I’ve settled into a cycle with liberal blogger Xoff over at Wispolitics.com, It goes something like this:

1. Xoff posts something completely absurd
2. Xoff posts something completely absurd
3. Xoff posts something completely absurd
4. Xoff posts something that he gets 100 percent correct, leading me to say “this guy actually gets it.” I then forget every absurd post he had done previously.
5. Xoff posts something completely absurd
6. Repeat, indefinitely.

I was led to point #4 today by his assessment of John Nichols’ opinion piece in the Capital Times, urging Kathleen Falk to run against Governor Jim Doyle instead of Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager. I read the editorial with my mouth agape at how stupid a theory it posited. In fact, I don’t really have anything more to add to it – just read it yourself. I agree with every word (except the part about Bucher and Van Hollen being extremists). If Nichols wanted Falk to run in a primary against Doyle, he would be handing the GOP the two most important statewide offices in Wisconsin. Exactly how does that promote a “progressive” agenda?

He is also correct in assessing the GOP attacks on Falk. In campaigns, you only need to look at who is being attacked the most to find out who the frontrunner is. He has clearly decided that he wants the office to remain in Democratic hands, so Lautenschlager has to go. In fact, I might get a “Republicans for Lautenschlager” group together to make sure she sneaks through the primary (she will not).

I also have to chuckle at Xoff’s turn against Lautenschlager. To his credit, he has been on this for a while – see his June posts. Early on, I did a post critical of State Senator Mary Lazich, and Xoff linked to it, accusing Republicans of “eating their own.” In fact, what I wrote was a puff piece compared to the way he’s gone after Lautenschlager (I also wrote my article because I legitimately believe Lazich is nuts, not out of any political calculus).

That Xoff is a smart guy.

Wait… he said what today?

It usually takes me a few days to comment on breaking news, primarily because:

A. I am lazy;
B. I like to think about things before I write about them;
C. I spend a great deal of time locked in the bathroom, sobbing quietly to myself about the fact that Jennifer Garner chose Ben Affleck as her baby daddy and not me.

So here’s my take on the whole Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial where they claim Clarence Thomas should have an asterisk next to his name because he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream black America. My topical column on the O.J. Simpson trial will be forthcoming next week (Spolier alert: I think he might be guilty).

A lot of great blogs have covered the topic up and down, and the controversy has even gotten national attention. The Journal Sentinel even issued a response editorial yesterday trying to explain the editorial, in which they said:

That Thomas’ stances while on the Supreme Court are outside the black mainstream is fairly evident, we believe, on such matters as the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action, diluting black voting power, proving discrimination and on what constitutes “cruel and unusual.”

The single sentence in this editorial did not say Thomas is not black because he departs from other views on these or other topics. It did not, as some respondents contended, insist that all black people must think alike. We are well aware that there is diversity of thought in the black community, but we are also aware that there are some fairly evident common themes derived from common experiences among African-Americans in the United States.

So the MJS doesn’t think Thomas votes the “right” way on this small sliver of topics before the Supreme Court. What the Journal Sentinel fails to recognize, however, is a dirty secret in politics – that in many respects, the African American community is actually more conservative than whites. Take the strong religious black communities in the South (Thomas is from Georgia) – you think they are big on gay rights down there? Think there are a lot of Alabama pastors that own RuPaul records?

A couple weeks ago, “WNBA superstar” Sheryl Swoopes came out of the closet, admitting she was gay. This would put her directly at odds with “mainstream black Americans.” Does this mean that Swoopes now deserves an asterisk? Think she woke up the morning after she declared she was gay and realized that suddenly she wasn’t black enough?

Side note: The phrase “WNBA superstar” is an oxymoron. Like “unscented perfume.” 99% of WNBA players couldn’t get their name in the paper if they faked their own kidnapping and ended up in a marsh.

You think there aren’t African American families in the urban centers of Milwaukee that are conservative on crime issues? Every home break-in that occurs immediately gives birth to two new political philosophies – liberal (the criminal) and conservative (the victim). I imagine African Americans that work three jobs to support their families aren’t particularly sympathetic to a thug rifling through their personal possessions.

It is clear that the Journal Sentinel puts more emphasis one one’s “blackness” based on a handful of issues. But what about the other 98% of cases that come before the Court? What is the “black” position on abortion, for instance? What is the “black” position on euthanasia, or application of the Commerce Clause, or the exclusionary rule, or religion in public schools, or vouchers, or illegal search and seizure? All these issues deserve serious legal contemplation, and Thomas has shown himself up to the task on each.

If the only acceptable “black” position to the MJS is to be in favor of racial preferences, does that make Ruth Bader Ginsburg a “black” justice? Should we now give her an asterisk because she doesn’t reflect the views of mainstream white Americans? This week on “Pimp My Ride – Justice Ginsburg gets a hot tub and disco ball installed in her 1982 El Dorado.

(Keep in mind that in 1977 as an ACLU attorney, Ginsurg wrote that the age of consent for sexual activity should be lowered to 12 years old – a move hailed as “revolutionary” by singer R. Kelly. Given that opinion, I would happily trade Ginsburg to to The Black Team for, say, Halle Berry, as long as she promises not to make “Catwoman 2.”)

It is pretty clear that the Journal Sentinel is interested only in a justice that can produce their desired results in a few select issue areas, regardless of how one actually reads the facts of the cases before them. Conservatives objected to Harriet Miers’ confirmation on this very principle – while the White House seemed to be making assurances that Miers would overurn Roe v. Wade, Miers’ breathtaking paucity of experience on other more mundane issues what what forced her to rescind her nomination.

If we wanted a justice that reflects the “black” position on just a handful of issues, we should just end the charade and appoint George Clinton to the Supreme Court. At least then, we would be “one nation under a groove.”

Future Headline: “Supreme Court to Rule on Constitutionality of Waving Your Hands In the Air As if You Did Not Care.”

—————————————————————————-

On a serious note, here is an excerpt from Thomas’ dissent in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case, which upheld portions of the University of Michigan’s racial preference entrance policy. If you want, read it to the tune of P-Funk’s “Flashlight,” if you think that makes it sound “blacker.”

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins as to Parts I-VII, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Frederick Douglass, speaking to a group of abolitionists almost 140 years ago, delivered a message lost on today’s majority:

“[I]n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us… . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.” What the Black Man Wants: An Address Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, on 26 January 1865, reprinted in 4 The Frederick Douglass Papers 59, 68 (J. Blassingame & J. McKivigan eds. 1991) (emphasis in original).

Like Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators. Because I
wish to see all students succeed whatever their color, I share, in some respect, the sympathies of those who sponsor the type of discrimination advanced by the University of Michigan Law School (Law School). The Constitution does not, however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions policies when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination. Nor does the Constitution countenance the unprecedented deference the Court gives to the Law School, an approach inconsistent with the very concept of “strict scrutiny.”

No one would argue that a university could set up a lower general admission standard and then impose heightened requirements only on black applicants. Similarly, a university may not maintain a high admission standard and grant exemptions to favored races. The Law School, of its own choosing, and for its own purposes, maintains an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results. Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy.

The majority upholds the Law School’s racial discrimination not by interpreting the people’s Constitution, but by responding to a faddish slogan of the cognoscenti. Nevertheless, I concur in part in the Court’s opinion. First, I agree with the Court insofar as its decision, which approves of only one racial classification, confirms that further use of race in admissions remains unlawful. Second, I agree with the Court’s holding that racial discrimination in higher education admissions will be illegal in 25 years. See ante, at 31 (stating that racial discrimination will no longer be narrowly tailored, or “necessary to further” a compelling state interest, in 25 years). I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the Court’s opinion and the judgment, however, because I believe that the Law School’s current use of race violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months.

In a sign that the standards over at Wispolitics.com are dropping at an alarming rate, they have named my little blog here as their “Blog of the Month.”

Many thanks to the bored employees over there who obviously haven’t found any good blogs to read yet. And good luck getting the award out of my cold, dead hands.

In true Hollywood fashion, I feel like I need to now give a speech about how Bush only went into Iraq for the oil, how all the votes haven’t been counted in Florida and Ohio, and how Dick Cheney secretly employs puppies in a sweatshop in his basement. Instead, I think I’ll have a Kit Kat left over from Halloween and call it a night.

Again, thanks – to both my readers.

What do you get when you combine a popular public issue, a press hungry governor, a dishonest UW “economist” and a lazy press?

You get articles like this one, in which Governor Doyle calls for oil companies to return $88 million to Wisconsin consumers, saying they had been “gouged” in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. From the article:

“To price-gouge consumers under normal circumstances, that’s dishonest enough,” Doyle said. “But to make money off the misery of others is downright immoral.”

Exactly what is price gouging “under normal circumstances?” Aren’t “extraordinary circumstances” exactly what cause gouging to be gouging? If someone doubled the price of toilet paper under normal circumstances, you’d figure out a way to get it cheaper. If someone doubled the price of toilet paper after you had downed an order of Denny’s Moons Over My Hammy, that would be (the worst type of) gouging, and an extraordinarily bad circumstance all around.

And just how did Jim Doyle come up with this $88 million number? He called his buddy, Doyle campaign contributor and University of Wisconsin-Madison “economist” Donald Nichols to cook up a bogus “study” that purports to show oil companies overcharging consumers.

One needs only to read this laughable “study” to realize either:

1. What a terrible economist Don Nichols is, barely capable of teaching a seventh grade economics class;

2. What a political hack Don Nichols is, willing to stain his reputation by putting out a dishonest politically motivated “study” to help his preferred candidate, Jim Doyle, get a good press hit;

3. How lazy the press is that they themselves wouldn’t even bother to read the study written by Nichols and used by Doyle as the centerpiece of this naked press hit;

4. All of the above.

Nichols’ thesis is essentially this: Since the price per barrel of oil before Katrina was roughly the same as it was after Katrina, then the price of gas shouldn’t be any greater. See the bottom of page 6 of his study, where he projects what the price of gas should be given the price of a barrel of oil.

In doing this politically motivated calculation, Nichols ignores all the differences in gas production and marketing that occurred after Katrina. For instance, crude oil has to be refined before it becomes gas. Refineries off the gulf coast went off line for weeks after the hurricane, which left a shortage of refined gas. Although the supply of crude oil wasn’t affected in any substantial way, the process of turning that crude oil into gas was affected significantly, which left less gas for the same number of consumers.

To put it in Wisconsin terms, imagine if cows around the state were inflicted with a disease that caused half of them to stop producing milk. By Nichols’ logic, milk should stay the same price because there were just as many cows as there were before the disease hit, although there is now half as much milk being produced.

Additionally, transporting the refined gas after the hurricane proved to be a tremendous challenge. Trucks and tankers couldn’t enter the region for weeks, which led to scarcer supply of refined gas.

Nichols also completely ignores the market force of increased demand on gas prices (being an economist, he likely has heard of both “supply” and “demand”). After Katrina hit and the stories of the shortage of refined gas were plastered all over the news, citizens across the U.S. rushed out to get gas, fearing a crippling shortage might be imminent. And when citizens are willing to pay a certain price for something, businesses are usually willing to sell it for that price.

I love it when consumers sit in line for a long time and complain how expensive gas is. They never figure out that gas is that expensive because you are willing to sit in line for a long time to get it. Generally, consumers think that cheap gas is some kind of birthright that government has to supply for them. “How dare those mean gas stations sell something for a price that I am so willing to pay!”

If gas stations held the price of gas down artificially for the sake of the good of mankind, there would have been lines miles long for gas and there would have been shortages, as the first people in line would have bought it all up. Maybe Nichols missed his economics class on the way to becoming an economist, but prices are one way a free market has of rationing goods and supplies. Surely he remembers the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, where the government mandated price controls, thereby exacerbating the scarcity of gas and causing long lines and gas shortages around the U.S.

So what would cause such a distinguished economist at the UW to provide such a sloppy “study” of gas prices? Could it be the four contributions he has made to Governor Jim Doyle, totaling $350? Or the numerous contributions he has made to Chuck Chvala, or the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee? (For his full list of contributions, click here and here.)

I assume the call went something like this:

Doyle: “Don, it’s me, Jim. I need a favor.”

Nichols: “I’ve already given you almost four hundred bucks. On my measly $136,000 per year salary, I can’t afford to give any more. It’s like getting syrup from a turnip.”

Doyle: “Don’t wet your pants, Donnie. This is even better. I need you to put on your lab coat and cook me up some numbers that show oil companies are gouging Wisconsin consumers. And make it a big number, like $200 billion.”

Nichols: “I’ll make it $88 million if you throw in a George Foreman grill.”

Doyle: “Deal!”

In fact, some enterprising reporter might want to take a look at the Doyle office correspondence with Nichols, either by phone or e-mail. Did Doyle actually order the report, or did Nichols loan out his demonstrable intellect on his own accord?

Of course, since this fraudulent press hit, gas prices have dropped without any government interference, due to refineries coming back online, transportation being more available, and consumer demand subsiding somewhat. In fact, gas prices are falling to below pre-Katrina levels. Apparently Nichols knows exactly how much money oil companies should be making (to the dollar). I am anxiously awaiting Doyle’s press release calling on Wisconsin consumers to write a check to the oil companies to make up for the revenue they are losing by keeping gas prices so low.

I would hope Nichols would flunk any one of his students that came to him with such a shoddy report. Apparently in all his years of study, Nichols has learned the most important economic lesson of all – suck up to the governor, academic standards be damned.

You may know him as Corey, your friends may know him as Samuel or Leroy, but he’s known here at the York Website as the Sex Offender of the Month. Our congratulations to Corey L Reynolds, convicted on November 10th of 1998 for Repeated Acts of Sexual Assault Against the Same Child. In just a few days, you will celebrate your seventh year of terrorizing families in Madison with small children.

He’s #00362347 in the penal system, but #1 in our hearts. Monthly winners of the Sex Offender Award will win a bottle of Johnson and Johnson baby oil and a free parking space in hell for all eternity.

Congrats, Corey/Samuel/Leroy. Castration is too good for you.

It’s not often I get to toot my own horn (at least not with anyone else in the house), so I’ll do so now. Before all the post-Katrina indignation about gas prices and how all the evil oil companies were gouging consumers, I wrote this post, which exposed the hypocrisy of Democrats on the issue.

Yesterday, Governor Doyle issued a statement that he would be calling oil executives from around the country to answer questions about rising gas prices. One question – since gas prices have actually fallen up to 80 cents per gallon over the last month without government intervention, why isn’t he asking them to answer questions about why they are forfeiting enormous potential profits to keep prices down? What a cheap and tawdry tactic – pretend you are having some bogus investigation into gas prices, when in fact there is absolutely nothing Jim Doyle can do about the prices set by the market across the U.S. Even if there were a justification for government interference in the market, it would be a federal problem, not a state one. For Doyle to imply that he’s doing something about gas prices is just a sham.

In the process of this obnoxious grandstanding, Doyle released this release on October 27th, in response to Exxon’s third quarter earnings reports. In it, Doyle says:

“Following one of the biggest natural disasters to hit America, the world’s largest oil companies are reaping record profits. To price-gouge consumers under normal circumstances is dishonest enough, but to make money off of the misery of others is downright immoral.”

“This week’s reports make it crystal clear that these oil companies have reaped more than enough profits to give a refund to U.S. consumers,” Governor Doyle said. “There are proposals currently in Congress that would require a refund, but we have yet to see action on them. This issue is not going to go away on its own, or with action only on the state level. I again urge Congress to act immediately on behalf of millions of Americans by investigating the excessive profits being made by oil companies, and demanding a refund.”

Not to be outdone, Senator Russ Decker, who won’t even let a high blood alcohol content keep him from filling his tank up with expensive gas, issued this release demanding oil companies give their profits back. He says:

“It turns my stomach to see these greedy oil companies who are already making enormous profits getting billions of dollars in tax breaks while the hard working folks in Wisconsin struggle to squeeze every nickel out of every dollar just to be able to fill up with gas so they can drive to work,” said Decker.

“If Congress does not act then we will demand that the Republican leadership in the Legislature convene a special session to review local windfall profits tax alternatives. I shudder at the thought that the children of Wisconsin will shiver in cold homes and schools this winter because of the unconscionable actions of the oil companies,” concluded Decker.

…Just make sure those poor children aren’t out riding their bikes on a night Decker is plowing through your neighborhood, Lautenschlager-style. Note to Decker: Maybe that stomach-turning sensation is the fifth of Wild Turkey you forgot you drank last night.

Well, fortunately, I can save the U.S. taxpayers the time and money on an investigation into who is profiting off of these “immoral” profits. I reviewed the stock holdings of Russ Decker, and found that he might want to look himself in the mirror if he wants to find out who is profiting from high gas prices.

According to legislator ethics statements, Decker holds between $5,000 and $50,000 in the Vanguard Institutional Index Plus Fund. According to the Vanguard website, the #1 stock holding of this fund is Exxon-Mobil. In fact, the fund also holds shares of Chevron and Conoco-Phillips.

With this information in mind, I now challenge you to go back and re-read Decker’s quote and challenge yourself to keep your Whopper with Cheese down. Who is “greedy?” Who is profiting on the backs of Wisconsin children who will be shivering in the cold come winter time? Is Russ Decker going to be returning all of the windfall profits he received from the oil companies?

If you clicked on my previous post above, you have seen that there are other hypocritical Democratic legislators that continue to make money as stockholders in oil companies, while decrying the “greed” of “big oil.” (By the way, is there any other kind of oil company? Are there any “small oil” companies setting up in strip malls?)

For the most egregious example, see Fred Risser’s holdings in Exxon in excess of $50,000. On September 16th of this year, Risser was quoted in Wispolitics:

The price of gasoline isn’t due to the mark-up law. It’s due to the oil cartels.–Democratic Sen. Fred Risser before a Senate committee 3-2 rejected Zien’s bill to repeal the state’s so-called minimum mark-up law.

The most disappointing thing about the whole gas price issue is the willingness by which press outlets are willing to swallow statements whole, without challenging them. The information I provided above is public information, available to anyone with an internet connection. This isn’t exactly cloak and dagger stuff. Yet each time Doyle opens his mouth on gas prices, the media is there to dutifully reprint it, without ever asking questions about whether such an investigation might be an immense waste of time and taxpayer money for a cheap press hit.

As for Decker and Risser, I hope they take their windfall profits and buy blankets for all those poor children that are going to freeze to death because of their “greed.”

My uncle Eddie loves his job. A few times a week, he hops on a bus and rides halfway across Milwaukee to get to Pizza Hut, where he’s worked for seven years. He jams his hat down over his eyebrows, throws on his headphones, and listens to the Brewers while washing pizza pans, prepping vegetables and doing other chores.

You see, Eddie has Down syndrome. To him, his job is more than a chance to take home a check. While many new workers may see scrubbing greasy pans and doing dishes as beneath them, Eddie relishes the chance to be responsible, to make money (to support his insatiable appetite for 70’s classic rock CDs), and to enjoy the camaraderie with other co-workers. His job is his worth, and he lives for the daily accomplishment of a job well done.

The irreplaceable self worth that Eddie feels isn’t due to any government program. In fact, the opposite is true – the more he works, the more it jeopardizes his Social Security checks, which means the government is providing a disincentive for him to work more hours (which he is more than willing to do).

Many people with good intentions would find value in government programs that work to get people like Eddie into the workforce. In fact, the state Department of Workforce Development houses the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, which helps individuals with disabilities find janitorial, food service, and other types of jobs. But as is the case with many government programs, DVR has been criticized in the past for poor bookkeeping, wasting money, and doing a substandard job of finding work for those it served.

What state lawmakers often don’t realize is that there are private sector answers for many of the problems our society faces. There are actually companies who specialize in finding work for the disabled, and our lawmakers can help the process not by imposing more regulations, but by providing incentives for businesses to utilize their services. Private companies can do good work more efficiently, as the incentive is there for them to be streamlined, effective, and to provide good service.

A bill currently pending before the Wisconsin Legislature would provide an excellent opportunity to apply conservative, free market principles in getting more disabled citizens to work. The bill, AB 622, would provide tax incentives to businesses that employ disabled citizens through a registered community rehabilitation program, which is an organization that specializes in finding jobs for the disabled. While it would result in less revenue brought in to the state’s treasury, there is a big difference between a new program “costing” the state more money and a tax break depriving the treasury of taxpayer money it should have never had to begin with.

At 45 years old, Eddie is living on borrowed time. Over 50% of individuals with Down syndrome suffer from congenital heart disease, which often cuts their lives short before their 40th birthday. If it is his heart that ends his life it will be a cruel irony, as it is the depth of his heart that keeps him getting on that bus and showing up for work. There are no doubt thousands of individuals just like him willing to do small tasks with the expertise of a neurosurgeon.

You’ll never see Eddie when you go to Pizza Hut, but you’ll know when he’s gone. Let’s just hope there’s another disabled citizen there to make it their life’s work to provide you with a clean plate.