Governor Doyle may have outfoxed us all. Apparently, he thinks it is a good idea to have Lt. Governor Barb Lawton be front and center in defending him. The strategy: show people how bad it would actually be if he gets thrown in jail before November and Lawton has to take over. If I were prosecuting Doyle, I would drop all charges immediately, apologize, and indict him on November 8th.

Let me get one thing clear right out of the gate: Pat Summitt is the greatest women’s coach of all time. There isn’t even a legitimate argument to be made for anyone else.

But does she deserve to be compared to the great names in men’s college basketball history? Of course not. Ever since Summitt won her 900th game last week, ESPN has been on a mission to point out how she has won more games than Dean Smith, Adolph Rupp, and Bobby Knight.

ESPN should be ashamed of themselves for even making such a comparison. To somehow equate men’s basketball with women’s hoops is ludicrous. The only thing they really have in common is that they play roughly the same amount of games during the year. But because everyone needs to feel warm and fuzzy about themselves, Summitt always ends up on lists of “greatest coaches.”

Put simply, it is much easier to dominate a field in which there is such a shallow pool of talent. Whether you think it’s good or bad, the bottom line is that few girls play basketball, and even fewer ascend to the level of Division I ability. So many more boys play basketball, there’s enough talent to stock virtually all 300+ Division I teams, while teams like Tennessee and Connecticut can parlay their past successes to horde pretty much all the worthwhile talent in the country.

Summit racked up a lot of her wins when women’s basketball was a complete afterthought in intercollegiate athletics. In fact, the only reason it isn’t now is that federal law prohibits it. Many schools didn’t even have teams when she was rolling through her schedule, and playing basketball wasn’t exactly an attractive option for little girls growing up.

Now you may argue that there are a number of men’s teams that are usually near the top of the polls. But let’s take Duke for instance – a program that is second to none in success over the past 20 years. Duke has won one national championship in the last 13 years (in 2001: they won two consecutive in 1991 and 1992).

By comparison, Tennessee went one twelve year stretch where they won six national championships. Connecticut has won four in the last five years. Aside from UCLA’s dominant men’s teams of the 60′s, those are runs that would be unheard of in men’s basketball today.

That’s not to say Summitt’s 900 wins, or even Texas’ Jody Conradt’s 800 wins, isn’t immensely impressive. But let’s not let get crazy with political correctness. Just go down to any high school or college gym and see how many boys are playing pickup basketball and compare that to how many girls are playing. That should tell you all you need to know.

Here’s just a tip that I had to learn the hard way this weekend. Don’t even consider singing this song to yourself at home while your wife, girlfriend, or other significant other is present. Seems self-evident, but I made the fatal error.

Morrissey – You’re the One For Me, Fatty

You’re the one for me, fatty
You’re the one I really, really love
And I will stayPromise you’ll say
If I’m in your way

You’re the one for me, fatty
You’re the one I really, really love
And I will stay
Promise you’ll sayIf I’m ever in your …
A-hey

All over battersea
Some hope; and some despair
All over battersea
Some hope; and some despair
Oh …

You’re the one for me, fatty
You’re the one I really, really love
And I will stayPromise you’ll say
If I’m in your way
You’re the one for me, fatty
You’re the one I really, really love
And I will stay
Promise you’ll sayIf I’m ever in your …

A-hey

All over battersea
Some hope; and some despair
All over battersea
Some hope; and some despair
Oh, oh …

You’re the one for me, fatty
You’re the one I really, really love
And I will stay
Promise you’ll say
If I’m ever in your way
A-hey

You’re the one for me, fatty
You’re the one for me, a-hey-hey
A-heyA-heyA-heyA-he-he-he-hey

(I screwed up the A-heys at the end, which is what I think got me slapped upside the head.)

WASHINGTON (AP) – In a surprise move today, President Bush announced that he would be hiring Earl Hickey of “My Name is Earl” fame to turn around his administration’s karma. “This is an important day in our nation’s history,” said Bush, who plans to make Hickey’s hiring the centerpiece of his State of the Union message on Tuesday.

Bush said he had hoped Hickey’s advice could help turn around his sagging poll numbers. At the height of his presidency, Bush’s favorable rating was 104%, as he garnered the support of nearly every living human plus unanimous support from unborn fetuses. Currently, Bush’s favorability rating is mired in the low 40′s, which experts claim put Bush somewhere between “shampoo” and “Tony Danza.”

In private meetings previous to the announcement, Hickey had consulted Bush to “make a list” of things he had done wrong that he could fix to improve his karma. Through investigative reporting, the York blog was able to find out some of the items on Bush’s list.

“Number thirty four – return the pigs I stole as a fraternity prank at Yale.”

“Number sixty five – to make up for ordering the assasination of former President Palmer, add dental coverage to Jack Bauer’s benefit package.”

“Number seventy seven – make up for starting a difficult war that I wasn’t prepared for, bungling the post-war operations and costing the lives of American soldiers.”

“Number one hundred and four – give Condi back her Suddenly Susan Season One DVD.”

Fortunately for Bush, he was already able to scratch off number twenty three (Harriet Miers) from his list. Not only did he pull Miers’ appointment and replace her with Samuel Alito, he also hit Miers in the head with a shovel and buried the body, which makes up for about ten percent of that debacle.

At the press conference, Bush apologized to Carrie Sylvester of Youngstown, Ohio, for wiretapping one of her phone calls. “My apologies to Mrs. Sylvester, who clearly didn’t want her husband to know she was sleeping with the guy who cleans her pool,” said Bush. “In order to cross her off my list, I will make sure she gets $2 billion in Medicare dollars to purchase an ointment to clear up that little ‘problem’ she has developed as a result of her trysts,” said Bush. Shortly after the press conference, Sylvester set herself on fire.

Bush was set to name Jenna Elfman deputy of karma relations, but was disappointed when he found out she was no longer “Dharma.”

I had such a good response to my offhanded comment about Lara Jill Miller yesterday (the “kinda-hot but still seems gettable” daughter from Gimme a Break), I thought I would follow up with an update on her career.

Here is a link to her website, which includes this memorable description of her current career:

Lara is an example of how the combination of talent, perseverance and diversity can lead to long-term success. The public certainly sees (and hears) it – she has a strong fan base, and nearly every day Lara is recognized on the street, her name a frequent buzz on many popular web sites. With her solid credits and great acting chops, she will impress and delight you.

Apparently, she now does a ton of voiceovers for kids’ shows, which might explain why I feel like I need to smoke a cigarette after I watch “Higglytown Heroes.”

And here’s another fan website with photos that show that she is clearly still getting it done:

While I clearly love Lara, if you are writing a fan website dedicated to her, there is likely a government program available for you.

So my hope is that she Googles her name at some point, finds this blog, and sends me an e-mail. She can have all the space she wants to explain to her fans here in Wisconsin what’s going on in her life, what her likes and dislikes might be, and what Nell Carter really smelled like. Hopefully Nell and Ol’ Dirty Bastard are living together in harmony in heaven.

Believe it or not, here’s an actual e-mail I received from my homies at “Exxpose Exxon:”

From : Amelia Field “afield@mrss.com”
Sent : Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:41 PM
To : “dennis-york@hotmail.com”
Subject : Watch Exxon “Toast the Earth” as it celebrates $32 billion in profits

Dennis,

I’m writing to share latest from the Exxpose Exxon campaign and to thank you for your previous support when you posted about the campaign on your blog. Check out this short FLASH (http://www.ExxposeExxon.com/movie) released today by the Exxpose Exxon campaign in anticipation of ExxonMobil’s fourth-quarter profit announcement this coming Monday, January 30th. ExxonMobil made an estimated $32 billion in profits in 2005 – the largest profit EVER recorded by an American corporation!

This might make a humorous addition to your coverage of what promises to be ExxonMobil’s latest outrage. It’s the FUNNIEST global-warming-themed Exxon-related Internet movie of 2006 (so far).

Please feel free to write with any questions or concerns. I’m also happy to provide background materials on the campaign and flash movie.

Thanks,

Amelia Field
On behalf of the Exxpose Exxon campaign
917-438-XXXX

They are obviously referring to this post I wrote, where I ripped State Representative Terese Berceau for accepting an environmental award from the Sierra Club while owning between $5,000 and $50,000 in Exxon-Mobil stock.

But they actually think that because I criticized Berceau, that I actually support their group. Let me put it simply – I am ecstatic that Exxon will report $32 billion in profits. It means they will have more funds for oil exploration, drilling infrastructure, and research on alternative fuels, all of which will keep the cost of my gas down in the long term. I hope at least $1 billion of that profit goes to one executive who uses the money to buy his wife a nice fur made of one of the poor polar bears in their crappy movie.

Boy, with all the laughs found in their movie, I can’t wait for their next one – just like I can’t wait for an armadillo to crawl into one of my ears and start eating my brain.

Clear enough?

So I have convinced myself that this whole writing blog posts is for suckers. Video blogging is where it’s at. Unfortunately, I found someone who doing video blogging exactly the way I would do it. I mean, he’s got me down, word for word. I can’t top him, so why duplicate his efforts?

He’s “The Kid from Brooklyn,” and you can view his artistry here. Click on the Super Bowl Tickets link first (I hear he’s paying top dollar). His erudite observations about Brokeback Mountain, Jewish Women, and Muslims are mini-seminars on sensitivity.

Warning: Language is fantastically foul. And I laughed for an hour straight.

In these contentious times, I am always happy to bring together bloggers of all political persuasions. That is why I am happy that bloggers from McBride to Xoff agree that I had no business showing up in a Capital Times article as a “source.” And I agree with them. I mean, what the hell? Was Pauly Shore unavailable for a quote on the governor’s legal problems? Did the “kinda-hot but still seems gettable” daughter from Gimme a Break not return their call?

Even Spivak and Bice have picked up this major controversy. Although I’m technically not a source in the article, as I don’t really provide any meaningful information (which is consistent with my blog), who knows who I could be? I actually think my bigger scoop was when I revealed that Adelman got the contract despite providing travel exclusively by rickshaw.

Anyway, this is a strange precedent. I have to go now – the Washington Post wants to talk to me about the Alito confirmation vote. Then I have a conference call with “Windsurfing Nuns Weekly.”

So as you have likely heard, one of Jim Doyle’s employees at the Department of Administration has been indicted on two federal felony counts for her role in the state travel contract awarded to Adelman Travel.

Virtually every blog you read from now until the end of the week will weigh in on the Doyle travel scandal, and nearly every angle will be covered. Rather than repeat much of what will be said (better than I can) about the case on other blogs, I wanted to challenge myself to a little mental exercise. I wanted to see if I could actually put together a proposed statement by Doyle in his defense. I think you can more accurately judge the merits of a situation when you put yourself in the other guy’s shoes, and I’m kind of curious as to what kind of PR guy I would make. Call it “The Xoff Home Game.”

So here’s the statement Doyle should make (or at least the best my little brain could do):

“I was deeply troubled when I heard news that an employee in my administration has been accused of criminal conduct. Georgia Thompson has been a good employee for many years, and she hasn’t been found guilty of anything. I would hope that we would wait to hear all the facts of the case before we damage the reputation of a good state servant. The Department of Administration will continue to cooperate fully with the investigation, and I am confident that in the end, I will be able to correct any problem that has occurred.

Since I took office, I have made clean government a priority in Wisconsin. One of the first bills I signed into law was 2003 Assembly Bill 1, which specifically prohibited official state action in return for campaign contributions. I have publicly supported meaningful campaign finance reform to lessen the effect money has on the political system.

If true, the allegations made by the U.S. Attorney show the damaging effect money can have on politics. As I announced two weeks ago, I have put together an ethics reform package that would seek to limit fundraising during the budget and toughen enforcement of campaign laws, among other reforms. I have ordered my campaign staff to do a full accounting of contributions I have received, and to return any contributions made by individuals who have bid on a state contract, including the contribution from Craig Adelman.

Trust in elected officials is what makes our democracy the greatest form of government in the world. I will work to see that the public can be fully confident that my administration is being run with the interest of Wisconsin citizens as its only consideration.”

Several thoughts:

I don’t believe a word of any of that. It is purely spin. I will most likely agree with every blogger that wants to send Doyle up the river without a trial. I wrote it without seeing any comment from the Doyle team, so any resemblance to what they say is purely coincidental.

No political consultant doing crisis management would allow their subject to make a statement that long. The shorter the statement, the better.

I think it’ll be a while before Doyle makes any official statement, if he’s smart. Expect his surrogates to be quoted in the short term.

The $10,000 contribution from Craig Adelman has now guaranteed a half a million dollars’ worth of ads run against Doyle. Hope it was worth it. This would be like a married guy sleeping with his secretary for one night, then coming home to find his wife had packed his bags. It may have been good one night, but wave goodbye to your marriage.

Any attempt Doyle makes now to position himself as a campaign finance reformer will likely ring hollow, as he was the driving force behind killing a major (and horrible) bill relating to campaign finance in the State Senate this session (SB 46).

For more early reaction on the indictments, go here, here, here, here, and here.

I’m still slogging through my Sandburg biography of Abraham Lincoln, and I was stunned when I read the portion dealing with Lincoln’s opposition to the Mexican-American war. Read some of these statements and tell me this exact debate from 1848 isn’t taking place in America as we speak in 2006.

As you know, President James K. Polk began the War with Mexico in 1846 as a response to border disputes between Mexico and Texas. Democrats unanimously supported the war, while the Whigs (of which Lincoln was one) tended to oppose the war, seeing it as unnecessary, greedy, and a plot to divert attention from the administration’s problems in dealing with settlement of the Oregon territory.

Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, on the floor of Congress, defended the President’s decision to go to war in 1846:

“Gentlemen have the hardihood to tell us that the President has unwisely and unnecessarily precipitated the country into an unjust war and unholy war. They express great sympathy for Mexico, profess to regard her as an injured and persecuted nation – the victim of American injustice and aggression. They have no sympathy for the widows and orphans whose husbands and fathers have been robbed and murdered by the Mexican authorities; no sympathy with our own countrymen who have dragged out miserable lives within the walls of her dungeons, without crime and without trial; no indignation at the outrages upon our commerce and shipping, and the insults to our national flag, no resentment at the violation of treaties and the invasion of our territory. I despair of ever seeing my country again in the right, if they are to be the oracles.

Douglas quoted Frederick the Great, “Take possession first and negotiate afterward,” and declared “That is precisely what President Polk has done. He has taken possession and proposed to negotiate.”

By the time Lincoln took his seat in Congress, the war with Mexico was nearly over. Over 27,000 American soldiers had died in the conflict. Mexico had succumbed, but questions arose about what the U.S. would do with the land it had conquered.

In 1848, Lincoln took to the floor of Congress, “declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President.” He spoke of his impression of how he and others believed they ought to behave while their country was engaged in a war they considered unjustly commenced. “When the war began, it was my opinion that all those because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously oppose the conduct of the President in the beginning of it should nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least until the war should be ended.”

Now, he was forced to break his silence; the President was telling the country, continually, that votes of the Whigs for supplies to the soldiers in the field were an endorsement of the President’s conduct of the war. Then too, the President was holding back documents and information to which the public was entitled.

He said of President Polk: “Originally having some strong motive to involve the countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory – that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood – that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy – he plunged into it, and has swept on and on till, disappointed in his calculations of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself he knows not where.”

“The President is in no wise satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it he argues himself out of it, then seizes another and goes through the same process, and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again. His mind, taxed beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease…”

Lincoln took a beating back in his Illinois home district for his anti-war position, which was seen as Anti-American.

From Sandburg’s book:

Back in Illinois were political enemies murmuring that Lincoln was revealed as a Benedict Arnold in his “spot resolutions” [against the war]. The Belleville Advocate for March 2, 1848, came along with a report of a meeting in Clark County of patriotic Whigs and Democrats who adopted this declaration: “Resolved, That Abe Lincoln, the author of the ‘spotty’ resolutions in Congress, against his own country, may they long be remembered by his constituents, but may they cease to remember him, except to rebuke him – they have done much for him, but he has done nothing for them, save in the part they have taken in their country’s cause.” The Illinois State Register was telling its readers of newspapers and public meetings that declared Lincoln to be “a second Benedict Arnold.”

Lincoln lost his next election, in large part due to his opposition to the War with Mexico, and settled back in to practice law in Springfield.

While this post isn’t necessarily a reflection my own views of our current war, I thought it was interesting how the same issues emerge during wars of any era. I’m sure I’ll hear from somebody explaining the obvious differences between the wars and the justification for each. But the parallels between the politics and rhetoric of each war are profound.

When bloggers are running out of ideas to write about, they need to look no further than State Representative Joe Parisi to find inspiration. Parisi has outsmarted us all again. I recently made fun of Parisi’s bill to allow felons to vote. Apparently undeterred by that stink bomb he unleashed on the State Capitol, Parisi is back with an even worse bill that demands comment.

Parisi is introducing a bill that caps the total amount of expenditures a campaign for State Senate or State Assembly can make. From Parisi’s office:

TO: Legislative Colleagues

FROM: Representative Joe Parisi

RE: LRB3032/1 – Relating to imposition of disbursement and self-contribution limits applicable to candidates for legislative offices.

I am introducing a bill to create a new disbursement limit for candidates for the office of State Senator of $100,000 and a new disbursement limit for the office of Representative to the Assembly of $50,000. The bill would also required that these limits are binding upon all candidates for those offices regardless of whether they accept grants from the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund.

If you’re a campaign finance nutjob, this sounds like a great idea. There’s only one small impediment holding this bill back – it’s called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

35 years ago, Congress passed the The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which imposed these exact types of total disbursement limitations on campaigns. The Act also imposed individual contribution limits and other limits with regard to contributions.

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of these limits. While the contribution limits were mostly upheld, the disbursement limitations were unambiguously shot out of the water as violating the First Amendment. Read the following passages from Buckley and tell me if you think the Supreme Court is unclear as to the constitutionality of total expenditure limits:

From Buckley v. Valeo (1976) – My emphasis in bold:

——————————————————————–

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.

The expenditure limitations contained in the Act represent substantial rather than merely theoretical restraints on the quantity and diversity of political speech… In sum, although the Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations both implicate fundamental First Amendment interests, its expenditure ceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedoms of political expression and association than do its limitations on financial contributions.

Other expenditure ceilings limit spending by candidates, 608 (a), their campaigns, 608 (c), and political parties in connection with election campaigns, 608 (f). It is clear that a primary effect of these expenditure limitations is to restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups, and candidates. The restrictions, while neutral as to the ideas expressed, limit political expression “at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.”

The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one’s political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government, but the people – individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees – who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. [424 U.S. 1, 58]
For these reasons we hold that 608 (c) [the statute mandating total campaign expenditure limits] is constitutionally invalid.

The contribution ceilings thus serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion. By contrast, the First Amendment requires the invalidation of the Act’s independent expenditure ceiling, 608 (e) (1), its limitation on a candidate’s expenditures from his own personal funds, 608 (a), and its ceilings on overall campaign expenditures, 608 (c). These provisions place substantial and direct restrictions [424 U.S. 1, 59] on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate.

———————————————————————–

The court makes it clear that limiting campaign expenditures blatantly stifles free speech. But let’s look at one more reason Parisi’s bill is so bad.

Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that total expenditures were capped. Who do you think would have the advantage in any campaign? That’s right – the incumbent. (I knew my readers were smart.)

Incumbents always have the edge when a campaign starts. They have the name identification, they have huge office accounts that they use to bombard their constituents with bogus “surveys” and other literature, and they have lists of donors at the ready. Often times, the challenger has to raise and spend more than the incumbent to overcome these built-in disadvantages. By Parisi mandating equal spending, it gives incumbents an enormous advantage, as a challenger can only spend a certain amount to criticize their job in office (also known as “political speech.”)

So beyond being unconstitutional, Parisi’s bill is intellectually backward. Any politican working to stifle criticism of themselves doesn’t deserve the office they hold. How could anyone even think of introducing a bill like this before checking the case law on this? It’s not like Buckley was a small case – it’s probably one of the most prominent cases of the last 40 years. Parisi introducing this bill would be like a State Assemblyman introducing a bill outlawing abortion, and saying “gee, I wonder why nobody’s thought of that before?”

I expect an e-mail from Parisi thanking me for teaching him a lesson he should have learned before he introduced this acrid bill. Although I hope he doesn’t stop with the embarrassing bills – they are great material.

And of course, we are still going to be subjected to endless editorials about how Republicans are wasting everyone’s time with their legislative agenda. This when we have Democrats who are too lazy to do even the most basic research on their bills.

Madison – Federal prosecutors dropped a bombshell today when they announced that Governor Doyle’s new hairpiece would be subpoenaed to testify against Doyle in an ongoing ethics investigation. The hairpiece has been granted partial immunity in return for full cooperation in the investigation of several of Doyle’s ethical problems.

“During many of the shady deals Doyle was involved in, it was only Doyle, the donor, and the toupee in the room,” said U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic. Doyle has come under federal investigation due to a travel contract awarded to Adelman Travel, after he received a $10,000 contribution from Craig Adelman, the company’s president. “What struck us as strange is that Adelman won the contract despite providing travel exclusively by rickshaw,” said Biskupic.

“I have at no time ever worn a hairpiece, and I don’t know anything about any crimes,” said Doyle in a prepared statement. A year long investigation, however, has produced one anonymous, brave witness who is willing to testify that Doyle is, in fact, wearing a toupee. “Yeah, it was definitely a wig,” said the witness. “During one meeting, he was hungry, and he reached up and pulled a peanut butter and jelly sandwich out from underneath his hair. That was the first tip off,” he said. Strangely, no photographs of Doyle before 2005 were available.

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Omega Travel beat out Adelman by 21 points in the grading for state contracts, yet the contract was given to Adelman. Things went bad for Adelman when Omega blocked a field goal in the third quarter and ran it all the way back to give them the 21 point lead.

The York Blog has uncovered much of the toupee’s sordid past, including an eight year stint in Riker’s Island in the 1970s for plagiarism and beating a PETA volunteer nearly to death. He received 20 years for claiming that he had written passages of “Anna Karenina,” but the sentence was reduced by 12 years for his brutal beating of the PETA activist.

The toupee also did a short time in prison after admitting to stealing a kishka. He was eventually hunted down and captured by an angry mob of Polka fans, who had been demanding to know his identity for years.

In return for his cooperation in the Doyle case, the hairpiece will be sentenced to probation and 100 hours of watching Jenna Elfman’s new television show. He will also be placed in the hairpiece relocation program and assigned to Chuck Chvala, virtually guaranteeing nobody will ever see him again.

“As in any case, it’s not the crime, but the cover up that got him in trouble,” said Biskupic.

Get it? Cover up? Toupee? Never mind.

If Belle and Sebastian’s “Dirty Dream #2″ isn’t one of your favorite songs, it should be. In fact, the state should mandate that 10% of all the CDs sold in the state be “The Boy With the Arab Strap.” To see the video, click here. If you get a pop-up error message, just click on the Re-Launch link.

For all the Sufjan Stevens fans that have e-mailed me, check out a great 8-song live performance from July that he played for KEXP radio in Seattle. If you want to listen to the whole thing uninterrupted, click on the “Interview” link. There’s also another good one from KCRW’s “Morning Becomes Eclectic” here, complete with video.

Other places I routinely check for good online live performances are Justconcerts.com (a Canadian site) and Sounds Eclectic, which archives live shows from KCRW in Santa Monica, CA. If anyone else has more suggestions of good live sites, let me know.

It seems that half the time I want to do a post on something, the Fabulous Jenna at Right Off the Shore has already covered it. So rather than blather on about Mark Pocan’s recent post about upcoming bills that “cost” the state money, I’ll just link to her.

Pocan is quick to criticize Republicans for wanting to “spend” money on tax cuts, when they are less willing to do so for new government programs, such as aid for heating bills. Obviously, tax cuts deprive the treasury of money it would otherwise have had, but they also create incentives for the private sector to pick up the slack and foster economic development. In the case Pocan cites, businesses would get a tax credit to pay to further the education of their employees. Those damn Republicans! (Check out his juvenile comments he leaves on this post - comforting to know 60,000 Madison residents are represented by a nine year old, huh?)

Creating a new government program costs the state money, but also institutes a new state entitlement that will rarely ever be cut or eliminated. So while it may help people with their heating bills in the short term, it creates a new class of people who are dependent on the government to pay their utilities, which will cause more strain on budgets in the future.

So not all “spending” is the same. Clearly, tax cuts “cost” the government, while new spending “costs” the taxpayers.

SIDE NOTE: Jenna is too good to be true – a 19 year old sassy college girl who’s a conservative? There’s an 80% chance she’s really a fat, hairy FBI agent named “Hugh” on a sting operation against conservatives. When you see in the news that a conservative blogger wearing buttless leather chaps was arrested after being lured to a hunting shack in Lodi, you’ll know I was right.

SIDE SIDE NOTE: Anybody seen my chaps?

From a Green Bay Press-Gazette story on methamphetamine use in Brown County:

Whatever the reason, [emergency room physician Dr. Jane] Witman is glad meth hasn’t yet caught on here.

“This stuff is bad, bad, bad,” she said. “Meth addiction is one of the hardest to treat, and it’s not a pretty sight. People lose their teeth, they get skin lesions, and they age phenomenally rapidly. … It can take a beautiful 17-year-old girl and make her into a hag in two years.”

Britney Spears is on meth? You heard it here first.

FYI – “Bad, bad, bad” is a clinical, scientific term. It is slighter worse than “bad, bad” but not nearly as catastrophic as “bad, bad, bad, bad.”