I wouldn’t presume to tell anyone how to vote on anything, and I would hope nobody would listen to me if I did. What I can do, however, is tell you how I’m voting and what my reasons are, and if my arguments are persuasive, so be it.

Everyone knows that this November, voters will be asked to vote on an advisory referendum on whether to institute the death penalty in Wisconsin. I will be voting no, and here’s why:

Nobody has had reason to complain about the court system over the past few decades than conservatives. Almost monthly, some court kicks out an opinion that leaves the public completely perplexed. One needs to look no further than last week, when Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled against the NSA’s wiretapping program, forgoing the pesky “legal” grounds and instead launching a partisan attack against the Bush administration. In recent years, courts have inexplicably held the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional and held the appalling McCain-Feingold law to be constitutional. Andrea Yates confessed to drowning her five children in a bathtub, yet her conviction was overturned. Does Roe v. Wade ring a bell?

Yet somehow, when it comes time to kill someone, many conservatives are willing to close their eyes, plug their ears, and invest all their faith in the apparent evenhandedness of the court system. This is just foolish. I recognize that there are different courts and varying situations, but the bottom line is, real people run the courts, and real people are not infallible. People have grudges, biases, and aspirations, and judges can make determinations on admissability of evidence, witness selection, and other motions that can determine the outcomes of cases.

George Will once said that some people believe government acts as a scalpel and some believe government acts as a sledgehammer. There is no power a government holds that should be taken more seriously than the ability to kill its own citizens. Government can do many of the big things – protect our country, build highways, and provide a basic safety net for its people. But anyone skeptical of government should question the competence with which it wields the power of putting its own citizens to death.

I also don’t believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent for violent crime. In order to determine whether it does, one would have to round up all the people who are thinking about committing violent crimes and ask them if they’re being deterred by the threat of the death penalty in their states. Those that believe the death penalty deters crime believe that 1) The prospective perpetrator thinks they’re going to be caught, and 2) Base their choice of state residence on the assumption that they will be apprehended and prosecuted.

Does anyone actually believe that a child molester/killer would say to himself, “boy, I’d really like to molest and kill little kids in Wisconsin, but they just instituted the death penalty, so I could be in some trouble when they inevitably catch me?” I’d like to see a poll of people on death row and whether they even knew their state had the death penalty. Does your typical murderer even know the difference between state and federal governments? If they know anything, they probably remember the feds putting people like Timothy McVeigh to death, and assume that could happen to them. If you took a poll of the educated general public, I bet you’d get about a 50/50 response on whether Wisconsin currently utilizes the death penalty. I’m just guessing the Child Molester’s Manual doesn’t have a chapter on civics.

Death penalty supporters claim that the number of innocent people put to death is overstated. I have no doubt that the overwhelming number of people that receive the death penalty are guilty – of this, I don’t think there’s any reasonable debate. The disagreement comes in the value placed on the few innocent individuals that are put to death.

Death penalty supporters argue, amazingly in my opinion, that there may have been some innocent people put to death, but that the net deterrent effect of capital punishment makes society safer in general. In other words, the ends justify the means. Seeing as how I don’t believe society actually is safer, I steadfastly disagree with this line of thinking.

I don’t believe that there can ever be such a thing as “collateral damage” in the application of the death penalty. If one out of 100 people put to death is innocent, that is too many to justify giving the government that kind of power. I sincerely doubt that the families of the wrongfully convicted take solace in the theory that their loved one’s unjust death will somehow make society safer down the road.

Of course, being against the death penalty means having to take some pretty tough positions. Every time I hear about someone raping and murdering a little girl, my first gut instinct is to want the bastard dead, without a trial and painfully, if possible. And while it may be satisfying to the victim’s family to have the perpetrator killed, in the end, it really doesn’t change anything.

In the midst of the debate on the death penalty, we here in Wisconsin have the “fortune” of dealing with the Steven Avery murder case. What people have forgotten is that Steven Avery himself actually serves as both a case for and against the death penalty.

As you may recall, Avery was found guilty of a rape for which he famously served 18 years in prison. When DNA evidence determined he was not guilty, he was released. Soon thereafter, he was charged with raping and murdering a young female photographer.

As abhorrent an individual as Avery is, think back to his original charge. What if that had been a murder charge? He may have been dead for a decade before he was exonerated. That, to me, seems like a good reason why we may not want to put people to death. And what is the argument for the death penalty that Avery represents? Well, he’s a bastard that deserves to rot in hell. While there’s merit to both positions, on balance, I think the former is more compelling.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that my Catholic faith also plays a part in my opinion. Without a doubt, many Catholics believe that favoring the death penalty is compatible with their faith, and I’m certainly not in a position to be handing out Catholic gold stars. But I do believe that adherance to Catholicism means adhering to a devotion to life, from conception to death, as difficult as that sometimes may be.

Many times, you’ll hear people discount one’s views if they’re based in religion, as if organized religion is one of Kevin Barrett’s conspiratorial hallucinations. It’s always entertaining to see that the same people who ridicule religous beliefs with regard to abortion and gay marriage are the first ones to trot out religious opposition to the death penalty to support their positions. I, however, will never apologize for my faith and whether that faith influences my opinions.

There are people who I admire greatly that I disagree with on this issue. Of course, they’re not bloodthirsty or overly vengeful, nor are they lacking true religious conviction. What they are, however, is wrong about the true effects of capital punishment. Rectifying killing by killing doesn’t make anyone safer, it only further erodes the respect for all types of life that our society is severely lacking these days.

For more information on the death penalty referendum in November, go to the No Death Penalty Wisconsin page. While I can’t vouch for everything they will post, it’s a good start.

A friend of mine told me his wife was playing in a “moms” soccer league, meaning you had to be a mother to play. She is proposing that each participant be forced to submit to a uterus screening, because she thinks some teams are sneaking in childless ringers.

The funny thing is, for the purposes of the league, you are considered a “mother” if you are currently pregnant. Isn’t that just waiting for a court challenge? Shouldn’t the league rule be that you only become a “mother” at the time of viability? If you’re considered a mother while you’re pregnant, doesn’t that imply that you have a child? If you have a freezer full of frozen embryos in your basement, does that count? And where is NARAL to ruin these women’s fun?

Women’s rec league soccer – ground zero for the abortion battle in the new milennium. Who knew?

I know what you’re thinking – “It’s been a while since I’ve been camping, so I haven’t been able to eat any s’mores lately.” Well, my friend, problem solved – just have a little cookout at home, as I did tonight. Check it out:

Oh, yeah. And check out the Better Homes and Gardens quality photography. I’ll probably find raccoons in my kitchen tomorrow morning.

In the meantime, I’m trying to work on a pretty involved post, but right now it really sucks. It’ll just have to wait until tomorrow.

I’m tired and beleagured, so rather than do a full post about the Packer game tonight, I’ll post a partial transcript of a chat I had during the game with a friend of mine, Lorenzo Lamas.

York: Good God
Lamas: The only thing that could be worse is if Favre’s DNA matches Jon Benet Ramsey…

York: Ahmad Carroll defending…
York: Palmer could be playing in a wheelchair, as long as he keeps throwing to Carroll’s guy.
Lamas: At least Carroll didn’t kick him in the groin.
York: Carroll is never close enough to anyone to kick them in the groin. He’d need 20 foot legs.

York: If they wouldn’t have beaten the Seahawks 2nd team in the last game of the year, they’d have Reggie Bush right now.
York: Suzy Kolber makes me want to stab my eyes.

York: Enough love for Carson Palmer. He’s not playing Hezbollah, for God’s sake.

York: Is there a video of a human birth or something on that I would be more comfortable watching?

Lamas: Favre’s looking for a loophole in his “I’m coming back” statement.
Lamas: “Uh… I meant coming back to pick up my stuff.”

York: Theismann: Mike McCarthy has to be “concerned a little bit.”
York: Much like David Koresh might be a little concerned about what that burning smell might be.

York: Samkon with the catch!
Lamas: Gado has worse hands than a high school sophomore at his first prom.
York: Where he’s from, the only thing you can catch is malaria.
Lamas: chuckle

York: I see the season starts on the 5th anniversary of 9/11. I’m sure that will be done tastefully.
Lamas: “It’ll bring the house down”
York: “ARE YOU READY FOR AL-QAEDA!”

York: Theismann: “Favre and Rodgers are totally different quarterbacks.” As in: Favre is the only three time MVP in league history, and Rodgers has a mustache.

Lamas: Rodgers had to be the only QB who has ever been cut from Packer fantasy camp.

York: Tirico just pointed out that Cory (who is black) and Aaron Rodgers (who is white) are unrelated. Actually, I think that’s wrong – I think they’re married.
York: They saw the constitutional amendment coming and eloped.
Lamas: Aaron Rodgers left the Packers today, citing the team’s lack of domestic partner benefits. Esera Tuaolo was unavailable for comment.

Washington, D.C. – The FBI announced today that through its warrantless wiretapping program, it has uncovered an explosive peach cobbler recipe. “It’s the most delicious thing I’ve ever tasted,” said Special Agent Demond McDuffie, his mouth stuffed full of cobbler. “And to think, if we had to get a warrant, this vital piece of information would have remained an underground terrorist secret,” said McDuffie.

The secret cobbler recipe was said to have come from a phone call originating from terrorist Mahmoud Al-Alim of Conway, South Carolina to his mother in Afghanistan. “The first part of the call, he was kind of mumbling something unintelligible about poisoning the water supply of Atlanta, or some crazy nonsense,” said Agent McDuffie. “But his use of ginger in his cobbler recipe is the work of a madman – a mad genius,” said McDuffie.

Upon learning of the recipe theft, Al-Alim immediately contacted the ACLU, who filed a lawsuit on his behalf. “This delicious recipe has been passed through centuries of Al-Alims, and the federal government has no business stealing it,” said ACLU spokesman Jarvis VanLandingham. In response to the lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a warrant must be granted before the government can listen in on any conversations regarding fruit-filled pastries. If a court is not available, the government must get permission from the ’80s band Warrant.

The FBI released some of the transcripts of Al-Alim’s overseas conversations, including this one to his superiors from last month:

Al-Alim: “Hey, is Abdul Qadeer there?”

Qadeer: “That’s me.”

Al-Alim: “Sorry, you sounded like someone else.”

Qadeer: “I’ve actually had a little cold lately, can’t shake it. Little phlegmy.”

Al-Alim: “Anyway, I’ve been meaning to talk to you about my job title.”

Qadeer: “Tell me, brother, what’s the problem?”

Al-Alim: “I was thinking we could spice my official job title up a little. I think “suicide bomber” is a little passe’.”

Qadeer: “You are doing the work of Allah, my friend – I think the job title fits.”

Al-Alim: “I think it could be jazzed up a little. You could call me the ‘crafty bomber’ or the ‘shifty bomber.’ I think that adds a little pizzazz. “

Qadeer: “Call yourself whatever you want, as long as you’re willing to strap a bomb to your chest and walk into a bus station.”

Al-Alim: “Yeah, that’s kind of the thing – I’m not real big on the whole ‘suicide’ thing. I mean, everyone is doing the whole lame ‘blow myself up’ routine – I think it’s kind of played out. I mean, the feds are totally looking for suicide bombers. They aren’t looking for bombers not willing to give their life to their cause. It will completely throw them off the scent.”

Qadeer: “You’re not going back on your pledge to give your life for the cause, are you?”

Al-Alim: “Of course not – It’s just that I won tickets to see Celine Dion in Vegas next month through a radio contest.”

Qadeer: “Here’s what I’ll do – you stay a suicide bomber, but I’ll up your dental insurance benefit.”

Al-Alim: “Okay, sounds good.”

Qadeer: “I have to go – I have a coupon for Qdoba that runs out today. Although I never know whether to go to Qdoba or Chipotle – they’re kind of the same thing. Praise be Allah.”

Al-Alim: “Praise be Allah…(click)”

Al-Alim: ….hey, wait a minute!

ESPN’s funniest writer, Bill Simmons (AKA “The Sports Guy”) made a trip to Wisconsin to take in a Packer game and two Brewer games last weekend. Fortunately, he kept a top-notch diary of his weekend. It includes this passage, from his drive up to Lambeau from Milwaukee:

We’ve passed at least 10 signs for cheese-related stores or foods so far. You have to hand it to Wisconsin: The people here have listened to every health-related study from the past 25 years — watch out for fried foods, butter and cheese, beware of heavy beer, make sure you eat enough vegetables and fruit, try to exercise as much as possible — and basically said, “You know what? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I love Wisconsin.

Read the whole thing here.

Everyone knows that women’s magazines market themselves to a certain woman who doesn’t exist – a woman who lives in the big city, wears a new designer outfit every day, and drinks martinis for lunch. However, this article in Jane Magazine shows how out of touch they really are.

Let me set the scene for you:

A 29 year-old not-horrible looking “virgin” wants to have sex before her 30th birthday. So she starts a blog and gets a magazine to run stories about it. Riiiiight.

So this alleged virgin apparently needs “help” from a national magazine to reach her goal of having sex before she turns 30. Is there anyone alive that believes this? The reality is, if she really wanted to, this chick could walk into the Argus Bar at 5:00 PM and join the Non-Virgin Club before the ice melted in her drink. If it got to be 11:59 on the night before her 30th birthday and she was still a virgin, the crowd of hairy-palmed men outside her apartment would look like Woodstock.

But apparently, she is living in some fabricated world where every woman writes a relationship column about finding men. When basically, all you really need to find a man is a pulse, two eyes, a full set of teeth, and about 4 minutes. I mean, who does this woman think she is, me? If given the choice of having sex with me or being thrown off the top of the Sears Tower, most women would go buy a helmet and a life insurance policy.

Fortunately, I found the only woman on Earth that can tolerate me and married her. In all honesty, though, I had a national magazine help me find her, too. I got her out of a mail order ad in the back of Soldier of Fortune.

(I just earned myself a couple nights’ worth of sleeping on the couch with that joke – hope you enjoyed it)

I’m not particularly opposed to domestic partner benefits, but I have some questions about today’s story about a UW researcher who supposedly is leaving because the university won’t offer benefits to his boyfriend. The story that appeared essentially reads as a UW press release, and doesn’t provide some obvious information that it should. So here are some things that it would have been nice if the story included.

It would have been nice if the story included information about Rob Carpick’s salary, which is currently $90,000. What will he be making at his new job? Isn’t that relevant to why he’s leaving? If he’s getting a $100,000 raise at Penn, isn’t that somewhat relevant?

It would have been nice if the story explained why, in a time when most Wisconsin residents are struggling with health care costs, we should be concerned about the boyfriend of a guy making $90,000 who’s not willing to pay for health care. In fact, his boyfriend, Carlos Chan, is healthy and able to work, and actually already gets health care from the UW! The catch is, he actually has to work there, but he does so “reluctantly.” Note to Carlos – if you don’t want to work there, I want my tax money back. Oh, and incidentally, Carlos was working in the same department as Carpick – gee, I wonder how he got that job? They take a self described “cook,” and give him a job as an “Instructional Specialist” in the engineering department. I’m sure that’s a pure coincidence.

It would have been nice if the story recognized that often times, people leave the UW for reasons other than what they publicly state. Remember Luoluo Hong? She was the UW employee who left for the University of Arizona, and at the time claimed she was leaving because the UW doesn’t provide domestic partner benefits (she is straight), and because the state doesn’t provide the UW with enough money (although Arizona provides even less). As we found out later, Hong actually left because Paul Barrows was playing grab ass and making work an untenable situation for her. So obviously, when she told the UW-Madison she was leaving, they had her cook up this cockamamie story about why she was leaving, which of course the press at the time swallowed whole (I, however, did not.)

It would have been nice if the article mentioned that Carpick’s new employer, Penn, is a private university, and therefore can offer whatever kind of benefits it wants. Obviously, things are different at a public school like UW-Madison, where public taxpayer dollars are involved. Also, since Penn is private, there may be certain research that is allowed that wouldn’t be allowed with public dollars. Plus, Penn is an Ivy League school, which certainly confers status to researchers – are we to believe that had nothing to do with his leaving?

It would have been nice if the newspaper didn’t show in its headline that it is so blatantly in this guy’s corner (“Promising UW researcher leaving over domestic partner benefits.”) Obviously, this isn’t the writer’s fault, since each paper writes its own headlines. But when was the last time you saw a newspaper refer to someone as a “promising pro-life advocate,” or a “promising gun rights supporter?” To newspapers, anyone willing to rip Republicans obviously shows “promise.”

I’m not buying this guy’s story at all. It may have been inconvenient for his partner to have to pay for his own health care, but is it really enough to leave a tenured job that pays you $90k to move to the east coast? It looks like the UW bent over backwards to help him out – even giving his partner a meaningless job in his department just so he could collect benefits. Plus, the UW has a history of fabricating reasons why its faculty is leaving. It would be nice if someone actually researched the story, rather than regurgitating what the UW tells them to. Ryan Foley is actually a really good reporter, but he’s better than this.

If this doesn’t inspire you, then you are a heartless bastard. Enjoy!

Oh, and Dwyane Wade might want to go ahead and get the paperwork ready for the restraining order against me.

Ladies and gentlemen… your 2006 Wisconsin Democratic candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, U.S. Senate, Attorney General, Secretary of State and State Senate!

I know a lot of people read my blog to get reasoned, objective analyses of Wisconsin political issues. That is why I am proud to offer this erudite and insightful tidbit:

Jamie Aulik is a real douchebag.

The topic du jour for all the good government groups these days is the famed Candidate Survey from the “nonpartisan” League of Women Voters, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, and Common Cause.

Keep in mind, that none of these groups are actually “nonpartisan.” Two of them have actually lobbied against the gay marriage constitutional amendment. Just check out the League of Women Voters’ website, which includes “nonpartisan” positions supporting universal health care, supporting gun control, opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge, and on and on. It’s essentially just the Moveon.org talking points charading as nonpartisanship. By the way, how often do you see the print media refer to Wisconsin Right to Life as “nonpartisan?” (technically, they are).

The League of Women Voters actually includes their support for abortion in the “Representative Democracy” portion of their website. This shows they have a sense of humor, since the unlimited right to abortion was mandated by the Supreme Court, the least representative branch of government conceivable.

Apparently willing to support anything with the words “reform” on it, the League has waded into the complicated area of campaign finance reform. This is the focus of the biased Wisconsin candidate survey they distributed, which more than half of state candidates rightfully ignored. The survey is full of ridiculously slanted questions such as: “Do you support and would you vote for bipartisan, comprehensive campaign finance reform that would reduce special interest influence…”

What’s a candidate supposed to say? “No, I want to increase special interest influence?” Actually the question relates to voluntary spending limits, which would actually increase special interest influence by pushing campaign spending out into the shady independent groups like the one Xoff runs. How’s McCain-Feingold working out? Good thing there’s no special interest influence in Washington anymore. No candidate in their right mind would actually turn this garbage in.

Despite the obvious flaws in the survey and the cheerleading done for it by the statewide media, there was one question in particular that piqued my interest. Question #4 on the survey reads:

4. YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for legislative measures making electoral competitiveness a legal or constitutional standard that must be applied by the Legislature and the courts in establishing state legislative and congressional district boundaries?

Clearly, they are dissatisfied with the current makeup of the State Legislature and think there’s a better way to draw legislative districts. They think that the districts are rigged by the incumbent lawmakers that redraw them every decade. They think that somehow, the state Constitution should be rewritten to make “electoral competitiveness” the standard when drawing new districts.

So making all the districts in the state competitive sounds like a good idea, right? Then, more races will be contested, and democracy will flourish, correct? There’s only one problem with this theory: The Voting Rights Act.

In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which guaranteed the right to vote for all citizens. The Act was a response to Southern separatists, who responded to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making it more difficult for blacks to vote.

For the past 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to mold the meaning of the Civil Rights Act. One of the problems encountered by the courts has been that of “vote dilution,” used by segregationists to lessen the influence of black voters. These segregationist lawmakers would gerrymander districts to make sure only a sliver of black voters were present in each district, which guaranteed no minorities could be elected to office, and would “dilute” the efficacy of minority votes.

To address this nefarious tactic, the courts have ruled that wherever possible, minority representation must be present. The goal in redistricting has to be keeping minority voters together as a community. To that end, where there are majority-minority populations, there must be an opportunity to elect a minority to office. Of course, minorities, especially African-Americans, disproportionately vote for Democrats. Thus, in heavily black areas of Milwaukee, you find a lot of black Democrats that hold office. Here’s a map of downtown Milwaukee Assembly districts:

Of the inner city Milwaukee districts, look at the solid block that are represented by African Americans or other minorities: the 16th (Leon Young), 18th (Tamara Grigsby), 10th (Polly Williams), 17th (Barbara Toles), 8th (Pedro Colon), and 11th (Jason Fields). Additionally, these districts are represented by African-Americans Spencer Coggs and Lena Taylor in the State Senate. Of course, all of these minority representatives are Democrats, and represent heavily Democratic districts.

Now try to imagine drawing a map where each of these districts are “electorally competitive.” Think of how you could take these 90% Democratic districts and gerrymander them so they are each 50% Republican. You would essentially have about ten to fifteen districts made up primarily of the suburbs that pick off just a little sliver of inner city Milwaukee. The effect of this type of gerrymandering? Vote dilution.

Trying to make these districs “electorally competitive” would fracture the African-American community into little sections, where it would be increasingly more difficult to elect black representatives. I’m not willing to say that any of the current African-American representatives couldn’t be elected in majority white districts, but Wisconsin has yet to elect a minority in any district without a strong minority presence (Bob Turner from Racine, for instance). So the end result of the League of Women Voters’ plan to equalize districts would actually be to end minority representation in the state.

Not only would this be unlawful (as determined by the courts) it wouldn’t pass the test of public decency. Of course, what the League really wants to do is make heavily Republican districts more competitive. But in order to do that, you have to move the Republicans somewhere, and they would have to go into districts that cause problems with equal rights case law. Since Republicans continue to pick up seats in both state houses, they figure something must be wrong with the process of drawing districts – it’s obviously rigged.

This is just another example of interest groups not thinking through the implications of their policy positions. Who ever thought the League of Women Voters would advocate undermining the Voting Rights Act?

Side note: Boo, York! Write the funny stuff!

——————————————————————————-

Supplemental Info:

Here’s a good article by Jason Stein of the Wisconsin State Journal discussing the dwindling relevance of the League of Women Voters and their newfound political advocacy.

Watch ="http://www.c3ktogo.com/video-player.php?id=5101">Neil Heinen’s head explode when he finds out how few candidates actually fill out the survey. Calm down, Neil – more people will read this post than will read the LWV survey results.

Phil Brinkman of the Wisconsin State Journal can’t believe that Mark Green didn’t fill out his survey. I can’t believe this article wasn’t on the editorial page, where it belonged.

(Green Bay) – In a stunning development, gubernatorial candidate Mark Green today vowed to take care of voters in a way that is impossible by their current man. “I know you’ve had your heart broken, baby,” whispered Green. “I don’t want you to sit alone on election day, thinking you could have had it better all along,” added Green.

Green’s promise to please voters “one by one” is an unusual tactic for a gubernatorial campaign. It is believed that the last time this strategy was used was in 1902, where Iowa’s future Governor Farley McBain vowed to “rattle the wooden teeth” out of rural voters.

Green’s campaign, however, said this strategy had been thoroughly poll tested before they rolled it out today. “Our polling says that 54% of Wisconsin voters are sobbing to themselves quietly by the phone, petting their cats, waiting for the right man to come by,” said Campaign Manager Mark Graul.

“I can give you what you need better than your current man,” Green growled at his press conference before ripping off his shirt. “You and me have a lot in common. Maybe you should just sit down while I give you a back rub and a Courvoisier and ginger ale. See, there you go. What’s that? You want a footrub, too? I can do that – because your man can’t please you like this. He just doesn’t understand you like I do. Come here and sit on my lap and tell me all about it while I wipe your tears away. That’s it. Nice and slow. How about you and me head off to the voting booth together. It’ll be nice and quiet there.”

“I went to his campaign headquarters for a conference he was holding on the Alternative Minimum Tax,” said Susan Doucette, 29, of Allouez. “Before I know it, he’s pulling out his love oils and putting ‘Slow Jams of 1989′ on,” she said. “I mean, I love ‘Every Rose Has Its Thorn‘ as much as anyone, but I think it was a bit much,” said Doucette.

Governor Jim Doyle, clearly feeling the heat, responded by buying everyone in the state flowers and promised to do the dishes more often.

Here’s a secret from the “Too Much Information” file: I think about a lot of my blog topics in the shower. But yesterday, I actually thought about showering while in the shower. And these are some questions I have:

1. Do you actually wash your feet while you’re in the shower, or do you just figure that the soap will make its way down there eventually?

2. Have you ever been in the shower for so long that you actually forget whether you shampooed or not?

3. If I just bought a huge 50 gallon water heater, why can’t it hold enough hot water for two hot showers in the morning?

4. Question for wives/girlfriends: How long does your husband have to be in the shower before you suspect that something nefarious is going on in there?

5. If we pooled together all the money women waste on conditioner, we could eradicate hunger in Africa. Or buy every man in Wisconsin a plasma TV, which I think is really what the children of Africa would prefer deep down in their hearts.

I had seen Federico Fellini’s “8 ½” a couple of times before I watched it this weekend, but my appreciation for its brilliance only grows with each viewing. There’s so much going on in the movie, yet it all seems to make sense. Somehow, a surreal movie ends up being starkly realistic.

Movie critics accentuate the theme of the movie that deals with moviemaking. In fact, a large part of the movie serves as a poison pen to the early ‘60s Italian press, who had begun to skewer Fellini’s work. Yet it’s bursting with ideas and statements about things like Catholicism, fear of aging, relations with women, and the pressure of expectations. Amid all of these themes, Fellini manages to weave in strands of absurdity to lampoon contemporary Italian cinema.

The movie follows filmmaker Guido Anselmi through the process of trying to somehow make an autobiographical film, which inexplicably takes place on a spaceship. Guido is burdened by the expectations brought on by making the movie, and his incompetence in dealing with the women in his life paralyzes him throughout the process.

There are many movies that make you feel good about being one of the guys, but I don’t know if there is a better movie about being a man than 8 ½. There’s a brilliant scene where all the women in Guido’s life come back to haunt him and he struggles to deal with them all at once. Fellini meant the film to be autobiographical, which exposes a lot of the serious issues he had going on at the time. But many of them are problems that are still alive and relevant today.

There’s a good chance most viewers would watch the movie and not know what in the hell they just saw. But for me, it has both the style and substance to be one of my favorites. If you can find a copy for cheap or at the library, be sure to give it a chance.