“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” is one of the best movies of the 1980s, and not only because it featured Ruprecht the Monkey Boy. As you may recall, it involves two hucksters who prey on rich, single, and gullible women to swindle them out of their cash. Michael Caine is brilliant as Dr. Emil Shüffhausen (from the Shüffhausen Clinic in Lichtenstein), who attempts to pry fifty thousand dollars away from a supposedly naïve heiress.

Dr. Emil Shüffhausen, meet Dave Magnum.

Magnum, a wealthy Republican from Portage, was recruited in 2004 by the Republican Party to run against uber-liberal but popular Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin in the Dane County area. Unfortunately for Magnum, his race highlights the dark side of politics. When political operatives saw Magnum, they began licking their chops, much like my dog does when I eat popcorn.

There are many races around the state that simply aren’t winnable. Just because a race can’t be won, however, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a tidy profit to be made by running one of those races. Political consultants often descend on naïve wealthy people, pitch their candidacy, and rake in the consulting fees as the campaign goes up in flames. Generally, the only people telling these people that they can win are the ones that directly profit from the campaign.

In 2000, John Sharpless came close to beating Baldwin, but the district borders changed by the time 2002 rolled around. In the 2002 election, Baldwin disemboweled firefighter Ron Greer, beating him 66% to 34%. Greer, the sworn arch-enemy of the left wing who may be just to the right of Rasputin, didn’t spend much money and never really had a chance. Make no mistake – Greer\’s 34% is the base Republican vote in the district. Courtney Love could run on the GOP ticket and get 34% (and she killed Kurt).

Enter Dave Magnum, a radio station owner with a lot of money, no political experience, and no name identification. Knowing what a challenge it is to raise money in the 2nd Congressional District, Magnum was a perfect target for the Republican Party – he was more moderate than Greer, had boatloads of cash, and was willing to spend it as a candidate.

Magnum’s federal campaign finance reports show a badly mismanaged, top-heavy campaign that shelled out nearly $117,000 in consulting fees and staff salaries – almost as much as Ron Greer spent in his entire 2002 campaign. Magnum used four different consulting firms. His reports show that he either contributed personally or lent his campaign $349,000 of his own money, which comprised 52% of all the funds raised by his campaign (his FEC filings are sloppy and incomplete, for which he has been warned seven times by the feds).

The most valuable expenditure a campaign can make is one that directly contacts a voter – whether it’s via TV ad, radio ad, literature mailing, yard sign, or phone call. To his credit, Magnum did spend plenty in these categories – including a $268,000 television ad buy (some of his TV ads featured him longingly staring at a picture of his deceased wife, which shows you the quality of consulting he was getting).

When you go item by item through the campaigns’ expenditures, however, it reveals a campaign that either didn’t know what it was doing or a campaign that never really expected to win.

For instance, Magnum paid $1700 a month to rent a campaign headquarters ($6800 total), and nearly $12,800 to furnish it, including furniture, computers, supplies, internet access, campaign software, and cable TV (cable TV!) Anyone that has run a campaign will tell you that there are always friendly business owners that will give you a great deal on a headquarters, usually in a public right of way. You just have to do a little digging.

The Magnum campaign also clearly liked to eat. His campaign spent $2,500 on food for staff over a 4 month period. Magnum’s campaign also spent over $3,500 on cell phones for his staff. Details on how either of those expenditures convinces voters to vote for Dave Magnum are unavailable.

Magnum\’s campaign also suffered from Magnum himself. His calm, cool demeanor and slow, deliberate radio voice euthanized exciting political events. His rehearsed radio voice is enough to make NPR seem like Def Comedy Jam. Local pickpockets figured out they could walk out of a 15 minute Magnum speech on Social Security with 100 wallets. Bland and uninspiring, he never provided a single reason to elect him. He never laid out a consistent message, which is suprising given how much advice he was paying for.

You probably already know what happened in November. Magnum was trounced by Baldwin, losing 63% to 37%. On election night, he said \”I\’m an optimist. I was going to feel like I won either way tonight.\” Ummm…. yeah. I think Enron might be looking for a new auditor with just that type of can-do rosy outlook.

I opened the Wisconsin State Journal editorial section the other day to a column written by Dave Magnum, where he took the highly controversial position of being tough on sex offenders. To me, this was about as welcome as a recurring rash after a spring break trip to Tijuana. Wispolitics.com followed up several days later with a report than Magnum was considering another run for Congress, and was being courted by – you guessed it – a consulting firm.

Magnum might be a great guy, and this column contains quite a bit of tough love. I’d like to see a Republican win this seat as much as anyone, but it will take the right candidate receiving the right advice. Spending almost $700,000 to get 2% more of the vote than the clearly unelectable Ron Greer is simply not acceptable.

I saw a depressing sign at a Brewer game the other night that said \”Brewers! – Let\’s get to .500!\” It\’s a sign of low expectations when the most you can hope for is to win 50% of your games. My suggestion for the next Magnum campaign slogan – \”Dave Magnum – 36% with a bullet!\”

In 2006, the consultants will be lining up to take a whack at the Magnum Money Pinata, hoping his personal wealth falls to them. My only advice – don’t answer a call from Dr. Emil Shüffhausen.

Rejected possible title for this post: Magnum Pee-Yoo!

I don\’t have anything particulary good to share with anyone today (as if any of it is), so I thought I\’d take time out to thank some people who have helped this blog get off the ground. Apparently, Charlie Sykes has acquired a computer virus that keeps linking to my articles. Bill Christofferson, Charlie\’s arch-nemesis in the Wisconsin Blog World, has been very encouraging from the start. Others who are frequent readers and occasionally link to my posts are Jessica McBride, Dean at the Thoughtful Conservative, Jib, John McAdams, Random10, Real Debate Wisconsin, and Dad29 (that guy is everywhere!)

What I\’ve realized is that the blog world is very much like the rap world – one person gains fame an notoriety, then begins linking to others who then start to pick up readers. As I\’m sure you remember, N.W.A. begat Doctor Dre, who begat Snoop Dogg, who begat Eminem, who begat 50 Cent, and on and on. In this spirit, figure my next move is to host a \”Girls Gone Wild\” video.

So, anyway, thanks to everyone who helps keep good news alive. I don\’t do a lot of linking to other blogs, so I wanted all of you to know that I read you constantly, and you all do great work.

With President Bush’s selection of John Roberts as Sandra Day O’Connor’s successor on the U.S. Supreme Court, the hysteria regarding Roberts’ views will now commence. Roberts became a federal judge in 2003, and little is known about how he might decide pivotal cases on the Court, but that will not keep interest groups from speculating.

In the upcoming days, you will see a substantial amount of speculation about Roberts’ temperament as a jurist. Much of it may turn out to be wrong. As a guide to what might be before us, I decided to look at the rhetoric surrounding another Republican-appointed Supreme Court nominee with a paucity of written opinions, David Souter. Some of the rhetoric may sound awfully familiar as Judge Roberts’ nomination moves through the U.S. Senate.

In 1990, President George Bush appointed David Souter, at the time a little known New Hampshire State Supreme Court judge and former State Attorney General, to the Supreme Court just three days after Justice William Brennan retired. Widely considered a conservative at the time of his nomination, Souter has morphed into a reliable vote for the left during his tenure. Did we know what was coming?

At the press conference held to announce Souter’s appointment, Bush said:

“His opinions reflect a keen intellect as well as wide balance between the theoretical and practical aspects of the law. Judge Souter is committed to interpreting, not making the law. He recognizes the proper role of judges in upholding the democratic choices of the people through their elected representatives, with constitutional constraints.”

Q: Did you ask Judge Souter his views on abortion? Do you know what his views are, and affirmative action, and all these things that have become so controversial – the major issues of the day?

A. No, and I had one meeting with Judge Souter. I was very impressed, but in my view it would have been inappropriate to ask him his views on specific issues… I did not, and would not, as I think I\’ve said before, when I talked about – not just here but at other times – the litmus test approach. I wouldn’t go into that with him.

Q. Does that mean you do not care what he thinks?

A. It means I have selected a person who will interpret the Constitution, and in my view not legislate from the Federal bench.

Q. You’re not certain in your own mind how Justice Souter will vote if Roe v. Wade comes before the Court next term?

A. What I’m certain of is that he will interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the Federal bench…

…And when you see the background of this man, I’m confident the Senate will share my views. You’re looking for fairness, you’re looking for equity. I wrote down a bunch of words to help me make the determination, and I wish I had them, because they’re all along those lines – experience. And I did say that I’d like somebody that will interpret the Constitution, not legislate.

Following the nomination, interest groups began to immediately formulate their opinions of Souter. Liberal groups decried the selection, pointing to cases Souter prosecuted as Attorney General of New Hampshire in which he urged that demonstrators arrested at the Seabrook nuclear power plant be given more than suspended sentences. He also argued, unsuccessfully, that it was constitutionally permissible to fly the American flag at half staff on Good Friday and that New Hampshire could force residents to carry the state slogan, ”Live Free or Die,” on their license plates.

The liberal People for the American Way unearthed a document written by Souter in which he referred to abortion as “the killing of unborn children,” which prompted Kate Michelman of the National Abortion Rights Action League to say, “ the use of rhetoric commonly used by anti-choice extremists is profoundly alarming.”

Some choice quotes from pro-abortion groups in 1990:

Abortion rights advocates Tuesday escalated pressure on the Senate to reject Supreme Court nominee David Souter, warning of political reprisals against those who vote for him. We urge you to keep the faith of the American people and American women, women who will not forget who nominated the next justice and who confirmed him, said Faye Wattleton, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
USA Today, September 19, 1990

”To George Bush and others who would like us to think David Souter is a blank slate, NOW asks, ‘Who are you kidding?’ ” said Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women. She described Souter as ”almost neanderthal.” NOW plans a ”Stop Souter” rally Friday on Capitol Hill. National Abortion Rights Action League’s Kate Michelman said Souter has to be rejected because he would not fully endorse a constitutional right to privacy – including the right to reproductive choice.
USA Today, September 19, 1990

“For the first time in history, the Supreme Court is on the brink of taking away a fundamental right: the right to choose,” said Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League. Her group urged the committee to “safeguard the health and lives of millions of American women by withholding their consent.”
The Toronto Star, September 18, 1990

“He hasn’t said what he thinks about the most important issue facing women today,” said Donna Lenhoff, legal director for the pro-choice Women’s Legal Defense Fund, as the hearing wrapped up yesterday. “We are very, very concerned.”
The Toronto Star, September 18, 1990

In August of 1990, former Reagan nominee Robert Bork wrote an editorial in the New York Times that displayed optimism about Souter’s conservative temperament. He wrote:

The early signs about Judge David Souter are encouraging. He seems not to confuse judging with his own moral and political sympathies. If that proves to be so, he most certainly should be confirmed. If he is, the third branch of our Government will be well on its way to the function prescribed for it by the Constitution. Both our right to self-government and our liberties that the Constitution removes from majority rule will be fully protected.

Conservative groups also had their reservations about Souter, which ultimately turned out to be correct. Howard Phillips, chairman of The Conservative Caucus, said he was opposing Souter because of his service as a director of two New Hampshire hospitals that allow abortions. He also alarmed conservative senators. Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, declared in disgust that his responses were those of a ”judicial activist” (a judge who tries to legislate from the Bench).

Souter’s Senate confirmation hearings went through without the future justice answering a single question about how he might decide an abortion case. It took him actually sitting on the Supreme Court to find out where he really stood.

As we now know, Souter ended up being an ardent friend of pro-abortion forces. Souter was a joint author of the most prominent abortion decision since Roe v. Wade, 1992’s Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. In that case, the majority opinion found that regulations on abortion would be unconstitutional if they imposed an“undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion. In that opinion, Souter wrote, “Our adoption of the undue burden analysis does not disturb the central holding of Roe v. Wade, and we reaffirm that holding.”

Souter has also been on the majority side of cases that upheld racial quotas in university admissions, banned the Ten Commandments on public property, struck down state sodomy laws, and a recent controversial case that reaffirmed the use of eminent domain by local governments to seize private property.

In the coming weeks, you will hear fiery rhetoric about how Judge Roberts is going to dismantle a woman’s right to an abortion. You will hear how he has a poor record with regard to civil rights. In the end, only one person knows how John Roberts will cast his vote as a Supreme Court Justice, and that is Judge John Roberts. For conservatives’ sake, let’s hope he holds his apparent conservative credentials dear.

U research raises hope of reversing Alzheimer\’s (Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 14)

University of Minnesota researchers have reversed memory loss in mice with Alzheimer\’s disease, raising the tantalizing possibility that the same thing can be done in humans.
Their findings may also challenge long-held assumptions about how the debilitating disease destroys memory and intellect, resulting in dementia for millions of people.

What exactly were these mice forgetting? Where they put their car keys? Where they last saw the remote control? How to play Rachmaninoff\’s \”Etude-tableau In D Major\” on the oboe?

I watched the Gaylord Nelson memorial service on TV today, and wanted to share a few thoughts.

The actual ceremony was impressive. The speeches were kind, thoughtful, and moving. It looks like Marc Marotta got a noticeably raw deal in the seating arrangement. I learned a lot about a man who I actually met once (in 1999), and was nothing but kind to me.

Personally, I often live my own life knowing that I\’m building towards something, but not really knowing exactly what. I know that I\’m trying to achieve something, I just don\’t have clear cut goals. I figure that at some point my lack of desire, my body, or my wife will tell me when I\’m done building, and I can move on into retirement, play golf, and let people who are my age now run the show. I can then look back and judge what I did, and hopefully it all adds up.

Gaylord Nelson lived a different life altogether. He had specific and lofty goals. He built and built and built, and never stopped. When doors closed on him, he opened them. Despite his enormous accomplishments, including his time as Governor and Senator, he kept working and attaining until his death. There was no time to sit back and reflect, as he always saw problems that needed fixing.

When we die, all that is left of us are the memories that we leave with our friends and families, along with our tangible living accomplishments. Your sprit stays alive in the positive experiences you provide others. The endless stream of kind words spoken at the memorial service today showed that Gaylord Nelson will be alive for generations. If I have friends remember me half as fondly as today\’s remembrances, I will think I did alright (although it is unlikely Walter Mondale will be attending my funeral).

These are lessons, I think, that resonate regardless of your political affiliation. If someone neglects drawing inspiration from someone\’s spirit and determination based on their political beliefs, then they really are missing out.

Now back to the off-color jokes.

You’ve been to Best Buy – admit it. You’ve navigated the aisles there around the loud, fat woman on the cell phones. You’ve weaved your way around the teenage couple who has nowhere to go after school, so they decide to perform a joint tonsillectomy in the Rap/Soul section. You imagine the only reason someone needs to be that far down someone’s throat is because the cure for cancer is lodged in his esophagus.

You walk around, aisle after aisle, and soak in the technology. The employees that know anything about their products are likely hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan, as they are nowhere to be found. Finding a copy of “Lord of the Rings” is anti-climactic, because you feel like you’ve just lived Frodo’s journey to get to the right section (Drama? Comedy? Adventure? Adult? Golem is naked after all.)

The store takes up an entire zip code. It may be quicker to Fed Ex yourself to the washing machine section. They ask you for your phone number and your zip code, most likely to keep tabs on you for when Himmler returns from the grave to get his revenge. They will push an expensive service plan on you as if they were Sipowicz trying to break your will. There’s an 11% chance your credit card will go through within 3 swipes. You will get a 14 foot long receipt when all you purchased was a mouse pad (seriously, environmental groups need to take a stand on this issue – trees are dying needless deaths to supply Americans with unnecessarily long receipts. I see this being a big issue in the ’06 races.)

The sheer volume of product being sold from these large stores makes them revenue machines. They benefit local communities by providing lower cost products, employing a ton of people, and generating gobs of sales tax revenue (“gobs” being an official accounting term).

And guess what? I can\’t stand them.

When many of these “big box” stores are built, pro-business developers that push them on the community generally appeal to free market conservatism, using the points I discussed above. According to free market principles, lower cost products stimulate economic growth, which allows businesses to hire more people, which puts money in their pockets to spend. All of these are indisputable points.

Economic conservatism, however, is a coin that has two sides. For too long, conservatism has been used to defend grotesque excess, when it actually makes an equal case for economic restraint. It all depends on what an individual values – if you are looking for the cheapest product, Best Buy is for you. There are, however, non-economic costs to shopping there, in the form of large crowds, poor service, bad locations, etc. To me, there is a substantial benefit to avoiding all of these hurdles.

There’s a little CD store I pass every day on my way to and from work. The guys behind the counter know my name. When I go in, they alert me to the fact that an album from a band I like has come out. They suggest new discs based on what I like. They have a stand where you can throw on the headphones and listen to virtually any CD in the store before you buy. When you get a disc, they take the plastic wrapping and stickers off for you. If they don’t have a disc (or vinyl album) that you want, you can put in an order and generally have it within a day or two. They sell used CDs for half price.

Sure, I may pay a buck more per disc, but when I buy twelve, I get one free. When I buy music, I know that my money is going to help these guys stay employed and pay their rent, so they can keep helping me. To me, that is valuable.

Madison and the East Side of Milwaukee are rampant with residents that resist any and all types of commercialism. They would rather a blighted lot stay empty and infested with hypodermic needles than a Walgreen’s or Starbucks move in. All these people will allow in their neighborhoods are art galleries, organic food co-ops, and fair trade coffeehouses, so good properties stand empty. A lot of these people will defend Saddam Hussein before they will defend Wal-Mart. This is extremism that truly is bad for the economy. Regardless of the inhabitant, people need to be employed, tax revenue needs to be collected, and people need to be given a reason to walk the streets to shop.

As I said, I don’t begrudge Best Buy or Home Depot or Wal-Mart or any other big store from doing business in my city, and I’m certainly not a smarty-art extremist. Big box stores create government revenue that the York household doesn’t have to make up though higher property taxes. The trickle-down economic effects are overwhelmingly positive. People who don’t have the luxury of paying a little extra for their goods and services can get them at lower cost.

I just don’t prefer them. I value locally owned businesses, and getting the personal service that I do at these little stores is irreplaceable to me. I prefer to exercise my free market prerogative to spend my money where I find the most value, and that doesn’t necessarily mean economic value. I would never tell anyone not to shop at large stores, but I would encourage people to give their locals a try. You might be surprised. In many cases, the difference is like the difference between flying first-class and coach, for very little extra money. And because of your business, I will still be able to shop there.

Conservatism doesn’t always have to mean bigger – it makes an equal case for better.

Okay, some of you might remember this column from last week (the one that set off parental filter alarms around the state). I didn\’t intend to cover this topic again, but this story is too funny, and proves that law enforcement in Northwest Wisconsin are Dennis York fans.

A Minneapolis man accused of sexual assault while wearing spandex pants was bound over for trial during a preliminary hearing last Friday (July 8).

Okay, point #1 – How funny is it that the guy\’s name is \”Long\” and the prosecuting attorney\’s name is \”Frank?\” I want this case to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, so I can read about the \”Long/Frank\” case for indecent exposure.

Point #2 – What would possibly be the purpose in pointing out THREE TIMES in the story that the guy was wearing spandex? Still thinking? I\’ll give you another minute…

…because Mr. Long was clearly in violation of Wisconsin Statute 942.08(1)(a)!

I think I can humbly and accurately state that he would never have been caught without my groundbreaking essay. In fact, I now think it is likely I will be called to testify in this case. If I am, there is a 100% chance I will show up in court wearing full body length spandex (and a tie, out of respect for the court). I better not say any more, as it might taint my testimony.

I\’m not a big fan of the death penalty, but in this case it should be utilized, just so Long can get his wish of being stiff in perpetuity.

I’m always entertained when people speculate as to who “won” the battle of the state budget. To settle it once and for all, we need have Jim Doyle on one side of a podium and the Legislature on the other side. With Virgil standing behind her fanning out $100 bills (like he used to do for the Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase), Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson would then declare a winner, who would then get to hold the championship belt until the next budget amid trash talk between the sides.

I saw “Batman Begins” this weekend and it was so good, I was inspired to go out and fight crime. I immediately went to PDQ and sat there for 12 hours, waiting for it to be robbed. Unfortunately, the only criminal act I witnessed was the fact that they were selling boxes of Gobstoppers for $1.29.

Rumors are circling that former Senate Minority Leader Jon Erpenbach will not seek re-election next year. Erpenbach, as you recall, won the Olympic gold medal in the 200 meter backstroke last summer, beating out American favorite Michael Phelps. Phelps was clearly devastated when he was beaten by a paunchy 43 year old, who was actually smoking a cigarette and had a blood alcohol level of .32 as he swam. Erpenbach is looking forward to spending time training for the newest Olympic event, the \”neighborhood pool fence jump.\”

Ever notice that on “The Wiggles” they never allow the Asian Wiggle to drive the Big Red Car? Is that because he’s a narcoleptic?

Is there a more under-covered story than Frank Boyle reportedly urinating in his pants at the police station when he was arrested for DUI earlier this year? Next time someone says \”something doesn’t pass the smell test\” on the floor of the Assembly, they might want to check Boyle’s trousers.

Last week, I shaved off my goatee. Yesterday, wouldn’t you know it, I was walking down the street and saw someone else wearing it! I tried to wrestle it off the fellow, but for some reason, he resisted. Finally, we exchanged library card numbers and went our separate ways.

I was watching the Brewer game a couple weeks ago, when Prince Fielder hit his first major league home run. Hysterical announcer Daron Sutton acted as if Fielder instead walked out to the middle of the field and converted bread to fish for the Miller Park crowd. Sutton, a former pitcher, clearly has seen plenty of home runs in his time, otherwise he wouldn\’t be announcing baseball games – he\’d be pitching in them.

If there were ever an Olympic competition for spinning a bag of Wonder Bread to close it after use, I would win the gold medal every time. That is, until they found out I use steroids to get as good as I am.

If you\’re ever stuck an at airport and have to resort to people watching, there are two games that are sure to keep you entertained. Game one: \”Gay… or European?\” Game two: \”Father… or lover?\” And you have to pause between the choices. Funny every time.

One of the funnier recent developments has to be rappers getting into the soft drink business. This weekend, I tried some of Nelly’s “Pimp Juice,” then I sat back waiting for five strung out, syphilis infected street women to show up at my house, urging me to slap them around. Still waiting, nothing yet. My dog did hump my Playstation, so I’m holding out hope that it’s working a little bit.

I rewired my alarm clock so now when the alarm goes off, I fall asleep instantly.

Yep, I think this pretty much sums up Europeans. (Warning: absolutely NOT work friendly.)Apparently \”Ding Dong Song (You Touch My Tra-La-La)\” by Gunther & The Sunshine Girls is the #1 song in Sweden right now. And we base our foreign policy on what these people think? 5 bucks to anyone who can watch the whole thing through.

Time Magazine doesn\’t even attempt to whitewash their biases anymore, and they never miss an opportunity to talk down to their readers. For example, take this diagram of the U.S. Supreme Court, where they color code (red for the red states, blue for the blue) the justices. Furthermore, they split them into dark colors (staunch) or light colors (moderate). And guess what? All the conservatives except Anthony Kennedy are \”staunch,\” while all the liberals are \”moderates.\” The text of the accompanying article even refers to Ginsburg and Breyer as \”stalwarts of the court\’s liberal wing.\” Those two justices are probably fighting for next month\’s centerfold in \”The Progressive\” magazine.

Aside from this obvious bias, how pretentious is it to color code justices? Is that for those of us who get the Supreme Court confused with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? In order to make it perfectly clear for their puerile readers, they should have included cartoon icons next to the justices: A plate of steaming tortellini next to Scalia (the hot blooded Italian one), a two-for-one coupon at Payless Shoes for Ginsburg (the crafty Jewish one) a Coke can with a pubic hair on it next to Thomas, and so on and so forth. I would personally like to thank Time for boiling down the complexity and thoughtfulness of the Supreme Court to a color chart. Next week – our Iraq exit strategy mapped out in Legos.

I have a “bone” to pick with our state government.

Taxes are too high, overregulation is stifling our economy, we are at war, and the balance of the Supreme Court is in question. However, our news media has missed one crucial story that may trump the rest in importance. I bring you Wisconsin State Statute 942.08(1)(a), the definition of “public nudity,” which states:

942.08(1)(a)
(a) \”Nude or partially nude person\” means any human being who has less than fully and opaquely covered genitals, pubic area or buttocks, any female human being who has less than a fully opaque covering over any portion of a breast below the top of the nipple, or any male human being with covered genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

That’s right: boners are illegal in Wisconsin.

The thought police are on the prowl – how is it possible for any male to short circuit the direct line (the “Batphone, if you will) between his brain and his pants? I believe it is my right as an American to walk in public in any “state” that I feel is appropriate.

Suppose I want to go out and get my mail after a couple hours of watching MTV\’s \”Spring Break Weekend.\” Would the cops rush up to my door and slap the cuffs on (or in this case, one small cuff)? Would I have to sit in a jail cell with murderers, rapists, and plagiarizers and have to explain that I was in there because a cable station decided to play “Charlie’s Angels” reruns in the afternoon?

Can you imagine the floor debate on the insertion of this law? Was it tucked discreetly into a larger bill? Did it con its way into state law by buying the statute books a few drinks and playing some Marvin Gaye records?

I imagine the floor debate went something like this:

Pro-boner ban representative: \”Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to speak about a danger that is plaguing society. Kids these days with their rap music and boners are going to eradicate humanity. Keep in mind, I have no idea how children are made or that stiffies are essential to procreation.\”

Anti-boner ban representative: \”Mr Speaker, I would like to rise, but unfortunately I am having trouble standing up right now without making an embarassing adjustment.\”

(This representative accepted lucrative campaign contribution from Swedish \”pump\” companies.)

This law doesn\’t discriminate on the basis of age. If you\’re an elderly Viagra user and your condition persists for more than four hours, you may have to consult an attorney before you consult your physician. For teenage boys, cops could round up sting operations at the same time the Kohl\’s womens\’ underwear ads are mailed. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue coming to my house would have turned into the OJ trial.

If you find yourself potentially in violation of the law, calm down, lock your doors and windows, and turn on the WNBA for five minutes. This is guaranteed to clear it right up.

This cosmic injustice must be corrected. Some brave legislator must stand up, tall and strong, and challenge the otherwise flaccid Legislature to repeal this law. My suggestion: Representative Jeff Wood.