I just happened to catch a little of the Sonics-Pacers preseason game on TV the other night. And while most preseason NBA basketball is unwatchable, I was interested both in seeing Kevin Durant play, and in watching Marquette’s own Travis Diener get a shot with the Indiana Pacers.

Last week, I was listening to Charlie Sykes’ radio show, and he mentioned that his book (The 50 Things Kids Won’t Learn in School) had cracked the top 30 education-related books on Amazon.com. I went to the site and checked it out, and indeed it had – in part due to his appearances on national talk shows.

As I perused the top education books, I got a good chuckle. The #3 education book in the country was written by Winnie Cooper of “Wonder Years” fame. (Actually, it’s some actress that goes by the name of Danica McKellar, but who’s keeping track?) Any males in their mid-30s will be able to speak of the special relationship they had with Winnie Cooper in high school. She taught many of us the wonders of the nascent, blossoming female form. And now Winnie writes math books.

The name of the book is called “Math Doesn’t Suck: How to Survive Middle School Math Without Losing Your Mind or Breaking a Nail.” I think books like these are questionable for the following reasons:

1. Math does, in fact, suck. It’s certainly nice to try to get students more involved in their schoolwork, but I never liked the whole idea of pitching homework as being exciting (Reading is FUNdamental!). Most of schoolwork is an attempt to teach students that in order to achieve the things they want (college, money, one day having a blog, etc.) they have to do things they actually detest doing. The road to a good career isn’t paved by chores that are fun.

2. From middle school on, I never really responded to stuff that was geared towards my age demographic. I always wanted to be into stuff that was more adult. Anything that purported to make things “dumb enough for a middle schooler,” I wanted no part of. Just seemed too condescending. If someone tried to convince me any part of schoolwork was fun, I’d roll my eyes and say “dude, just give it to me straight.”

Anyway, good for Winnie – at least she seems to have made a nice transition into adulthood. Next up: “The Rise and Fall of the Scythian Empire” by Tootie.

Last week, the Wisconsin Hospital Association dropped their opposition to a tax on hospitals originally proposed by Governor Jim Doyle.  The WHA had initially opposed the tax, and legislative leaders in both the Senate and Assembly had agreed to take it off the negotiating table.  Supporters of the tax believe it will allow the state to draw down federal matching funds, while opponents note that the tax will merely be passed on to hospital consumers (commonly known as “sick people.”)

With the WHA dropping their opposition to the tax (knowing that in the end they won’t be the ones paying it), Senate Democrats have now reneged on their initial agreement to remove the tax.  According to Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson, the budget could be done quickly if Republicans accept the tax increase – that she previously had agreed to scuttle.

Owen Robinson has done an excellent job of explaining how the WHA’s switch in position shouldn’t effect budget negotiations.  For one, we elect legislators – not special interest groups.  For Assembly Republicans, it hasn’t altered their position - they were opposed to it before, and remain in opposition regardless of the position of an interested organization.

There is, however, a second step to this equation.  Where is the discussion of Senate Democrats who have now flip-flopped their position at the behest of the Hospital Association?  Since when have we looked kindly at legislators who are so clearly led around by the nose by a special interest group?

The answer here is simple – since, in this case, the interest group is advocating for higher taxes, they cease to be a “special interest” in the eyes of the media and good government groups.  They are merely pushing for better health care, right?

Imagine if the opposite scenario had developed.  Suppose the original budget had a tax break for fatcat businesses, which the Assembly Republicans agreed, with the blessing of the business community, to take out.  Then, at the last minute in budget negotiations, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce came in and demanded it be re-installed, leaving Assembly Republicans scrambling to re-insert it as a budget bottom-line.  We’d hear howls of undue special interest influence, charges of buying legislators, and the like.  We’d get the predictable round of editorials pushing campaign finance reform and charges of negotiating in bad faith.

On the hospital tax issue, there has been one consistent voice - from the side opposed to it.  Those looking for the effects of special interest influence need to look no further than the Senate Democrats, who have handed their decision-making process to the WHA board.  Good government, indeed.

Today’s fun Wisconsin state government fact, courtesy of the 2007-09 Blue Book:

The story behind Wisconsin’s first black legislator is interesting, since it seems like such a fluke. Lucien Palmer, a resort manager and hotel steward from Milwaukee, was elected in 1906 to the State Assembly. It is believed by some that Palmer earned his election because voters confused him with another Palmer who was white. This is supported by the fact that Lucien Palmer only lasted one session – it is possible that voters figured out who he was.

It wasn’t until 1944 that another African-American, Le Roy J. Simmons of Milwaukee, was elected to the Assembly. There has been black representation in the Legislature ever since.  This fact really makes Lucien Palmer an outlier, and the circumstances of his election are probably a very interesting story.

Photo courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society

I just finished reading Clarence Thomas’ autobiography, entitled “My Grandfather’s Son,” and I couldn’t recommend it more. For Clarence Thomas fans, there won’t be any big revelations, other than the description of the abject squalor in which he grew up in Pinpoint, Georgia. And there isn’t any discussion of complex legal principles or theories.

Instead, it’s a very plain-spoken account of his life (and also happens to be a quick read as a result.) The book jumps to life when Thomas takes on his critics – it’s like he just flips on a light switch and attacks his doubters with a veracity one wouldn’t expect out of a Supreme Court justice. He continually uses a snake analogy when discussing his white, liberal critics – and he kicks it in to yet another gear when expressing the pain caused by his black critics, who question his commitment to his own race.

He does mention a few of his shortcomings, and doesn’t really go into great detail other than to say “I drank a lot” or things like that. He kind of glosses over his divorce, merely spending a half a page on how he and his wife “grew apart,” although he spends a great deal of time describing the pain it caused him after the fact.

In promoting the book, Thomas granted a half-hour interview to 60 Minutes that really gives a good glimpse into his story. In ways, it’s even more powerful, as you get to see Thomas’ steely resolve in person. It’s broken up into three parts, and can be watched here:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

And on a side personal note, Phyllis Berry-Myers, one of Thomas’ ex-co workers and staunchest defenders, was also my sister’s high school basketball coach. Thomas lived directly behind my high school in Northern Virginia. Berry-Myers actually testified in front of Congress on Thomas’ behalf – her testimony can be read here.

Honest to God, this actually happened to me 30 seconds ago:

At work, I walked into the bathroom and sidled up to one of the two urinals. There was a guy in the one next to me. As I begin my mental preparation, I hear him bellow:

“HI THERE, HONEY!”

(Awkward pause)

I didn’t see it at first, but the guy next to me had one of those Bluetooth earpieces and was talking to his wife in mid-stream. For a second there, I thought I had wandered into the Minneapolis airport bathroom.

Seriously, though – I know people have all kinds of different viewpoints, but we should all be able to agree that talking on your cell phone in a bathroom while peeing should be forbidden. At least give me that.

God, I hate technology.

September of 1998 saw a U.S. presidency in crisis.  Two vans, one white and one blue, had just backed up to the U.S. Capitol and unleashed eighteen boxes of evidence in support of the Starr Report, which accused President Clinton of lying under oath to federal law enforcement officials.  The Starr Report was riddled with lurid details about the president’s sexual escapades, which were meant to prove that Clinton had perjured himself in previous grand jury testimony.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike were aghast at the president’s behavior, and set about negotiating which details of the Starr evidence to make available to the public.  Under a previous agreement, the entire body of evidence would be made public unless redacted by a congressional committee.  So attorneys for both sides sifted through the boxes to cross out social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, and even details about Monica Lewinsky’s weight problems.

There was, however, a problem.  Democrats and Republicans were agreeing on everything.  At this point, President Clinton was left with one remaining defense – that the whole Starr Report episode was a partisan witch hunt against him.  Thus, bipartisanship was not in his best interest.

Julian Epstien, the Democratic chief counsel, recognized that the sides were getting along too well.  He needed split votes to take to the public.  So he set a trap for the Republicans – he would have his side make motion after motion to redact some of the lurid sexual testimony, knowing full well that the GOP representatives would resist.  The case, after all, rested on whether Clinton had a “sexual relationship” with Lewinsky.

When voting began, the Democrats followed the plan.  Motion after motion was made by Democrats to strike sexual details, only to have Republicans vote those motions down.  It made Republicans look like they were on a sex-crazed witch hunt.  In essence, the Democrats won by losing. 

This is a lesson that can be learned by Assembly Republicans in negotiating the Wisconsin state budget.  According to reports, 25 Assembly Republicans have signed some form of a no-tax increase pledge.  There is little doubt that when a final budget emerges, it will have some tax increases – whether they be a cigarette tax increase, a hospital tax increase, or an oil company tax increase.  In each case, the burden of these taxes will be borne by consumers.

Consequently, Assembly Republicans are going to need to pull some Assembly Democrat votes along for the ride to pass a final budget.  They shouldn’t make the effort.  Instead, they should allow the Democrats to pass a bill and hang themselves in the process.

Politically, passing an Assembly budget with, say, 25 Republican and 25 Democrat votes doesn’t do Republicans any good.  It makes the partly look flaccid and toothless.  The GOP should stand, to the fullest extent possible, against any budget that raises taxes as much as this budget likely will.  There will be a couple of Republicans that will jump ship and vote for the budget (line one is for you, Terry Musser), which should give the 47 Democrats the votes they need to pass the budget. 

Some Republicans could argue with the wisdom of essentially handing the budget over to the Democrats.  Yet with so many GOP members committed to a “no” vote, it is clear that the Dems are already writing this budget.  What leverage does Mike Huebsch currently have, other than the ability to block scheduling of the bill?  The most important votes in the Assembly now belong to Democrats likely to vote for the same budget their Senate cohorts will pass.  Republicans shouldn’t be complicit in this dog-and-pony show.

Instead, Republicans should resist this budget and begin the process of pointing out all the tax increases created and passed by Democrats.  They should be relentless in illustrating the extent to which Democrats want to drain the wallets of people who buy gas, go to the hospital, and buy homes.  Then, the voters will make up their minds in 2008 whether that is something they want to be a part of.

Admittedly, it would be odd for a Republican Speaker to schedule a bill for floor action that few members of his party intend to vote for.  And the Democratic Minority Leader may not be in a hurry to help bail Republicans out of the budget mess.  The current delay likely works to his caucus’ favor.

This budget is going to have tax increases.  Politically, if possible, it is best to place the blame for them squarely where it belongs – on the Democrats.  There should be no consideration given to making this a bipartisan disaster.

Win by losing.

Balanchine. Nureyev. Baryshnikov. All masters of the dance. But no more.

In my never-ending quest to make sure my son can never get a date, here’s a video of him perfecting the most fluid and poetic of dances – the chicken dance. This is first in a long history of him performing this dance at weddings, Brewer games, and possibly one day the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts.

You know it was a tough Packer loss when you’re still mumbling to yourself in anger on your way home from work the next day. I mean, it would have made too much sense in the second half to run an offense that got you to 4-0 in the first place, right? Must be hard to call plays with both hands around your throat.

After the game ended (okay, well, after I stopped swearing) I realized something strange. Before the season, I got Madden 2008 for the PS2. I played a season with the Packers, and started out 4-0. At that point, I was chuckling, saying “yeah right.” Then in game 5 against the Bears, the Packers lost their first game. Here’s proof:

So I’m thinking there might be some supernatural at work here. There’s actually a 90% chance I am controlling the Packer season through my video game console. The good news is, the Packers took care of business next week against the Redskins and against the Broncos after that.

Tickets may be purchased to watch me play the remainder of the season for a mere 50 bucks. For the ladies, I will play shirtless for an extra 20.

I caught this ridiculously fawning Parade Magazine article about Brad Pitt yesterday, where he purports to be some worldwide philanthropic crusader. It was unironically titled “I Have Faith in My Family.” Says Pitt:

There’s this rumor spreading around the internets that the Cubs were in the playoffs. I’m not sure if it can be substantiated or not – can someone see if it’s on Wikipedia or something?

Some of you may have seen that the band Radiohead is offering up their new CD via dowload free from their website. They ask that you pay whatever you feel like to obtain the new disc – essentially a contribution of sorts.

As I am a Radiohead freak, I thought I would take advantage of this offer. (The “York” in “Dennis York” was an homage to lead singer Thom Yorke, just spelled differently.) And to show my appreciation for the offer, I figured I would contribute 10 bucks… what I would normally pay for a CD. I am all about showing my appreciation to bands I like.

The only problem is, their offer only allows you to contribute in British pounds, not American dollars. Easy enough – I went to the old handy-dandy currency converter to figure out how much 10 bucks was. As you look at the chart from left to right, it shows that one American dollar is worth roughly two pounds. So I put my order in for 20 pounds, which would be 10 bucks. Right?

Actually, it would have been helpful if I read the chart correctly – down, rather than left to right. Actually, it’s the complete opposite of what I thought: 20 pounds equates to 40 American dollars. So I have now paid 40 bucks for a CD I could have downloaded for free-ninety nine. Hooray for me!

The lesson here, as always, is that I am a complete idiot. No wonder my Russian mail-order bride cost so damn much….

SIDE NOTE: If you could maybe not tell my wife about this, that would be fantastic.

Check out the ad for these flip-flops by Adidas. It claims that merely by wearing these shoes Fitflops) around you will:

• Burn more calories
• Reduce cellulite
• Slim and tone your thighs
• Strengthen and tone muscles in the feet, legs, buttocks, stomach, and back

They are shoes. The only way they will help you reduce cellulite is if you actually eat nothing but the shoe itself over the course of a month.

The state teachers’ union (WEAC) today released the results of a study that purports to show that the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program insufficiently provides the motivation for public schools to compete for pupils.  School choice supporters generally believe that making Milwaukee Public Schools compete with private schools for students will provide the incentive for the public schools to improve.

 Not so, says WEAC:

A new study of Milwaukee schools finds that competition generated by vouchers does not lead to higher student test scores. Milwaukee has the longest-running voucher plan in the nation.

The findings contradict claims that the availability of vouchers pushes public schools to compete for students, thus improving student performance in low-income, urban areas. The lack of consistent academic improvement in Milwaukee’s public schools even after a proliferation of alternative options for students is profiled in “Vouchers and Public School Performance,” published Wednesday (October 3, 2007) by the Economic Policy Institute, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan think tank.

For those scoring at home, their argument is essentially “our schools still stink out loud, so school choice must not be providing us with the incentive we need to teach kids.”  This is an amazing argument.  So, by their logic, the worse MPS gets, the less necessary the school choice becomes, as it shows they are not being provided with enough incentive to compete for kids.  Maybe they can just run all the public schools into the ground to really prove their point. 

Taken to its logical conclusion, WEAC is saying that the poorer public school test scores get, the less opportunity parents should have to rescue their kids from these terrible schools – since apparently the choice program hasn’t sufficiently lit a fire under their teachers.

In high school, my father and I had a deal that he believed would prod me into getting better grades.  (And when I say we “had a deal,” it was akin to Saddam Hussein “suggesting” you vote for him.)  In order to drive the family car, I had to make the high school honor roll.  Sadly, throughout my high school career, I never saw the car keys.  My ability to speak Español never reached the B level, and I was sunk.  Fortunately, I have overcome this shortcoming and now confidently order burritos with extra queso.

By WEAC’s logic, since my dad’s directive failed to provoke me into learning Spanish, he was to blame for me being lazy.

The reasons test scores in MPS are poor are too numerous to mention: certainly truancy, broken families, and behavioral problems are high on the list.  Teachers do the best job they can under the circumstances.  But school choice allows those children who truly want to learn to escape this situation, rather than being trapped in failing schools – which WEAC is now apparently proud of.

So keep up the good work, WEAC.  You’re really showing us.

My wife and I recently juggled our work schedules around to accomodate some child care issues. Namely, we decided that I would be watching my 2 year old son on the occasional morning.

Little did I know that part of the package deal would be that I would also have to do the grocery shopping with my little man it tow. It occured to me that I haven’t actually been grocery shopping since I got married six years ago. Until now, I just put stuff on a list, and it just miraculously showed up in my refrigerator.

So the boy and I went to Woodman’s today, and I was completely lost. Seriously, if I were ever elected to anything, there would be a horrifying George H.W. Bush is-out-of-touch scene, like when he went to a grocery store for a photo-op and had no idea what a scanner was.

What I didn’t realize, though, is what a ladies’ man my kid is. Every woman that walks by gets a giggle and a “hello.” He makes funny faces just at the right times. In fact, the girl at the checkout area said she recognized him, and he helped her take all the groceries out of the cart.

Naturally, it wasn’t entirely perfect. Being with a 2 year old in a grocery store is like being with a wolverine in a phone booth. He managed to rip open a box of cereal bars and throw my keys into a freezer of frozen pizzas.

But I’m throwing the offer out there to single guys – you can take him shopping, and you’re golden. The only price I ask in return is that you actually keep him until he’s 12 years old.

jk lol!