, they can't put all the early games in the South or in domed stadiums, but they could at least try to put the games in places least likely to be affected by bad weather.

And the Minnesota Twins' decision to go from a dome to an outdoor stadium is just dumb.

With all that being said, I'm glad baseball season is finally here.

Blogroll Changes

After much time and consideration, I've come to the conclusion that I need to divide the section currently labeled "Wisconsin Links" into two parts, one for liberal blogs, the other for conservative ones. I was initially hesitant to do this, because I don't really want to give the impression that I am somehow belittling one group or the other. However, a couple of considerations have somewhat lessened that concern. First, I can't help but note that WisOpinion's blog list categorizes me as being on the left, and for the most part, my audience seems to be of similar persuasion. I am not naive enough to deny that having a target audience and pandering just a little bit can be useful in this medium, so I suppose I'll have to go along with that label, since I probably am, at the end of the day, more a liberal than a conservative.

The second consideration was much more of a stylistic preference. Simply put, the link list in question is getting long. Personally, I find very long, uninterrupted link lists to be incredibly annoying (for instance, check out the "Wisconsin blogs" section on this otherwise well-written conservative blog).

Accordingly, I will be adjusting the list of Wisconsin blogs along ideological lines. Anyone objecting to my characterization of their blog is free to lodge a complaint with me.

Thanks.

100th Post Extravaganza!

Yes, this is, in fact, the 100th post I have made in this blog. In the words of my wife: "That went fast." And so it did.

Megan and I just returned from our weekend with her family. Fortuitously, Megan grew up only a few miles from where we both went to college, affording us a decent opportunity to drop by our alma mater, albeit somewhat briefly. In particular, we took in the Knox College Choir concert on Friday night (Megan was a member all four years). As is traditional, they concluded the concert with the Knox Hymn, with any Choir alumni taking to stage to join the choir. (This left me to fend for myself while Megan went up. Me on guitar, okay. Me singing, not so much.) Anyway, I find I enjoy hearing that piece of music more and more, and so I am inspired to post the chorus here:

"For the long, long road to alma mater,
Is a road that calls us home,
O'er hills and plains,
By lakes and lanes,
Our woodlands, our cornfields,
Our country, our home."

So here's a toast to the little school in the cornfields of Illinois that a big part of me will always call "Home."

Cheers.

Journal Sentinel Takes a Side in the Butler/Gableman Battle Royale

Chalk this round up for Louis Butler. I don't suppose it's any surprise, really, but here it is.

Here's some good lines:

In a questionnaire submitted to the Journal Sentinel, Butler argued that "those
who disagree with the result in a particular case are usually quick to label the
judges who decided that case as 'activist.' " He's right.

Witness the fact that Gableman's solution would be, not to just interpret the law, but to simply reverse everything, giving result-oriented rulings favoring business and law-enforcement. So isn't Gableman the "activist" here?

In any case, it's unfair to cherry-pick one or two cases and try to strangle a distinguished career with them. And we think way too much is made of the so-called conservative-liberal split on the state's high court.

In addition to that, Gableman's tactics in this campaign give us pause. Gableman has compiled a solid record as a judge, which is what makes his recent ad attacking Butler so difficult to understand. It was, in a word, despicable.

Ouch.

In any case, I'd blog more, but visiting family obviously takes priority. Megan and I will be back in Milwaukee by tonight, and I'll try and post more at that time. Thanks for bearing with me this weekend. Full-scale blogging will resume tomorrow morning.

H/T: illusory tenant.

Mav on the road again

Megan and I will be driving down to Illinois this afternoon to visit her family, so blogging will be sporadic.

I will, however, pose a suggestion. How about we go along with Scott "Privatize Everything" Walker's proposals to privatize Mitchell Airport and the parks with the condition that Walker never be in charge of whatever entities control them? Given the bang-up job (sarcasm!) that Walker's done with everything else in the county (yay, pension reform...not so much), I dare say that I don't want that man running anything. So, if he is reelected, privatization is probably the best option for everything, just so Walker has fewer things to screw up.

I have mixed feelings about Lena Taylor, but I have to believe she'd at least be more competent than Walker. And I don't particularly care for Walker's solution to all problems: "OMG, privatization is teh awesome!!!1!!one!!1!" I'm convinced that Walker would privatize the Police Department if it were legal. So why don't we just privatize everything to prevent Walker from damaging said institutions with his ineptitude?

Butler/Gableman Rumble Gets Dirtier

The Journal Sentinel has the story today. WEAC and the WMC are running nasty ads on both sides. But here's the thing: Butler specifically calls for both WEAC and the WMC to pull their ads. Gableman himself may call for all independent groups to stop running ads, but then his campaign basically uses the WMC ads and the "Loophole Louie" line as their talking points.

Then again, you have to admire the use of words and sound bytes that poll really badly by the Gableman campaign and their independent allies. "Judicial activism," "technicalities," "loopholes," "sides with criminals 60% of the time," "bad for business," etc. Talk about throwing the kitchen sink. Why not throw "eats babies," or "kicks puppies," or "clubs baby seals" in there while they're at it?

I'll concede I have less of a problem with the WEAC ad, for a couple of reasons. One, the ad doesn't use slurs for Gableman himself, unlike the disgusting use of "Loophole Louie" by the WMC. It might have been a complement when he was a defense attorney, but that's not the implication of the ad - the implication is that he revels in the moniker now, because he enjoys letting people off. Second, Gableman has been playing this "Louis Butler = soft on crime" bull since day one of this campaign. Here's the summary of the WEAC ad:

The ad refers to the case of Mark Eugene Johnson of Grantsburg, who was sentenced by Gableman in 2003 to serve 10 years of probation, including one year in jail, after Johnson pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual assault of a child.

The ad goes on to say Gableman went easy on another child sexual predator, giving him "a fraction of the jail time" for which he was eligible. Court records show that defendant - Jerry Ray Barrett of Webster - was sentenced to 11 years in prison and 14 years of extended supervision. He was eligible for 120 years behind bars.

Burnett County District Attorney Kenneth Kutz, who prosecuted the Barrett case, said Gableman imposed a stiff sentence. "Everybody here thought that was a pretty good sentence," said Kutz, who is neutral in the race.

This is precisely what I've discussed here before: Gableman wants to attack Butler for being a defense attorney, imply that he was the judge in the Mitchell case and therefore somehow responsible for Mitchell molesting again (even though he'd served his full prison sentence), and claim he sides with criminals 60% of the time. In none of these instances does he provide the necessary background information - i.e., Butler was Mitchell's defense attorney, Mitchell served his full term, the Sixth Amendment says everyone has a right to effective counsel, and Butler doesn't side with criminals anywhere near 60% of the time.

Yet, when an attack ad is run against him which doesn't provide the necessary background information (in this case, that the prosecutors thought the sentence, though much lighter than what Gableman could have given Johnson, was a good one), Gableman and his campaign cry and whine about those evil teachers sinking to a "new low." Excuse me, Judge Gableman, but they're only following the wonderful path you've set out for us. I don't see how Gableman should get the benefit of the background when he refuses to permit Butler the same. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

As for the Jensen case, we'll see what happens when the United States Supreme Court takes up Giles v. California later this spring (see illusory tenant for a nice post about Giles). But it'd be priceless if the Butler position ends up being the one affirmed by the Court. Maybe Gableman will then attack whichever of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Chief Justice Roberts sides with the majority in that case as being "soft on crime."

All of Gableman's attacks on Butler give the implication that what matters to him, playing up his credentials as a former prosecutor as essential to service on the high court, is not for interpreting the law as written, but for doing whatever it takes to secure a conviction and uphold it. Why else attack Butler for siding with criminals 60% of the time? Suppose the law as written directed him to do that? So who's being result oriented now? Why else attack Butler for being a former defense attorney? Shouldn't Gableman, like his former endorser Dodge County DA Steven Bauer, realize that effective defense counsel helps prosecutors do a better job by putting them to the test? Does he not understand that the right to an attorney is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, not some "needless technicality?"

The only answer seems to be my wife's brilliant slogan suggestion - "Gableman: Ready to convict on day one."

Slow Blogging Day

Andrew Sullivan unloads on Clinton this morning:

The goal is to win a huge margin in Pennsylvania and to use that as an appeal to the super-delegates that Obama cannot be elected in key swing states with white working class voters. If that won't work, Clinton will have done all she can to ensure Obama's defeat by McCain in the fall, which she will then use as vindication for another run in 2012.

It's called destroying the party (and wound the country racially) in order to save the Clintons. It doesn't surprise me, but I can't help but feel it is going to enrage many Democrats, especially those who felt that this time, a candidate they loved had a chance to bring the country together. Not if the Clintons can help it.

Is there any doubt that this is what Clinton is up to? I just wish I could say with any confidence that I think Democrats are smart enough to see through it.

100 More Years!

No, not you, John McCain.

I'm talking to all you Chicago Cubs fans. Since the MLB season officially started this morning, with the Red Sox beating the A's 6-5, CBS Sportsline has this great article on the 100 years of futility for the North Siders. Being a White Sox and Brewers fan, I couldn't resist.

Also, here's the song:

"Do they still play the blues in Chicago
When the baseball season rolls around?
When the snow melts away,
Do the Cubbies still play
In their ivy-covered burial ground?
When I was a boy, they were my pride and joy.
Now they only bring fatigue
To the home of the brave,
The land of the free,
And the doormat of the National League."

Like I said, 100 more years.

State Journal punts Butler/Gableman donnybrook

Soglin links to the Wisconsin State Journal's bizarre endorsement for Supreme Court. It's not Butler or Gableman, but merit selection.

Look, I'd agree that the ugliness of this campaign makes appointing, not electing, justices look pretty appealing. But as Soglin rightly points out, that's not the issue right now. The issue is: Which one of these candidates does the paper feel is better suited to sitting on the Wisconsin Supreme Court? The refusal to endorse either one probably helps Gableman, as Soglin suggests, but even if it doesn't, it's truly irritating to see the Journal just punt the matter at hand. There's no other word for it.

Keep kicking that can down the road, fellas.

What's next, endorsing campaign reform instead of a candidate for President of the United States? Does the Journal not grasp the importance of this election?

Three words: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Hillary's Superpower

Namely: Her ability to say anything with a straight face.

Hillary Clinton admits that that whole thing about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia was sort of, well, made up.

It's rhetorical, but is there nothing this woman won't say?

Apparently not, because she also said this:

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," said Clinton. "You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like super-delegates."

Yes, that's true. But why point it out unless you want them to go against the voters of their state? Oh, nevermind. It's also important to note that the slates of delegates for the candidates are chosen based on their loyalty to the candidate, such that a pledged delegate changing allegiances is pretty unlikely.

But wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if her pledged delegates switched sides?

H/T for both items: Talking Points Memo.

Will someone please tell this woman that it's time to bow out, before irreversible damage is done to country and party?

Sullivan steals my phrase!

I've grown rather fond of the phrase "You think?" to denote that I find a statement to be obviously true in a way that requires little effort to discern. Well, Andrew Sullivan posts this statement from Bill Richardson (talking about the Clintons and their people) in an entry titled with that very phrase:

"They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."

Really? I had no idea. But thanks for endorsing Obama, Bill. After all the years with the Clintons, that took guts.

Update on the Butler/Gableman Cage Match

Having driven down from Green Bay tonight, I'd like to brag that even the generally conservative editorial board of my hometown paper, the Green Bay Press-Gazette, has endorsed Louis Butler.

Seriously, I just about spit out my waffles when my dad showed me the paper this morning.

Money quote from the endorsement:

Gableman is a congenial man and no doubt a very good circuit judge, and our political philosophies may even have much in common. But there is a huge difference between a political conservative and a judicial conservative — a difference that is obscured by the increasing participation of political parties and political action committees in the judicial election process.

It doesn't matter whether one-time public defender Butler or one-time prosecutor Gableman is soft or tough on crime, although you wouldn't know it by the campaign ads. The Supreme Court spends a majority of its time on civil, not criminal, matters, and its main job is to review the work of the trial judges.

The most important factor is which candidate has the greater understanding of the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions, the law as it is written, and the legislative intent that went into the law.

We came away from our conversations believing that Butler is more likely to study the law and follow the Constitution and legal precedent to its logical conclusion, case by case, regardless of how much he wishes the law said something else. Gableman is a qualified and honorable candidate, but he was unable to make a case for unseating Butler.

We suggest a vote for Butler April 1.

That's right, folks. Even the Press-Gazette editorial board thinks Butler, not Gableman, is more likely to enforce, not make, the law. Put that in your proverbial pipe and inhale. Besides, can anyone argue that Gableman's shilling for the WMC doesn't amount to the very "result orientation" that the crusaders against "judicial activism" so often complain about? (illusory tenant commented on this very phenomenon here.)

Even better, however, were the Press-Gazette's interviews with the candidates. (Butler here, and Gableman here.) Specifically, Gableman's non-answer to the following question:

Q. It seems Supreme Court candidates spend a lot of time talking about being "tough on crime." How much of the court's calendar is really devoted to criminal matters?

A. Well, there is a significant percentage, and when those cases come to the fore, I think it's very valuable to have a prosecutorial background because that's the only way I think you get the insights into the true dynamics of what really goes on in many cases of similar types.

And that — just as my service on the circuit court bench — my opponent and I were in "new judge school" together in 2002; we've known each other for a while. But the fact is that I've served longer on the circuit court bench than he did. My service on the circuit court bench has allowed me to get unique experience and insight in terms of this race, being able to be in a better position to judge the work and review the work of other circuit court judges, which at the end of the day is the predominant part of what the Supreme Court does.

Oh, man. Apparently, only prosecutors are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, because their job is to rubber-stamp every conviction. Or, as my wife put it in her wonderfully pithy way, "Gableman: Ready to convict on day one." My dad and I about choked on the aforementioned waffles when she uncorked that one, we laughed so hard. Wish I'd thought of it. (Newsflash: Wife scoops blogger. Depression ensues.)

Furthermore, notice that Gableman never answers the question, simply saying that it is a "significant percentage." Given Gableman's documented problems with percentages (see here), that could mean anything.

Also: Compare Butler's answer to effectively the same question:

Q. We see the campaign ads that talk about being tough on crime; what percentage of cases do you deal with that's really about criminal cases?

A. About a fourth is criminal. The rest of the cases are civil. That's a very good question, because that's not what we do at the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court level, being tough on crime has nothing to do with what we do on the court. We're supposed to sit down and make sure the law has been applied fairly and hold pretty much everyone's feet to the fire.

I think it's inappropriate for me to come and say that I'm a conservative or a liberal. I shouldn't be trying to send you a signal that, nod nod wink wink, if you vote for me, I'll vote for you on the court.

Gasp! Butler answers the question! Approximately 25% of the Supreme Court's cases are criminal. Not that you'd know it given Gableman's law-and-order, death-to-the-arsonists campaign.

Which is the better image of a Supreme Court justice: the prosecutor-cum-justice who does nothing but brag about putting away criminals without being reversed (even counting his 8,000 uncontested speeding tickets!), or the justice who says it's his job to "hold pretty much everyone's feet to the fire?"

Not Surprised

This blogger has yet to see a single conservative blogger even mention Dodge County District Attoney Steven Bauer's rescinded endorcement of Gableman. Not even to attack Bauer as a softy or a bad DA. Can anyone help me out and point me to one? I'm not holding my breath.

I'm Sorry

I won't be able to watch Prof. Esenberg's appearance tomorrow on Sunday Insight (or point out that Charlie's tie is too long) as Megan and I are spending the weekend at my parents' house in Green Bay. However, I take solace in the fact that there is way less snow on the ground up here than there is down in Milwaukee. So please accept my humblest apologies.

Bush: The Anti-Conservative

This post by Sullivan (commenting on conservative reactions to Obama) is well worth reading. Especially the point I've been trying to make, put much better than I ever could:

I have always noted that Obama is much more liberal than I am. But, frankly, after what Bush has done to limited government conservatism and fiscal responsibility, I find it hard to give much lee-way to Republicans . . . who are now suddenly shocked - shocked - that a Democrat supports government as a solution to certain problems. Where have they been these last eight years as Republicans legitimized such liberal nostrums, and even declared that they were the only moral positions to take on many issues? At least Obama proposes taxing rather than borrowing to fund big government. And, McCain, as I need not remind many conservatives, also has a great fondness for government action.

Bingo. Which is worse, a tax-and-spend liberal, or a borrow-and-spend phony conservative who actually said that "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move?" I'd argue that at least the tax-and-spender isn't paying for his projects on the backs of our grandchildren.

But with regard to the Bush quote: Why was the man not taken to task by the right for such heresy? Why do they still defend him, even while conceding that he's not much of a conservative? Is it really just the war? Or is it just that electing a Democrat would be, oh, so much worse for them? Then their agenda still wouldn't get put into action, but they also wouldn't get invited to all those sweet parties at the White House. At what point did conservatism become more about loyalty to party than loyalty to ideas?

I don't claim to be a conservative, but I don't claim to be a liberal either. Whatever category my readers wish to put me in is their own business. I'm sure most conservatives think of me as a liberal in denial, just as many to my left may think of me as some sort of conservative apostate. That suits me fine. Personally, I think the classical conservatism of Buckley and Goldwater had some very good ideas, and it saddens me to see them so readily cast aside in exchange for political power. I suppose that's my fault for expecting better from anyone, really. And the cynicism train keeps a-rollin', all night long.

DA Rescinds Gableman Endorsement

I eagerly await the righties explaining that Dodge County District Attorney Steven Bauer (heh, remind you of another Bauer right wingers like? Or maybe this one?) is soft on crime, and a closeted Butler sympathizer. Or general attacks on Mr. Bauer's credibility or effectiveness as a DA. Something. Anything to deny that Gableman is doing anything wrong.

Anyway, with a tip o' the hat to my amigo illusory tenant (who also has the full text of the letter), here's the bottom line:

I am troubled that a candidate for our highest court would belittle our constitutional right to counsel which enhances the accuracy of the criminal justice system. I am equally troubled by Gableman's cavalier disregard for accuracy in his representations to the public through this ad. The integrity of the criminal justice system should not be allowed to be tarnished by one man's ambitious desire for higher office. Judge Gableman will not be receiving my vote for Supreme Court justice in April.

Maybe it's time for Gableman to cut his losses and pull the ad. I'm sure it's caused more trouble at this point than it's worth. But I'm not optimistic.

Butler/Gableman Melee Continues

(I've made the thematic decision that, from now on, all of my posts on the Supreme Court election will, in the style of my previous post (Butler/Gableman Brouhaha) be titled using a synonym for "fight." Don't worry, I've got plenty of choices: dustup, melee, fracas, brawl, etc.)

The Journal Sentinel actually has a pretty good editorial on the Gableman ad, although I want to repeat that I don't really see racism behind the ad in question. The editorial rightly points out the important distinction arising from the fact that this ad was produced by Gableman's campaign, not some third party. But here's the best part, echoing the point I've been driving at:

Is Gableman, a former district attorney and current circuit judge in Burnett County, suggesting that criminal defendants aren't entitled to a vigorous defense? That Butler shouldn't have done his job as a public defender? That being a public defender disqualifies one for higher office?

That's certainly how it appears when the ad ominously states that "Louis Butler defended criminals."

Meanwhile, Butler has a new ad responding to Gableman's attacks. I'm sure the right wing blogosphere will soon be churning up the outrage machine, taking objection to some statement the ad makes. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. In the words of General Sherman, "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." Obviously, I'm being hyperbolic. But Gableman and his supporters started the ball rolling in this ridiculous contest of "I'm tougher on crime than you are," and it would be incredibly bad strategy on the part of Justice Butler's campaign to ignore the charges made against him. I'm not going to propose the a candidate bring the knife to the proverbial gunfight. So, with that, here's Butler's new ad:

Today's Unintentionally Funny (and Depressing) Headline

Washington Post: Estimates of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close To Ballpark

As per my usual response, you think?

Oh, and Dick Cheney says Iran might have restarted their weapons program that they stopped five years ago. Does this man understand that he has essentially zero credibility when it comes to accusations of WMD programs?

Bucks put Harris out of his misery

Hey, the Bucks finally fired their inept GM. Maybe there's hope for them after all.

Then again, they are the Bucks.

Whoops!

Jim Cramer on Bear Stearns about a week ago:



H/T: Andrew Sullivan.

Reward for Staying Up Late

Not to toot my own horn, but as you can see in the recently christened "Self-Promotion Central" (better known as the place I put all my HTML tags), the editors of blogged.com have reviewed this blog and awarded a score of 7.2. So thanks to them and thanks to all of you for your kind attention. I do hope it's worth the surf, so to speak.

Butler/Gableman Brouhaha

I want to respond to Prof. Esenberg's post of last night with regard to the various ads surrounding the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Particularly objectionable to me is this passage:

The Greater Wisconsin Committee has put out an ad criticizing Gableman for not obtaining sufficiently weighty sentences as a prosecutor and pronouncing insufficiently weighty sentences as a judge. I haven't caught any bloggers on the left objecting to the ad which would have made them all apoplectic had it been directed at the incumbent. How can we possibly tell whether these defendants deserved more? You can't assess the propriety of an outcome without some background. The disingenuous nature of the ad is magnified by the fact that the Greater Wisconsin Committee - funded by trial lawyers, unions and casinos - has absolutely no interest in electing someone who is "tough on crime.

With all due respect to Prof. Esenberg, I beg to differ. The point of the ad isn't that Supreme Court justices need to be "tough on crime" warriors who put away every convicted felon for the maximum sentence every time. The point is, as Jay Bullock has pointed out in a comment on the post in question, that Gableman is running as a "partner in the war on crime" (according to his commercials). If Gableman thinks of himself as a warrior against crime, then why let those sex offenders have such light sentences? His record appears to contradict his campaign's claims.

Nor am I convinced by Prof. Esenberg's assertion that "background" is needed in such a commercial. Again, the whole point is that Gableman is running ads similarly lacking in "background," particularly failing to note that in the Mitchell case, Butler was a public defender doing his job, and that it was not until Mitchell completed his sentence that he molested another child. I don't see why Gableman should get the benefit of the doubt when he repeatedly denies the same to Butler. Nor do I see what's so wrong with poking holes in his record as a supposed crusader against crime when he's the one who brought it up.

Prof. Esenberg also states that he "would have rather strongly counselled against this ad." I hope so. I would like to think most people with knowledge of the facts around the Mitchell case would disapprove of an ad insinuating that Butler was the judge in the case, rather than Mitchell's attorney, not to mention accusing Butler of getting Mitchell off only to have him molest again. And I find Prof. Esenberg's attempt to somehow equivocate this ad with Butler's ad stating that "It's all about the difference between right and wrong," which I'll agree somewhat misstates the role of a Supreme Court justice, disingenuous to say the least. Is Butler making the same kind of charges Gableman is making in the Mitchell ad? Absolutely not. And the Greater Wisconsin Committee ad makes a valid point: If Gableman takes issue with putting sex offenders back on the street, why give such light sentences? Gableman is trying to have it both ways, and he is being called on it. Where's the problem?

Moreover, as I have previously stated my reasoning for opposing the WJCIC on the grounds that I think more speech, not less, is the solution to such problems, I don't want to hear it from any Gableman supporters out there that I'm somehow in favor of the WJCIC stepping in with sanctions or something. I think Butler's ads do a fair job of replying to the charges leveled in Gableman's various ads. Gableman is free to run an ad showing why those sex offenders were let off relatively easy (and there may be a perfectly valid reason for each and every one), but then he would be conceding that he has similarly been unfair (actually more so - at least he actually was the judge in those cases) to Justice Butler. So I won't hold my breath waiting for Gableman to change course.

I do want to disagree with some of my more liberal cohorts on the matter of race. I don't know if the point of putting Butler's image next to Mitchell's is to provoke a racist response. I think it's more intended to achieve the same guilt-by-association link as putting Former Senator Max Cleland's picture between images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That is, it's an attempt to show Butler as "standing with" Mitchell. Maybe race is a factor too, but I'd just as soon not accuse Gableman of being a racist, an assertion for which I have no evidence. Similarly, I decline to imply that Gableman lacks the mental capacity to do the job. It is sufficient for me to say that if he feels putting criminals behind bars is what he does best, he ought to remain where he is so he can keep doing that.

In any case, my solution to this problem remains the same as last month:

So have more debates. Put the candidates in front of the cameras and microphones more often. Give them more exposure in what Justice Holmes called "the marketplace of ideas." I think we can all agree (regardless of political affiliation) that the SCOWIS election is extremely important. Why not give that race more exposure on both sides? The truth will out, even if things get a little dirty on the way there. It's nothing profound, I know, but that's where I stand.

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that?

UPDATE: The illusory one has a nice summary (with links) of the growing storm in the blogosphere over the ad in question.
UPDATE 2: Jay Bullock of Folkbum weighs in here.

Immigration and St. Patrick's Day

The Brew City Brawler makes an excellent point here. I hope he will forgive me for quoting essentially the whole thing:

The Brawler wishes everyone a happy St. Patrick's day. Though he would like to remind everyone that, at least in the United States, St. Patrick's Day celebrations came into their own in the early to mid 1800s as displays of force (in numbers and votes) of a despised ethnic and religious minority that was notoriously resistant (at least at first) to acculturation and celebrated its ties to its native land. It was a group whose presence in this country was bemoaned by most and declared a sign of our country's incipient decline by more than a few.

(It also was a day that was a political windfall for groups -- Fenians, Clan na gael -- that would be construed as terrorist or terrorist sympathizers in the parlance of our times. To say nothing of IRA bucket passing in the 20th Century.)

But we're all past that now, in a day and age when you don't have to be Irish -- you don't even have to be Roman Catholic (you can be Anglican or Presbyterian for Pete's sake) -- to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Which is one of the things that makes America great.

So the Brawler looks forward to the day when, much to the consternation of right-wing xenophobes, we'll celebrate Cinco de Mayo as a day when everyone is Mexican. (Another correspondence between Irish immigrants and our latest newcomers is that both have been driven here by economic liberalization. It was the breakup of traditional landholding arrangements -- not the Famine -- that set in motion the vast migration across the western ocean. NAFTA has had a similar dislocating effect in Mexican agriculture. )

Amazing how quickly we forget about the Irish once being a "despised minority," no?

St. Patty's Music Post

What would Saint Patrick's Day be without fitting music? So here's "The Wild Rover" being covered by the Dropkick Murphys:



And then of course there's The Dubliners with "Whiskey in the Jar," although the lead singer mixes up the lyrics in the first verse:



Now, being a huge Metallica fan, I simply must post their version of "Whiskey" to complement the traditional performance, so here's that:



And finally, a performance I absolutely love: The Clancy Brothers with Robby O'Connell and Tommy Makem doing a splendid take on Bob Dylan's "When the Ship Comes In." It may not be an Irish song, but you'd never know it from watching:

Leprechauns Run Rampant

Happy St. Patrick's Day, to all those who keep it. Forgive me for making a few temporary "adjustments" to this page, just for kicks and giggles. (Hint: Look again at the top of the page - it's Megan's fault.)

Great MTP Moment

"My belief is that we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

-Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, 3/16/03.

It's five years later, Dick. How's that working out for you?

Quick Gableman Hit

The newest Gableman commercial shows a picture of Louis Butler captioned thus: "Louis Butler defended criminals."

The man was a public defender, for crying out loud. To quote one of illusory tenant's wittier remarks (sorry, can't find the exact page), "Law Enforcement, RAH RAH! Criminal defense attorneys, BOO!!!!"

I know everyone else has already covered this article, but here's the quote I like best:

Butler had not seen the ad late Friday, but said providing quality representation for a defendant is a critical component of the justice system. He said the judicial system is based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a lawyer and a fair trial.

"You have a candidate who is running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who thinks that's not the way it's supposed to be," Butler said. "I think that says something."

I just don't think there's any denying that Gableman is running a campaign based on the idea that ours is an inquisitional judicial system, not an adversarial one, and that criminals don't deserve representation, because they are all obviously guilty.

Besides, if Gableman is so good at putting criminals behind bars, why not leave him at his seat in the circuit court, where he can keep putting away bad dudes? That way, he wouldn't have to deal with all the nuance and subtlety of the State Supreme Court, for which he obviously lacks sufficient patience.

illusory tenant has a particularly good comment on this to-do here.

Today's Unintentionally Funny Headline

Bush: Economy going through "tough time."

You think?

What Clinton's Really Up To

Sullivan, as usual, nails it:

Increasingly, the only rationale I can think of for the way the Clintons are now campaigning is that they are running for 2012. They want McCain to win, if they can't. Why else be this self-destructive?

Absolutely yes. If Clinton can't get the nomination, I believe she wants McCain to win. Sure, she'll give Obama a tepid endorsement, but she'll be praying McCain pulls it off. She knows as well as anyone how the Democratic Party treats general election losers. The only one who ever got another chance that I can think of (at least in the last 50 years or so) is Adlai Stevenson (I'd guess because he was the only person willing to get crushed by Ike in 1956). Just look at John Kerry. Suggest running him again and you'd get a laugh.

Clinton has to believe that if Obama can't win now, every Democrat in the country will turn on him. After all, we've all been saying, "How could we possibly lose after eight years of Bush?" They'd all blame Obama for blowing it and turn to Hillary, say "Sorry we ever doubted you," and nominate her in 2012. Sure, Obama would probably be Senator-for-Life given how easily he was elected in 2004 and how much they love him in Illinois, but never again would he (or could he) dare challenge the almighty Clintons.

As someone who wants the Democratic Party to get past the Clintons, this obviously is my nightmare scenario. But what's worse is that Hillary could even blow up Obama's chances at the nomination if she keeps this up. Sullivan links to a great article by Jon Chait at The New Republic

As I said, Obama was running well ahead of Clinton in head-to-head matchups a few weeks ago, and now they're tied. After several more weeks of Clinton reinforcing McCain's message against Obama, Clinton will probably be performing better than Obama against McCain. This is the point I made in my TRB column. She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be.

Is there no lower asymptote for the Clintons? (Forgive the dorky math reference there.) Have they no sense that what they are doing is simply bad for the party? Have they no ability to put the country's and the party's interests before their own? Is there any way in Heaven or Hell to answer "yes" to any of those questions?

Listen here to Clinton's NPR interview this morning. Absolutely without shame. Here's running count of the BS:
-Running against "Uncommitted" in Michigan is a "fair" vote? Sure, if you're Saddam Hussein.
-Ruling out a joint ticket because she said Obama is less qualified than McCain is "mixing apples and oranges?" Oh, right, she doesn't recall saying that McCain was more qualified! My mistake.
- Making up foreign policy credentials? Nah, just deny, deny, deny. (That tactic in particular should alarm Democrats who have grown tired of the Bush Administration denying reality. Why should we then proceed to let Hillary Clinton get away with the same thing?)
-"No doubt that I played a major role in many of the foreign policy decisions?" Is she stoned? Besides the fact that she had no security clearance and never sat in the Situation Room, notice again how she only takes credit for the successes. Suppose she'd been involved in the disastrous Haiti adventure. I'd bet she'd find another way to blame that on someone else, just like she blames the failure of the only policy push she was deeply involved in (the health care fiasco) on everyone else.
-Visiting another country ("representing the United States in more than 80 countries") counts as foreign policy experience? Well then I'll take my visits to Singapore and Lithuania (along with time spent in airports in The Netherlands and Japan) to be foreign policy experience, too. Vote for me! I've got foreign policy credentials! This is utter crapola.
-Compare her husband's utter dearth of foreign policy experience in 1992 with George H. W. Bush at that time. Bush, you'll recall, was a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and former Ambassador to the United Nations, a World War 2 veteran, a former Vice President, and the sitting President of the United States. Against the governor of Arkansas! Talk about discrepancies in experience! Yet her husband passed the test against Bush, but Obama doesn't against her? Again, is she stoned?
-"I was part of a team" in Northern Ireland. "I wasn't sitting at the table." Then stop taking credit for it!
-Look, now isn't exactly the time to be calling the legitimacy of the caucus system into question. That time was about, oh, I don't know, a couple years ago.
-Is she seriously saying people who voted for her won't vote for Obama, but would instead stay home or vote for McCain? Unbelievable.

Is there any getting through to this woman?

Sullivan posts here a reader's response to the interview. Andrew personally asks the question we should all be asking:

I wonder if the Clintons understand what they are doing to people - people who weren't Clinton-haters in the first place, people whose votes they need.

Amen. And if the Democratic Party falls for it, now or in 2012, we deserve to lose. At least John McCain is an honorable man. At least there are things McCain won't say. At least there are lines McCain won't cross. At least there are places McCain won't go. He's not half the candidate he was eight years ago (eight years of worshiping at the Altar of Bush would probably do that to anyone, I suppose), but he'd still be twice the President that Hillary would be.

Clinton Finally Gets It

Angels and ministers of grace, defend us.

H/T: Sullivan.

"I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee," - Senator Hillary Clinton, finally getting it (or pretending to).

A week later, she finally comes around.

Glass House Watch

I don't want to go on about this for too long, but shouldn't Charlie Sykes maybe keep his mouth shut about Eliot Spitzer and the whole adultery thing? It seems to me that there's a certain woman who is now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who shares his surname but is no longer married to him because of his infidelity. Or does the fact that Spitzer got his with a hooker make Charlie look squeaky-clean by comparison?

And before anyone asks, 1) I didn't like Spitzer much because I thought he was a sanctimonious grandstander, and 2) yes, he absolutely should have resigned. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the man. Heck, I'd be willing to tolerate a victory dance from any conservative commentator who is not himself (or herself) stained with the same brush. But Sykes definitely doesn't fit that category. And he can't exactly counter it by saying "Stay out of my personal life," either, because he's opening himself up to it.

I just think that, of all people, maybe Charlie ought to think twice before criticizing Spitzer for something equally applicable to him.

Olbermann's Special Comment on Ferraro

H/T: Sullivan, who normally isn't much of a fan. I am, partly because I like his style, and partly because I appreciate the fact that he's the only MSM figure willing to go toe-to-toe with Bill O'Reilly. And I appreciate the fact that every once in a while he does a special comment like this. Clinton ought to listen to him. I know, it's ten minutes long, but definitely worth watching.

Hillary's Ferraro Problem

With a hat tip to the Brew City Brawler, here's the newest dumb thing Geraldine has said:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

They're attacking her because she's white? Huh? I'm pretty sure they're attacking her because she said something really stupid - namely, that a black man with a Middle Eastern middle name had an easier time in life than the white woman from Chicago. I'm pretty sure societal prejudices don't work that way. Besides, this campaign really shouldn't be about who had it easier in life. But, if she wants to elect the person who had the hardest time, honestly, she probably should vote for McCain, because I would never presume to say either Hillary or Obama had it tougher than seven years in a Vietnamese POW camp. So how about it, Geraldine? Coming out for Johnny Mac anytime soon?

What an idiot.

Of course, the last time Geraldine Ferraro was relevant was the year I was born, 1984.

UPDATE: Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings (also a professor of Philosophy, a subject near and dear to my heart - as the copy of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in my bag will attest) has a hilarious comment on the whole thing:

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would have asked Geraldine Ferraro to resign, since if I were Hillary Clinton, I would be running a different sort of campaign. And if I were a black man and had wheels, I would be the first black male trolleycar ever, not to mention the first being ever to be both a public transit vehicle and a mammal. Aren't counterfactuals fun?

Fun indeed!

Uh Oh.

Top US Iraq commander resigns.

Obama Needs a New Campaign Song

. . . At least until Clinton gets out of the race. My humble suggestion would be "Far Behind" by Social Distortion. Particularly for these lyrics:

You talk real trash when I'm not around.
To build yourself up, you gotta tear me down.
You'll have to excuse me, I've got better things to do.
You smile through your teeth, you talk out your neck.
Every chance you get you're gonna stab my back.
Your time's run out, I've got nothing left for you.

[Chorus:]
I'm leaving you far behind.
I'm leaving you far behind.
Stop wasting all of my time.
I'm leaving you far behind.

So I'm pulling out the weeds, I'm taking stock.
You can talk the talk, but cant walk the walk.
Your narcissistic ways have gotten the best of you.
So I'm leaving you to sink in all your glory.
For you and me, it's the end of the story.
Get out of my way, I've got better things to do.

I'll even be so kind as to provide the video of a live performance:



If this song doesn't accurately portray Hillary and the appropriate response from Obama, I don't know what does.

Hillary's Bogus "Threshold" Argument

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings calls her on it here. It's a great post, but here's the best part:

However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that she actually believes that Barack Obama cannot "cross the commander-in-chief threshold." One of the most important jobs a President has is to defend the country. If she thinks that Barack Obama is not qualified to do that job, then she should not support him over anyone who can. Specifically, she should support McCain over Obama.

That's why I think some enterprising reporter should ask her whether she would support Barack Obama if he were nominated. If she would, then she should be asked why she would be willing to support someone she does not believe is qualified to be commander in chief.

Whatever her answer, it would tell us something we need to know: either that her doubts about Obama are so serious that she would not be willing to support the nominee of her own party, or that she would support someone she thinks is unfit to serve, or that she does not believe a word she said about Obama, and is willing to impugn a fellow Democrat's fitness to serve as President because her own interests matter more to her than her party's or the nation's.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with option (3). And here's the other thing: If Obama is so unqualified, why would she then say he'd make a great Vice President? Shouldn't the VP also be "ready on day one," or is it sufficient that he'd be going to the Bill and Hillary Clinton Academy of Political Hackery? If that's her answer (and I suspect some variant of it is), it reveals something of the Clintons' arrogance. Besides, I think Obama's answer to her asking him to accept the number two spot on the ticket should fall somewhere between a polite and respectful "No" and a contemptuous "Go to Hell."

Why aren't more media outlets calling her on these inconsistencies? Why aren't more Democrats demanding to see her tax returns? To steal a phrase from Sullivan, "there's only one candidate who hasn't been vetted. And it isn't Obama."

UPDATE: Bill Clinton got asked about why Hillary would say these things and then still consider Obama for VP. MSNBC's First Read has it here. The answer is typically Clintonian: "That's politics."

No, Mr. President. That's politics as you played them - parsing every single word.

Republicans for Obama

H/T: Sullivan.

"I get it from both ends of the (political) spectrum. Last Thursday, I was on Air America. The host accused us of being nothing but a Trojan horse, concerned with nothing but trying to beat Hillary. Two hours later, I was on Laura Ingraham’s show, where I was told I wasn’t a real Republican... I told her she was the one who wasn’t a Republican, that she and others like her had given up the core of the party with this cultural/socialism kick they’ve been on; making personal decisions about people’s private lives, from the FCC’s ruling on Howard Stern to Congressional intrusion in the Terri Schiavo case. All she could say at that point was that I must be liberal because I teach at a university. But people like Laura Ingraham have basically paid for their houses and cars by feeding on the fear and division of the American people. Partisanship is not the end-all, be-all of our existence. Obama, at least, seems to recognize that," - Tony Campbell, Republicans for Obama.

Apparently Prof. Esenberg must be a liberal because he teaches at a university. Or are law schools a different category?

Anyway, can anyone deny that Bush and Company have made the Republican Party into the true Nanny State Party? Barry Goldwater would be appalled. To say nothing of the utter abandonment of fiscal conservatism by the party that has linked itself with bridges to nowhere, heaps of pork, mountains of debt built on our grandchildren's backs, and a war economists now estimate to cost $12 billion dollars a month. Have conservatives given no thought to the notion that their party is in for a whooping simply because it has sacrificed its principles?

Thanks

Two more blogs have linked to me, so here's a "thank you" to Wigderson Library and Pub and Blogging Blue for the courtesy. It is appreciated.

Sartorialism Alert!

Charlie Sykes and Owen Robinson are apparently battling on Sunday Insight for the crown of He-Whose-Tie-is-Too-Long. I thought Sykes had seen the error of his ways two weeks ago, but it seems I was mistaken. Sorry, Owen, but the title goes to the previous holder.

Charlie Sykes reigns as He-Whose-Tie-is-Too-Long once more.

Guys, the rule is that your tie should end around your waistband/belt buckle.

Long live the tie. (There I go with the bad double entendres.)

O'Reilly's Nazi Obsession

Hat Tip: Sullivan.

Absolutely hilarious.

"Nazis, Nazis, Nazis, Nazis, Nazis, Nazis, Arianna Huffington, Nazis, Nazis Nazis, KKK, Nazis, Nazis, and, did I mention the Nazis?"

Apologies

I'm watching Meet the Press right now. Ed Rendell is talking, and my head is going to explode. Caucuses are undemocratic? Huh? Tell that to Iowa.

Please, Governor. Do us all a favor and shut up.

Update: Good for Tom Daschle for calling Rendell on it and bringing up that the Iowa and Nevada caucuses are plenty democratic.

Update: Rendell just suggested that any of the other Democratic candidates would have fallen short as far as qualifications compared to Hillary Clinton. Excuse me? Joe Biden, less qualified than Hillary? Bill Richardson? So, by this standard, it seems Laura Bush would be more qualified than John McCain, because clearly being First Lady is more important than time in Congress, or experience actually doing things.

Or maybe it's because Hillary sat on the board of Wal-Mart.

"Definitely Maybe" definitely a must-see

Because I've reserved the right to use this blog as a soap box to comment on "anything else about which I feel the urge to opine," I thought I'd throw this on here: A recommendation for the movie "Definitely Maybe." Megan and I saw it last night.

Now, I have this problem with romantic comedies. To steal an oft repeated break-up cliche, "It's not you, it's me. . ." By which I mean that I compare every movie in the genre to the film I consider to be it's zenith, "When Harry Met Sally." This is truly unfortunate, because many a good film will be found wanting when compared to that Rob Reiner masterpiece. Too many classic scenes to mention: Meg Ryan faking an orgasm in the cafe. Billy Crystal and Bruno Kirby in the batting cages ("You made her meow?") and at the football game ("Mr. Zero knew before you did!"). Carrie Fisher's repeated line ("You're right, you're right, I know, you're right.") And so on.

"Definitely Maybe" is the first romantic comedy (other than perhaps "You've Got Mail") that I thought compared favorably with "When Harry Met Sally." That's about as big a recommendation as I can give. Do yourself a favor and go see it.

Clinton's "Experience"

Sullivan points out what a load of BS her claims of experience are.

New Look

So this is the new (and, hopefully, improved) page for this blog.

I want to bring up an issue I think should be pretty bipartisan this morning. Specifically, potholes. I was driving on Blue Mound Rd. yesterday, and the stretch between Sunnyslope and Mayfair looks like it was on the receiving end of an artillery barrage. Ditto for State St. in Wauwautosa. I feel fortunate to have gotten past those cratered streets with the car in one piece. Isn't there something that can be done to repair these roads that look more like the lunar surface than a proper street?

Mav Changes Outfits

I've heard back from a few people in person and one comment that the white-text-on-black-background of this blog can be difficult to read. Accordingly, I will be changing the appearance of this blog tomorrow morning (probably between 7:00 and 8:00 depending on how long it takes me to get going) to be more readable. I like the black background, but I'm more than willing to change it, and would rather do so now, lest I grow too attached to it with the passage of time.

So consider yourselves warned that this blog will look entirely different tomorrow. But hey, at least the Irony Goose will still grace the page, right?

A Mascot!

As promised, I've adopted a mascot. Megan and I call it the "Irony Goose" because of the nice down hunting vest the goose is sporting. It's actually a Christmas tree ornament we received from Megan's mother, but we get such a kick out of it that we leave it atop the TV to grace the living room of our tiny apartment.

I know, it's not as cool as Obsidian Wings' kitten, but I like it, and it amuses me. I hope it amuses you as well.

I guess it'll tick off the animal rights crowd though, huh?

Coming Soon

I'm planning on adding a mascot of sorts tonight after I get home.

When Gableman Attacks

Just saw an ad on TV a while ago. It was a campaign ad for Michael Gableman. Apparently, Justice Butler sides with criminals 60% of the time.

Yeah, I really want to know what orifice that number got pulled out of.

So how about Butler runs an ad saying that Gableman sides with Satan 61% of the time? I doubt it would be any less misleading.

Hagee Flap Continued

Brew City Brawler and illusory tenant (Yes, I know I didn't capitalize - he uses lower case, so I honor his decision by doing likewise) are both having a good laugh over Patrick McIlheran not saying zip about John "Catholicism is the great whore" Hagee after having written this post about John Edwards' 2004 campaign supporter Amanda Marcotte doing basically the same thing.

I will, however, disagree with the Brawler on one minor issue. He said:

"Shoot -- even the Catholic League is denouncing McCain and Hagee (no doubt because it recognizes the Dems are going to roll in November and wants to maintain a figleaf of nonpartisanship to retain its tax-exempt status)."

I don't think Bill Donohue gives a rat's behind about their organization's tax exempt status nearly so much as he cares about Hagee clearly being a Catholic-hater. I'm not much of a fan of Bill Donohue, but I will give him credit for being an honest broker on this issue: Republican or Democrat, you know that if you say something bad about Catholics, Bill Donohue is going to come down rather hard.

If only we could say the same for Patrick McIlheran.

And I'm still waiting for Dad29 to say something about Hagee.

Oh, and with hat tips to Sullivan and TPM, here's a video of Hagee's greatest hits:

Carrying On

I'm still working my way through the stages of grief over the announcement of Brett Favre's retirement. I think I might have reached bargaining, since I keep longing for just one more season, one more game, one more quarter, or one more touchdown pass. Or just one more time hearing the Lambeau Field crowd crescendo to absurd decibel ranges as the public address announcer gives voice to all their hopes:

"And at quarterback, from Southern Mississippi, number four, BRETT FAVRE!"

Yeah, I'm depressed.

But, in an effort to think about happier things, here's a brilliant post by Andrew Sullivan on Obama. The best part:

In the midst of this, we have a domestic politics that has become poisonously polarized by the cumulative impact of two decades of Dick Morris, Karl Rove-style politics and have lurched from one president whose every sentence was a carefully parsed legalism to one often in total denial about the reality he grapples with. We desperately need not some kind of new politics, but a return to reasoned politics, to leaders who, even when they disagree, can rationally explain how and why. Americans know we have deeply serious problems and are tired of deeply unserious posturing. Republicans have grasped this. That's why they actually rejected the most polarizing (Giuliani) and cynical (Romney) and facile (Huckabee) candidates, in favor of a serious man, who is at least open to opposing arguments and engaged in more than partisan hucksterism and nasty minority-baiting.

The Democrats, so far, have as well. Obama is simply more capable, more trustworthy, more reasonable and less partisan than Clinton. That's all. He is not a messiah, for Pete's sake, and I'm tired of being told that those of us who support him are somehow irrational or emotional. Above all, he will not breathe new life into the very pathologies with which we have all been consumed for too long. She will. Some of this is her fault; some of it isn't. I see my own attempt to move forward constructively impeded by the emotions she and her husband have the power to evoke. But her partisanship and divisiveness are not in my mind alone. She knows what she's doing - and, in my view, we cannot afford her any more.

Here, here.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Okay, forget politics for the rest of the day.

Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island - I don't care.

I'm mourning.

Looks like this gloomy Wisconsin winter day just got a whole lot gloomier.

Thanks for the memories, Brett. It's sure been a great 17 years.

Mav Protests Lack of Sun

I'm finally sick of winter. I usually hold out until April (being a Wisconsin native), but apparently the four years of Illinois winters has gotten to me at last. So, as I wish to protest (in vain, mind you) the persistence of winter, I give you "Why Does the Sun Shine?" by They Might Be Giants. I couldn't find an actual performance of it with anything approaching decent quality, so here's a video some random person made.

I'm Waiting

I'd like to post about the whole McCain-Hagee thing in more detail, but out of deference (I'm not Catholic - there, I just told you something about my religious background. Make any assumptions at your own risk.) I'm waiting for conservative Catholic bloggers to say something about how unacceptable it is that McCain would accept the support of a man who calls their church "a great whore." So, Prof. Esenberg and Dad29 should be chiming in on this any minute now...

I mean, imagine the reaction of conservative Jews if Obama it were even suggested that Obama had the support of an anti-Semite like Farrakhan. Oh, wait a minute, that's already happened. So is it just that one has thousands of followers, a television network, and millions of dollars waiting to be tapped, while the other is a punch-line?

And why aren't conservative Jews insulted by a guy who only supports Israel so that it can be destroyed to hasten Armageddon?

So, like I said, I'm waiting. If Bill Donahue (hardly a raging liberal) can criticize McCain over Hagee, I don't see what the issue is. In the meantime, Matt Yglesias comments on Hagee here.

(And on a completely random note, I enjoy Dad29's site, if only because he still has an ad on it that reads: "Draft Thompson '08 . . . because you shouldn't have to settle!" It's a guaranteed way to make me laugh, no matter what mood I'm in.)

UPDATE: Prof. Esenberg has now stated that McCain "should throw Hagee under the bus." Fine. Still nothing from Dad29.

Also, Prof. Esenberg's post here actually attacks Obama for opposing the War in Iraq from the beginning. Are we still debating this issue? More on this later, because I have class soon.

Have you seen this man's lapel pin?

Courtesy of TPM, it seems Congressman Jack Kingston's lapel pin has gone AWOL. First it was MIA during his appearance on The Abrams Report. Now it's nowhere to be seen.

Can't you see the man is obviously in pain? How can he go on without his lapel pin? How can he distinguish himself from the blame-America-first crowd if he doesn't have an American flag on his jacket?

South America in Chaos! Oh Noes!

Hugo Chavez sends troops to the border with Columbia and threatens war. Besides the fact that the Columbian government is a joke, this whole thing is just hilarious. Not for the potential human suffering that would follow a war, but just because I think it should be entitled "When Banana Republics Attack."

Sorry, I'm kind of off my game this morning, but I'll try to post something substantial before class, and, failing that, by the evening.

Back from Off the Grid

So Megan and I have returned from a brief trip up to visit my parents in the Green Bay area. Normal blogging should resume with a vengeance tomorrow morning.

Why Infrastructure Matters

I feel I need to respond to the charge Republicrat made in my last post that I somehow have a "box labeled 'I hate Dubya.'" The truth of the matter is that I do not have such a box, and I do not hate the man. If it is said that I hate President Bush simply because I strongly disagree with him on virtually every policy matter, than the same was true of Republicans when President Clinton was in office (and I'd note that I'm not calling for Bush's impeachment and removal from office for anything), and especially President Carter. I respect my Republican friends enough to give them credit for not opposing Clinton simply on the grounds of personal hatred, and I wish Republicans in general would do the same for me. I understand some liberals have gotten out of hand with their personal comments toward the man, but the same can be said of various right-wingers and various Democrats. I don't propose to generalize Ann Coulter's views as applying to all Republicans, so I'd appreciate it if Michael Moore's didn't get applied to all Democrats.

Republicrat also suggests that my remark about burying fiscal conservatism was hyperbolic. Granted, I was trying to make a point. But as something of a fiscal conservative myself (I want balanced budgets again), I think Republicans have done themselves a great disservice by not criticizing Bush's terrible record on spending and government expansion. I know, they complain about it every now and again, but you don't hear Grover Norquist ranting against Bush's policies the way you would have heard him had Al Gore been elected and done the same thing.

A true fiscal conservative would at least agree with my point in that post: That we ought to spend money making our infrastructure safe here before building infrastructure for the Iraqis. Republicrat points out that the I-35W collapse was due to "a 1960's design flaw, not corrosion or deterioration." That's exactly my point. We should be looking for every bridge with that design flaw and fixing it now, rather than spending that money over in Iraq, where said infrastructure is as likely as not to get blown up again anyway.

Republicrat suggests I drop the issue of infrastructure. I can't imagine why. If Republicrat feels perfectly okay driving over every single bridge he drives over, that's his prerogative, but I don't share the sentiment. Maybe he wants the issue dropped because it makes an effective point against the current administration. In that case, I'll reach for it whenever it suits me, thank you very much.

Look, I don't think George W. Bush is a bad person or that he has some nefarious plan to accomplish some unspeakably evil goal. Nor do I think that he hates his country or is somehow less patriotic than me. Behold, I have already given more credit to President Bush than many of his supporters (especially Hannity, et. al.) have given to those who dare to criticize the man. I think he has many admirable qualities. He's a very principled man. The idea of spreading democracy everywhere is a very noble, if unrealistic, aspiration. But remember how Carter got (justifiably) hammered for having goals that outstripped the ability to achieve them? I don't see a difference between the two. And given that Bush's record on the size of Government is vastly worse than Carter's, I just do not understand how self-identified fiscal conservatives can hold on to that title while telling us all to pay no attention to the fact that our president has utterly abandoned the fiscal conservatism they claim to support.

Although I don't support the premise of the song, I think Neil Young's song "Let's Impeach the President" made a good point when it asked:

"What if al-Queda blew up the levees?
Would New Orleans have been safer that way?"

Ask yourself this: Imagine that the I-35W bridge, instead of collapsing on its own, was blown up by terrorists who exploited the design flaw Republicrat has pointed out. Imagine also that the resulting collapse killed precisely the same number of people as the accidental collapse did. Does anyone doubt there would be outcry from every conservative in the country to "Secure our bridges before the terrorists hit us again!" Yet it collapses accidentally and Republicrat yawns. Is it just that one involves truly evil people (though I don't hate Bush, I do hate Osama bin Laden) and explosions, while the other is just a bunch of concrete and steel suddenly giving in to the law of gravity? I happen to think that's a fairly shallow way of looking at it.

Or imagine if a bridge in Iraq collapsed and killed an equivalent number of Iraqis as the I-35W collapse. Does anyone doubt Bush would say we have to build new bridges for the Iraqis?

So, to answer Republicrat's question, no, I will not stop using this issue. I and other Democrats will continue to raise it to point out disagreements with the present administration. After all, it's not our fault if Republicrat and other Republicans have no answer to the problem except to suggest that those who bring it up are "Bush haters" or using scare tactics. I'm not saying blow trillions to replace every bridge everywhere. But to dismiss the issue entirely, or say Iraq has nothing to do with it, in my opinion, is to deny reality.

And I will freely use rhetorical devices such as hyperbole, bad puns (of which I am a master), semi-clever double entendres, etc. whenever I so desire. Readers be warned.

Oh, and related to nothing in this post: If Obama said of Farrakhan that "in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of [Farrakhan]'s views, which I obviously do not," wouldn't people be justifiably upset? So why no outcry when McCain says exactly that regarding the guy who compared New Orleans to Sodom and has issues with gays, Catholics and women?

(Also, I'd like to personally thank whoever referred my site for listing on WisOpinion. Thanks for spreading the word.)