Good writers don’t just tell you something is absurd, they actually point out why it is so. But I’m so flustered by the most recent “controversy” over Glenn Grothman’s “secret” TABOR meeting, I can’t help but just say that we have all lost our minds.

I know I should be the last one telling anyone to be serious, but come on. As reported in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, State Senator Glenn Grothman held a meeting with some local officials to get their input on the proposed Taxpayer Protection Amendment. And apparently Grothman had the gall to (gasp!) not call the press and invite them! And he didn’t let all of his constituents know! I will take a moment to let you catch your breath, because I care about you, dear reader.

After I saw the article, I rolled my eyes as any thinking person should have done. But then I watched in horror as Democrats actually tried to make this an issue. Unable to argue against TPA on the merits, suddenly Democrats have tried to gin up some completely phony argument that the public is being “shut out” of the process. Most galling are other legislators criticizing Grothman for holding this meeting.

Let’s back up here for a minute. Grothman was trying to get input from people that oppose the TPA. He was listening to an opposing viewpoint, and decided he could have a productive meeting with those that care about it the most, local officials. He made an honest attempt to take input on the bill, and suddenly he gets whacked for it. The article even concedes nobody was kept from attending. Local officials were likely much more willing to show candor without the media there, as they know they are on the losing side of a popular public issue. What’s wrong with an honest conversation?

And for legislators like Mark Pocan and Russ (the human breathalyzer) Decker to come out and criticize him for the “secret” meeting is absolutely ridiculous beyond words. Certainly Pocan and Decker meet with constituents and local officials all the time, and never alert the media or the “general public.” A quick open records request of their office calendars will surely confirm that.

I mean, Democrats, I’m on your side on the TPA for the most part. But if you’re going to argue against the TPA, argue against the bill and not the process. The people that are trying to drum this smokescreen up as a legitimate issue are showing that they have no interest in a legitimate debate on the effects of this massive constitutional amendment.

Who is it that’s afraid of public debate on the TPA again?

SIDE NOTE: Owen did a good job of covering this today, but I don’t think he was nearly outraged enough. I am outraged by his lack of outrage.

On Tuesday of this week, lefty blogger Xoff was having hot flashes because gubernatorial candidate Mark Green had the audacity to not rattle off his entire campaign platform at a press conference. Said Xoff:

I’ve often marveled, and sometimes commented here, about Mark Green’s ability to avoid talking about issues when he doesn’t want to, which seems to be a good deal of the time…

This guy’s running for governor. When he has a rare news conference, any question a reporter wants to ask should be fair game. Do you think Jim Doyle could get away with saying he’ll tell you about his political positions later?

As it turns out, Green was downright chatty compared to 9th State Senate District Democratic candidate Jamie Aulik. Aulik, a 26 year old Iraq war veteran, gave the following answers to these questions when posed to him by the Sheboygan Press:

However, Aulik avoided indicating how he would have voted on a few contentious matters resolved in the current legislative session or currently under debate. He wasn’t prepared to say how he would have voted on the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons, or reviving the death penalty. “Those issues are divisive. They make people turn against each other,” said Aulik…

Concealed Carry…

Aulik declined to take a position. He said state legislators should be more concerned about creating an affordable health care system.

Same sex marriage ban…

Aulik is concerned opposite sex unmarried partners might not be able to exercise medical decisions for the other individual. He would not say how he would have voted on the amendment, which will be on the November ballot.

Mandating ethanol for the lowest grade of gasoline…

“It is an issue I should study further … in general, I support consumer choice,” Aulik said.

So who deserves the blame here? The media or Aulik? I will anxiously await Xoff’s response.

Also, notice Leibham called Aulik “an honorable young man … who should serve as an example to all of us.” Aulik then turned right around and trashed him. At least someone in this race is showing the class befitting a State Senator.

Did anyone else find this headline for the Wisconsin State Journal today a little unsettling? As in, it could mean two different things?

“Chandler: Children Are Worth Tougher Sex-Crime Penalties”

(Milwaukee) – French royalty Jerry Lewis today announced he would be holding a special telethon to benefit society’s least fortunate member, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. In March of 2006, Walker was diagnosed with a terminal case of a terrible campaign. “No human should have to go through the injustice of being told that they can’t be Governor of Wisconsin,” said Lewis. “Forcing him to go back to his crappy job of representing 600,000 people is almost inhumane,” said Lewis. “Wisconsin residents are now stuck with a GOP candidate who can actually win,” moped Lewis.

The telethon was called in part due to Walker supporters wailing about his unfair treatment during the campaign. “Walker deserves a purple heart for his decision not to make baseless and mean-spirited personal attacks against his opponent,” said supporter James Wallace. “Just like I deserve credit for going home every night and not calling my wife a dirty whore,” said Wallace. Wallace’s dirty whore wife was not available for comment.

Despite being unable to carry on with the campaign, Walker still manages to muster up the strength to respond to bloggers’ criticisms of his campaign. “That shows the type of thick skin that would have made him an excellent chief executive,” said talk show host Mark Belling. “The fact that he is willing to clarify his positions when nobody gives a damn anymore shows a never say die attitude,” said Belling. Belling also pointed to Walker completely screwing up the announcement of his withdrawal as proof he had what it takes to lead our state. “If you can’t trust the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel with a secret, who can you trust?” said Belling.

Yesterday, Congressman Mark Green announced a groundbreaking deal with Walker. In return for Walker withdrawing from the campaign, Green agreed to appoint Walker to the newly created position of “The Guy I Beat.”

Check out this state law, which describes the types of weapons that individuals under the age of 18 are prohibited from carrying:

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

948.60(1) (1) In this section, “dangerous weapon” means anyfirearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

First of all, for those of you who don’t know what a cestus is, here’s a picture:

So for those of you planning on starting a fight with an ancient Roman, watch your ass. Or those of you planning on throwing blows at Caesar’s Palace.

Secondly, what is with all the dorky weapons references? Are the state’s bill drafters big Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts? Did they put down the 12 sided dice long enough to draft up this law? Should we dictate how many hit points are given to a victim being attacked by a “shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object?”

Am I allowed to assault someone if I am a “Skull Legion Mercenary” or an “Orish Warbringer?” (loosely translated to English as “Dateless Masturbator.”)

So apparently there is a big controversy over in Racine “popping up” that involves tastless pictures sent out by a political operative. I’m not really interested in the sordid details of the story, but I do think one part of the controversy is being completely overlooked.

The man is wearing the American flag as a banana hammock.

Any red-blooded American should support shutting down any business that produces American flag penis pouches. I mean, seriously – our men and women are fighting overseas for our freedom, and this guy is wrapping his crank in Old Glory.

Back in the boy scouts, we were taught that according to flag etiquette, you had to burn the flag if it even touched the ground. What are you supposed to do if this jerkoff is playing “pig in a blanket” with it? I propose the following amendment to flag etiquette – you have to burn it while he’s wearing it. That will teach him a lesson.

Where will the Supreme Court stand on this? This gives Texas v. Johnson a whole new meaning. Only in flag burning cases, the dissenters are demonstrating. The only thing the hammock demonstrates is that this Bene-dick’d Arnold must keep it awfully cold in his house.

If you haven’t caught any of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave Redick’s press releases, you truly are depriving yourself of one of life’s great pleasures. They are truly the ramblings of a madman. They are a delicious bouillabaisse of non-sequiturs, different fonts, and semi-lucid stream of conscious observations (not unlike my posts). He’s like your old uncle that has to register with the state Department of Corrections every time he moves, when he gets drunk and starts spouting off at the mouth.

In particular, check out this release from March 16th, which states:

“Thus, I am proud to announce that I have mailed to President Bush today the draft of a settlement agreement to be used by him to negotiate the end of these wars. This document will be enhanced in the weeks ahead, and resubmitted, as volunteers contribute ideas. Please ‘Join David’ in this worthy project!”

Seeing as how he is taking requests for his peace agreement with Al-Qaeda, I e-mailed his campaign the following:

Dear Future Senator Redick:

Thank you for having the stones to stand up to Republicans in their support of this most unjust and unholy of wars. This position will undoubtedly be what easily propels you through the Republican primary in September, when you will then beat that warmonger Herb Kohl. Your clearly stated and well thought out position on the war will undoubtedly resonate with the voters of this state, and will most certainly offset the tens of millions of dollars, name recognition, and unparallelled popularity Herb Kohl currently enjoys.

In response to your open solicitation for ideas for your peace agreement, I submit the following:

What we need to do is lure Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi to the negotiating table with a peace offering of the Season One “Facts of Life” DVD (U.S. intelligence has picked up that he has a thing for Tootie, pre-braces). When he leans over the table to accept this most valuable of gifts, I propose you punch him in the face really hard and knock him out. You then use a sharpie to draw a convincing beard on yourself and dress yourself in his clothes.

After going back to his terrorist base camp, you must take two weeks to assimilate yourself with the terrorists, so they don’t suspect anything. During this time, you must continue to kill American soldiers and blow the limbs off of women and children – but don’t worry, because it’s for a good cause. Finally, one day you spike all of the terrorists’ Red Bull energy drinks with arsenic that you have cleverly hidden in your colon for two weeks.

Senator Redick, it takes a man of superhuman fortitude to carry off a plan this foolproof. I believe you are just that man. May God bless you in your campaign of righteousness.

Stay black,

-Dennis York

I won’t “fisk” the rest of his ridiculous release, but I do have to mention his genius in somehow working the Scott Jensen conviction into a rant about Vietnam. And I will end this post with these wise words from Redick:

“An unbiased thinking person can find the REAL REASONS we started these wars with a little research on the Internet.”

I think I might also be able to find the necessary forms for involuntary commitment on the internet, too.

I looked up the criminal record of a friend of mine, and it appears he had a little run-in with the law for a criminal transgression that I didn’t believe existed. I looked it up, and sure enough, here it is:

Wis. Stat. 943.12 Possession of burglarious tools.

Whoever has in personal possession any device or instrumentality intended, designed or adapted for use in breaking into any depository designed for the safekeeping of any valuables or into any building or room, with intent to use such device or instrumentality to break into a depository, building or room, and to steal therefrom, is guilty of a Class I felony.

Burglarious? Are you kidding me?

In related news, a member of McDonaldland was recently convicted of possession of hamburglarious tools.

Rather than hang myself, I decided to take a peek at the latest “Dave’s Digest” from future ex-congressional candidate Dave Magnum. The portion where he “paid tribute” to the great Tom Metcalfe caught my eye. He says:

“Last year I had the honor of presenting Tom with one of his many lifetime achievement awards. It was clear then as it is now that as a moderate Tom was far more interested in the merits of an issue than political labels. He just wanted to get things done. His desire to do the right thing and his lack of partisanship only enhanced the respect he earned from people on both sides of the political aisle. Tom was a class act and will be sadly missed.”

Gee, do you catch the subtle message there?

Residents of South Central Wisconsin remember his 2004 campaign, which featured an unsettling commercial of him staring longingly at a picture his deceased wife thinking about health care policy. The obvious question now becomes:

Is there anybody no longer living that Dave Magnum won’t invoke to make himself look better?

Don’t be surprised if he announces Pat Tillman has been named his campaign manager.

Peter had this article a while back, but I pulled this passage out to show why my love of Antonin Scalia is undying and unconditional:

Noting that the Senate confirmed his high courtnomination by a 98-0 vote, Scalia said, “You could not get a judge with my views confirmed to the Court of Appeals today.”He said code words such as “mainstream” and “moderate”are now used to describe liberal judicial nominees.”What is a moderate interpretation of (theConstitution)? Halfway between what it says and halfway between what you want it to say?” he said.

For decades, the strategy to deal with homelessness in America has been to manage the problem, rather than fixing the problem. So says author Malcolm Gladwell in his New Yorker essay “Million Dollar Murray,” which details the complexity of dealing with the homeless population and the hopelessness of our current state and federal policies.

Gladwell is a refreshing read, as he’s a liberal who actually gets it. He makes reasoned arguments, and when he addresses a conservative position on a particular issue, his argument actually represents an actual conservative position, rather than an easily disposable lefty fantasy. Needless to say, arguments from people that use reason should be taken much more seriously than those who use hysterics and hyperbole.

Gladwell’s theory is essentially this: while Americans generally view the “homeless” as a unitary group with similar characteristics, statistics show that the most extreme cases, or the “chronically homeless,” make up only ten percent of the homeless population. Gladwell cites studies to support his theory that the homeless follow a “power law” distribution, meaning about ten percent of the homeless are far and away the most costly to society, due to the constant medical attention they need for mental disorders and substance abuse.

As an example, Gladwell uses “Murray,” an alcoholic homeless man in Reno who the police had to pull out of casinos on a regular basis. Local authorities estimate that Murray needed over a million dollars’ worth of medical care before he finally died. The tab for his medical care is either picked up by taxpayers or via private insurance payers through higher premiums.

One homeless service program in Boston tracked the medical expenses of 119 chronically homeless people. Their study showed that over five years, 33 people died and seven were sent to nursing homes, but that group of 119 people accounted for 18,834 emergency room visits, with a minimum cost of $1,000 per visit. While 90% of individuals are homeless for only a few days or weeks, it is the remaining 10% of the most severe homeless that are overburdening our social service system.

Gladwell proposes that instead of merely managing the homeless problem, it would be in our best interest to expend the resources necessary to solve the problem. He argues that our system of soup kitchens and shelters only allows the homeless to remain homeless, thereby providing a disincentive for people to straighten their lives out. Gladwell’s solution means identifying the chronically homeless and doing whatever it takes to help them, including providing stable housing, substance abuse services, and career counseling.

There are good conservative arguments against this type of approach. For instance, government would be going out of their way to help people that either don’t want help or don’t deserve it. Some families work extra jobs to make ends meet, and government would be picking up the tab to provide a new life for people who have shown no personal responsibility or initiative.

On the other hand, government will be paying for these people one way or another. It appears that spending money up front to help people with severe problems could be much less costly than our current system of paying their substantial medical bills on the back end. If it was necessary to shift resources away from the current soup kitchen-shelter system to fund such a re-prioritization, then that may be a worthwhile endeavor.

American government has a strong egalitarian streak which forces it to treat individuals the same no regardless of individual circumstance. This causes a lot of people to be partially dependent on government to maintain their way of life. It may be time to challenge this way of thinking and provide a few people with a lot of help.

I’m up to 200 posts now, with most people still waiting for the first good one. Basically, I’m just procrastinating writing a really long post I have in mind. A couple points on fast food:

Whoever thought of putting mayonnaise on a cheesburger deserves to be written into my will. Of course, that change to my will will have to be made quickly if I keep eating cheeseburgers with mayonnaise on them.

Why does McDonald’s even bother selling salads? Have you ever seen anyone order one? Essentially, you have to pay more for your food to subsidize the presence of salads, so McDonald’s will seem more health conscious. There’s no way salads are pulling their own weight.

If I ever become homeless (and if I had to make a living by blogging, I would be), the first place I would look for spare change is under the drive-through window. I swear I drop coins about every other time I pick up drive-through food. Somewhere, there’s some guy that’s been following me around that just bought a three bedroom in Shorewood Hills.

One of my doctor friends told me that it’s not bad to pig out on fast food, since once you consume a certain amount of fat at one sitting, your body can’t process any more fat and just expels it. Heartened, I decided to test this theory about five times a week, with no noticeable weight loss results yet.

For some reason, my wife likes eating her french fries with tartar sauce (she’s a closet Euro, which explains why she voted for Kerry). I am being generous if I estimate that they remember to put her side of tartar sauce in the bag 30% of the time. I would be less surprised to see a map to bin Laden’s cave than I would if they’d remember the tartar sauce.

The death penalty is still illegal in Wisconsin, yet McDonald’s is still allowed to sell McGriddle breakfast sandwiches. Where is the consistency?

Back in January, I posted this:

Besides showing that drug use is alive and well among the left wing, let’s assume Feingold gets his way and Bush is impeached. That would leave us with this:



Suck on it, Democrats!

On March 25th, this editorial cartoon appeared in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Pure coincidence? I concede, it’s a pretty obvious point. But I am reasonably well read at the Journal-Sentinel, and it seems suspect that the one editorial cartoonist to make this point would be in Milwaukee.

If the Journal-Sentinel wants me to start writing their editorials for them, I’d be happy to. Don’t be surprised if you see Eugene Kane come out in support of Mark Green in the next couple of days…

Some lefties are taking shots at Republicans for contributions made by an individual named Ambrose Schwartz to some GOP campaigns. Schwartz, you see, owns the 4 Mile Gentleman’s Club, which is a strip joint.

Schwartz, however, has given money to both Democrats and Republicans. It’s pretty clear that he’s a member of the Wisconsin Tavern League and likely gives through his conduit. That means the Tavern League holds on to his money and sends it to candidates that they support. He may have given money to legislators that he had never even heard of.

And when a campaign receives a check, it can’t possibly take the time to look up the background of every contributor. If you do have the time to research every donor, you’re not running a very good campaign. Plus, the name “4 Mile” wouldn’t immediately signal “strip club” to me. It’s not like it’s the “Bear Chest” in Beloit or “Beansnappers,” which everyone agrees sounds dirty, but nobody can figure out why.

As for the propriety of receiving contributions from strippers themselves, I would argue women that can pick a dollar bill up without using their hands have more dignity than the teachers’ union, and nobody seems to care about their contributions.

This is in stark contrast to the Doyle administration, where the whoring takes place after the contribution has been received.

Last week, I hammered away at UW Milwaukee Professor Amanda Seligman (who would have guessed such rock solid reasoning could be found at the UW?) for her incomprehensible editorial in favor of gay marriage. In it, she stated that she now regrets her heterosexual marriage because gays are legally excluded from taking part in marriage, or some such nonsense.

Today, the Journal Sentinel tries to even the score with an equally bad editorial by Mark Fielding Sevelis that makes the case against gay marriage. I’m generally on this guy’s side, but it really is a meandering, disjointed mess. Apparently, gay marriage is bad because this guy was in some gay bowling gang in high school or something. I will refrain from making a joke about how they had the most polished balls in the bowling league (although I guess I just did).

Are the community columnists at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel picked at random? Do you get a free column with the purchase of a honey glazed ham at Pick n’ Save?