Lifelong military man, lawyer, father of 5, husband of 38 years. My dad had done it all – until today, when he turns 60. Happy birthday, pops!
![\"\"](\"http://www.christianschneiderblog.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_wvG0NnggKqk/R_EGq4VvDvI/AAAAAAAAArw/onoaP86tois/s1600-h/DadTank2.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"http://www.christianschneiderblog.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_wvG0NnggKqk/R_EG3oVvDwI/AAAAAAAAAr4/SrVsVp3n-CQ/s1600-h/c_dad.jpg\")
(Interesting side note – my dad was actually born the same day as Al Gore: March 31, 1948. Ironic, given that in giving birth to me, my dad has done more to pollute the planet than Al Gore has ever done in cleaning it up.)
Tomorrow, voters in Wisconsin head to the polls to elect a new Supreme Court justice, to vote on a constitutional amendment to limit the governor\’s veto power, and to vote for various local offices.
Much has been written about the Supreme Court race between Michael Gableman and Louis Butler, and the \”nasty\” tone that the race has taken. (Fortunately, Butler never figured out that Gableman\’s middle name is \”Hussein.\”)* TV ad after TV ad, including a great deal of independent ads not sponsored by the candidates, hammer away at their respective opponents, accusing them of everything from being \”soft on rapists and murderers\” to \”not recycling.\” As a result of these ads, the two competitors have become ubiquitous in the last month.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have the \”Frankenstein Veto\” constitutional amendment up for a vote, which would restrict the govenor\’s ability to \”stitch\” together words from separate sentences of an appropriations bill to cobble together new laws never intended by the Legislature. Unless you\’re a regular reader of the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper in Madison (who have made it their personal mission to get the change passed), you likely have little idea what this whole amendment does. Voters will likely go to the polls, read the question, and decide on the spot whether they approve of this broad veto power.
And why are people so less informed about this important constitutional change? Well, because there hasn\’t been any television, radio, or print advertising. Frankenstein himself hasn\’t been running any ads in favor of the veto power, and neither have groups opposing it. As a result, this crucial change to state government is flying under the radar. It\’s hard to predict what the final outcome will be, since it\’s hard to gauge how much people know about it.
On the other hand, voters are much more informed (or, misinformed, in some cases) about the Supreme Court race. Why? Because all these \”scurrilous\” ads actually have the effect of informing voters and heightening the profile of the race. In that respect, despite the unpleasantness of the ads themselves, it appears they do actually make voters more aware of the candidates.
As evidence, see the outstanding work of UW-Madison political science professor Ken Goldstein, who was featured in Sunday\’s Wisconsin State Journal:
Mudslinging is taken for granted in most political campaigns these days, and it \’s a tactic that we love to hate.
But negative campaigns ads may be getting a bad rap, says UW-Madison political science professor Ken Goldstein.
Goldstein \’s research suggests that, counter to what many may think, negative ads can enrich the political process by focusing vital attention on issues and the differences between candidates.
\”Talking about people \’s records and people \’s weaknesses I think is perfectly fair game when we talk about the important things that are at stake in elections. It \’s actually the very definition of a representative democracy, \” said Goldstein, co-author of the new book, \”Campaign Advertising and American Democracy. \”
\”You don \’t always find positive effects from negative advertising, \” he added. \”But you \’re not likely at all to find negative effects. \”
[…]
Negative ads are more likely to be about policy issues, he said. They \’re also more likely to be factually correct, perhaps because they can expect to face greater public and media scrutiny.
\”People certainly like to complain about them, but the evidence also shows they learn from them, \” Goldstein said. \”Everyone thinks negative ads are these mudslinging personal things. They are sometimes, but most of the time negative ads are about policy issues and so they \’re verifiable claims. \”
Contrast this to all the hand-wringing by good government types, whose tender sensibilities are so offended by negative advertising that they propose shutting them down altogether. Recently, the state\’s Government Accountability Board voted to regulate third party campaign advertising, which is constitutionally questionable, given these groups\’ free speech rights. The State Bar has attempted to set up a board to condemn what they believe to be misleading ads. Several bills in the Legislature seek to limit third party campaign spending, while funding campaigns with public money.
Yet, as Goldstein suggests, without both positive and negative advertising on behalf of candidates, nobody would know anything about what\’s at stake in the campaigns being run. Supreme Court races would be determined by a smaller slice of voters, as ill-informed voters are less likely to show up to vote. If editorial boards and campaign reformers had their way, statewide races would look a lot more like the Frankenstein veto effort – barely informed voters not knowing what they\’re voting on, or not showing up to the polls at all. Sadly, their \”ideal\” campaign is the biggest threat to true democracy that we face.
————————————————–
*This is not true.
I got word from the Capitol today that my favorite annual governmental publication has been issued: the State Directory of Private Postsecondary Schools.
Two years ago, in my previous incarnation, I spent a lot of time going through this publication and describing the various private schools the state regulates. I just went back and read it, and I have to sheepishly admit that I think it\’s probably one of my best posts ever.
My wife and I used to have a great family dog. He was loving, loyal, and always happy to see me when I came home from work. However, on the rare occasion, he would sneak into the basement and have an “accident.” When he did so, he would run and hide behind the couch, knowing how little his rectal gift would be appreciated.
Eerily, my dog’s behavior mirrors the Wisconsin State Legislature’s attempts to pass a budget repair bill to fill in a $652 million hole this biennium. Put simply, the Legislature is pooping in our basement, and looking for a couch to hide behind.
In fact, the Assembly and Senate are so desperate to befoul our state’s finances without anyone noticing, they are willing to break the law to do so. Both houses have passed competing versions of budget adjustment bills without either house sending it to the Joint Finance Committee, where any appropriation bill legally has to go. According to the Wisconsin law:
“All bills introduced in either house of the legislature for the appropriation of money, providing for revenue or relating to taxation shall be referred to the joint committee on finance before being passed.”
Now, it may seem that whether or not a bill goes to the Joint Finance Committee is an arcane procedural technicality, obsessed over by only the most dedicated Capitol coneheads. But, in fact, the Joint Finance Committee exists specifically to remedy these types of funding emergencies, by putting the brakes on the process. The committee, which consists of members of both parties from both houses, forces the adults to the table to negotiate and doesn’t let them leave until they have a deal. (An excellent history and justification for the committee can be read here.)
When the Democrat-controlled Senate introduced their budget “repair” bill, they sent it to the “Senate Finance” committee. The Senate’s bill relies heavily on a new $400 million hospital tax, which they somehow believe will make health care less expensive. Then again, this is the same group that thought higher gas taxes would make gas cheaper, so we clearly shouldn’t expect much to begin with.
This hypothetical committee consisted of six Democrats and two Republicans – the Senate half of the Joint Committee. Naturally, the faux-Senate committee passed the bill before it was sent to the floor and passed by the full Senate. Needless to say, the “Senate Finance” committee is not the “Joint Finance” committee, where the bill legally had to go. Cutting the Assembly Republicans out of the equation allowed Democrats to whisk their bill through without any meaningful scrutiny.
Ironically, this tactic was first used in 2000, when now-disgraced Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala introduced his “mini budget,” which contained a laundry list of left-wing giveaways. It is believed that Chvala’s bill was both the first and last time this illegal procedural maneuver was used. Coincidentally, this gimmick was revived this year by long time Chvala ally Russ Decker, who now serves as Senate Majority Leader.
Even worse, the Assembly passed their budget repair version without ever sniffing the finance committee. Assembly Republicans merely yanked their bill to the floor and voted on it, hoping the whole mess would just go away. Their bill, which relied heavily on budgeting smoke and mirrors, actually increases the state’s structural deficit by $753 million. In effect, they “solve” the budget problem by giving us more of the same nonsense that got us in this fix in the first place. This is like curing an alcoholic by giving him enough Jim Beam to make him forget he’s a drunk.
In both cases, circumventing the legally mandated procedure allowed legislators to get out of town before anyone actually started to pay attention to what was in their equally-putrid bills. One capitol staffer told me that skipping Joint Finance is akin to a speeding ticket – yet when I speed, it doesn’t cost taxpayers $652 million.
Rather than using the budget shortfall as an opportunity to correct permanent flaws in the way Wisconsin spends money, our lawmakers are more comfortable high-tailing it for the hills. Most likely, they’ll sneak through their final agreement on the first day of warm weather, when reporters are busy investigating why people like to have picnics. But for now, lawmakers are intent on avoiding negative press and getting back to their districts to start running their campaigns. Take a look – you’ll find them hiding behind your couch.
-March 27, 2008
At her Kansas City blog, my pal Christa made a point I had wanted to write about for a while. (In fact, I kind of did a little here.)
Her TV station aired a report about a controversial strip club siting that repeatedly called stripping \”adult entertainment.\” So sayeth Dubill:
A typical adult could do any number of things for entertainment: basketball, knitting, cooking, reading, kayaking, thumb wrestling competitions…
So why does a business allowing strippers, selling unmentionables, upsetting neighbors and city leaders alike, become what we describe as \”adult entertainment\”?
She then goes on to quote \”a guy\” who e-mailed her with some more outstanding observations:
It just seems strange to me that the words we use for looking at naked women always equate maturity with prurient desires. In fact, it\’s the exact opposite. Think about it – movies targeted to \”mature\” audiences. Going to a \”gentlemans\’ club.\” What is so mature or gentlemanly about stuffing dollar bills into a naked woman\’s garter?In fact, I think it makes a lot more sense to consider those things \”immature.\” I understand a teenage boy looking at pictures of naked women a lot more than I can understand a grown man doing the same. Then, it just gets a little…creepy.
This controversy illustrates one of life\’s fundamental truths, which has been said about alcohol: Boobs are both the cause and solution to all the world\’s problems.
(I\’m not sure how that relates to the rest of the post, but I thought it was funny to say out loud.)
News has come down from on high: The newly-created Government Accountability Board has decided that they should be in charge of what people can and can’t say during elections. Apparently, they believe it is in the public’s best interest for an unelected board to limit political speech to save us all from democracy. Or, they just want to shut down Fairsley Foods:
When legislation authorizing the GAB was initially passed, there was concern that the Board’s powers may be too broad. It is now clear that those concerns were well-placed. Note the Board’s “duties” as described by the Legislative Council:
Act 1 creates two divisions in the GAB, each of which is under the direction and supervision of an administrator appointed by the GAB: the Ethics and Accountability Division and the Elections Division. The former has responsibility for administering campaign financing, lobbying, and ethics laws. The latter has responsibility for the administration of election laws.
[…]
The GAB is required to investigate violations of laws it administers and may prosecute, by its legal counsel or a special prosecutor, alleged civil violations of those laws. Alternatively, it may refer prosecution of alleged civil violations to the appropriate district attorney (which is the same prosecutor authorized to prosecute criminal violations).
Note anything missing there? Clearly, the GAB has the authority to prosecute existing laws that candidates violate, or ship them off to a district attorney for action. Yet the GAB has no authority to just make up new laws of their own to enforce. Those powers still rest with the Legislature, as explained in the article by Attorney Mike Wittenwyler:
Mike Wittenwyler, a lawyer who represents groups that sponsor issue ads, defended the ads as discussing public policy matters rather than candidates and said there ‘s no need to change the current rules. But he said that if the board makes changes, they must comply with state and federal court rulings.
Wittenwyler also questioned whether the board even has the authority to regulate issue ads, saying that ‘s the Legislature’s job.
Under the original bill, the GAB is allowed to issue advisory opinions, but states that “each advisory opinion issued by the board must be supported by specific legal authority under a statute or other law, or case or common law authority.” Needless to say, there is no current laws that deems the GAB the “speech police.”
Basically, the Board sees TV ads that they don’t like, and authority be damned, they want to do something about it. This smacks of the same outcome-based reading of the law that centers around the current Supreme Court race.
What’s even more troubling is how little credit this unelected board gives voters. They think that voters just must see these TV ads, not recognize them as typical attack ads, and swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker. They think the typical voter has just fallen off the proverbial turnip truck. (My apologies to anyone who actually has fallen off a turnip truck for the use of this insensitive metaphor.)
I will grant that these ads do have some effect. Otherwise, campaigns and third parties wouldn’t spend the kinds of dough they do to run them. But how much effect is really in question. It’s pretty clear that people who would most likely be affected by the message (those who know nothing about campaigns and politics) would be the least likely to vote. In some instances, voters might actually turn away from a candidate who runs an ad they deem to be inaccurate or repulsive. It’s impossible to measure the backlash.
Nobody likes negative campaign ads. But if the First Amendment exists for anything, it is to protect unpopular speech. Notice that nobody’s proposing a board to regulate praise of Brett Favre in Wisconsin. The only acceptable remedy for objectionable speech is more speech, not shutting it down altogether.
(Note: I see that Chris Lato makes a similar point today in this column.)
Okay, I\’ll make the back story quick:
About two months ago, I was picking pizzas up. I parked, went in the pizza place, and walked back into the parking lot, just as another car was backing up towards my car. As it got closer and closer, I dropped the pizzas and started yelling \”stop!\” Clearly, they didn\’t see my car, and backed right into the rear passenger side. There wasn\’t a lot of damage, but I called the cops and got an incident report just to be safe. Actually, I was most miffed that I was out 30 bucks worth of pizza, which was frozen solid by that point.
I called the woman\’s insurance company, and they told me she preferred to handle it out of pocket. It took me a while to get an estimate, and when I finally did, I found out a new bumper was going to cost $500. That\’s really not any surprise, because everyone knows that any time any body shop has to lay a finger on your car, it\’s going to be at least 3 hundo.
Which brings me today. I had delayed calling this woman back, because I dreaded breaking the bad news. As it turns out, my intuition turned out to be uncomfortably correct.
When I told her what the repairs would cost, she acted as if I was asking for ransom money in exchange for one of her children. At first, she called me an \”opportunist\” who goes around looking to rip people off. Clearly, she was on to my scheme, whereby I park my car at various pizza places and wait for it to be backed into. Jackpot!
Then it got weirder. When were were waiting for the police officer to arrive, I must have told her that I went to grad school at Marquette. On the phone today, she actually called me a \”bad Catholic\” for asking her to pay for the damage she caused. (As it turns out, I accidentally ate meat on Good Friday – but there\’s no way she could have known that.) For some reason, she saw fit to mention to me that she and her husband are both pro-life, which will only be relevant if one day she runs over a fetus crossing the road.
Then, she accused me of getting into another accident and trying to pin it on her. At this point, I was thoroughly amused. I spent eight years in the Legislature fielding angry constituent calls, so I pretty much just let people go when they want to vent. She asked what insurance company I had, and I told her I had Progressive. \”Only bad drivers have Progressive,\” she said. \”So I guess it\’s only good drivers that back into people\’s cars, then,\” I retorted.
There were many other puzzling accusations weaved throughout the conversation. But at the end of the call, I just told her that I\’d be filing a claim with my insurance, and that was that. I don\’t care if the bumper costs $1 or $1,000, I just want a new bumper. I was thinking about selling my car soon, and a banged up bumper is going to cost me money, so I want it fixed. I actually would feel bad about asking them for money and not repairing the damage with it, so I absolutely will. But a small part of me now wants to get a check from them, then send them a picture of me giving a \”thumbs up\” with my brand new iPod and swim trunks.
So here\’s my \”Springer\’s Final Thought\” to this whole thing. If I had called her, and she thought the repair was too expensive but offered to work with me, I would have done so. I could have gotten another estimate or bargained a little. I realize $500 is a lot of money. But since she went nuts on me, I have absolutely no problem going after her for the full amount. She made it easy for me to file a claim against her with a clear conscience. Or, at least as much of a clear conscience a bad Catholic can have.
Interesting article in the Washington Post today about how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tend to overstate their role in certain legislative accomplishments. This certainly isn\’t anything new – in his book \”Congress: The Electoral Connection,\” political scientist David Mayhew actually makes the case that \”credit claiming\” is one of the three most important roles of members of Congress. He defines \”credit claiming\” as \”acting so as to generate a belief in a relevant political actor that one is personally responsible for causing the government, or some unit thereof, to do something that the actor considers desirable.\”
In any event, the Post article uses several sources to clarify the two senators\’ roles in the formulation of certain legislation (apparently, Arlen Specter has a lot of time on his hands to talk to Washington Post reporters.) Of course, when discussing Hillary Clinton\’s travel schedule, the Post goes to the only definitive source on Clinton travel:
Clinton also has her share of colleagues only too willing scrutinize her claims. Her campaign Web site describes Clinton\’s \”successful effort to create\” the popular State Children\’s Health Insurance Program during her husband\’s tenure in the White House, and she has placed herself in the middle of major international events, including the Northern Ireland peace process and the Balkan conflict.
But prominent Democratic senators, Irish historians and even Sinbad the comedian, who accompanied Clinton to Kosovo, are challenging some of her assertions.
Wait… what?
So the Post was like, \”We think Hillary Clinton is full of it. Get Sinbad on the phone!\” Was it Sinbad\’s role in \”First Kid\” that made him an expert on presidential travel?
![\"\"](\"http://www.christianschneiderblog.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_wvG0NnggKqk/R-e0aoVvDtI/AAAAAAAAArg/HlAdDui-BTM/s1600-h/sinbad.jpg\")
For those still questioning the veracity of Sinbad\’s story, just remember – HE AIN\’T LYIN!
Discussion with my 4-year old daughter while watching the Marquette-Stanford game:
Her: \”Daddy, what\’s Stanford?\”
Me: \”It\’s a school that really smart people go to.\”
Her: \”Like you?\”
Me: \”No, I couldn\’t get into Stanford.\”
Her: \”That\’s because you\’re too silly.\”
So it is now official: My wife and I have given birth to my parents. My philosophy of \”silliness\” was a major talking point of theirs as I was going through high school, and now I still get speeches, just from my own kids.
As for the game itself, it\’s a pretty bitter pill to swallow when everyone in the arena can draw up Stanford\’s winning play and Tom Crean can\’t devise a defense to stop it. This ballbreaking final play was actually enough to get me on the treadmill, to burn off some frustration. I also needed to see if I still remembered how to walk after spending three straight days in a catatonic state. I think my wife snuck up and put a mirror up to my mouth a couple times to see if I was still breathing while the tourney was going on.
I also happened to notice that during the Marquette game, the Indiana Pacers were playing the Chicago Bulls. As you may know, former Marquette great Travis Diener plays for the Pacers. Now it just so happened that in the first half of the Pacers game, Diener dove into the stands and sustained an injury that forced him back into the locker room. Miraculously, Diener was back on the court in the second half, finishing out the Pacers\’ win. I\’m sure it was purely coincidence that Diener just happened to be in the locker room for the end of the Marquette game – and I\’m happy that that he healed so quickly from this devastating injury.
During this NCAA tournament, we also got to learn that Kyle Korver of the Utah Jazz has a brother named Klayton that plays for Drake and a brother named Kaleb who plays for Creighton. While I\’m not a big fan of government intervention in family life, I would have no problem with calling social services on the type of parent who slaps their children with matching initials. We also got to learn that this father is one of the \”most outstanding clergymen in the Midwest.\” How exactly do they determine this? Is he ahead of Jeremiah Wright? Did he get to the Sweet 16 in the \”Midwest clergymen tournament?\”
The most ubiquitous commercial during the tournament has to be the ridiculous DirecTV commercial featuring a hot babe trying to make signing up for satellite TV seem sexy. It\’s pretty over the top when she promises the \”ultimate hookup.\” They should have just gone the extra step and had her discuss when they \”plugged the cable into her box.\”
Oh, and congrats to the Badgers for their trip to the Sweet 16. Trevon Hughes had a huge game against Kansas State, who I thought might actually give them some trouble. I actually talked to Hughes at a bar once – a friend of mine mentioned to him that I was a basketball manager at Utah. He asked what year, and I said I started in 1993. \”Oh. I was four years old,\” he said. I then spent the rest of the evening with my head in the oven.
I\’m still wondering why they even play NBA games this weekend. The Badgers have now given me basketball fever, while the Bucks gave given me basketball syphilis.
As of this writing, I am excited to announce that my 4 year-old daughter has now picked more NCAA tournament games correctly than I have. In fact, in today\’s afternoon action, she picked Davidson, Western Kentucky, and San Diego all to win. (She liked San Diego because they mention the San Diego zoo in her favorite movie, Madagascar. She also has them in the Final Four.) Her bracket is kind of hard to read, since she took the scoring marker I was using and drew flowers all over the sheet of paper.
Next year, I will be charging for her services. Oh, and did I mention I spent four years working for a major Division I men\’s basketball team?
In recent weeks, I have adopted a Grandpa Simpson-esque persona, complaining bitterly about what the local media chooses to cover. I\’ve especially been critical of papers who rail against about mudslinging in campaigns, then choose to cover nothing but mudslinging in campaigns.
Yet today, like a ray of light, I caught this article in the Wisconsin State Journal:
A Ruling on Lead Paint Looms Over Wis. Justice\’s Campaign
MADISON, Wis. (AP) No ruling in Justice Louis Butler\’s tenure on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has generated more debate than one he wrote in 2005 on lead paint.
Butler ruled that a boy who ingested lead-based paint chips at two Milwaukee homes could sue several companies even though he could not prove which one made the product that left him with mental disabilities.
Companies were aware of the dangers of a lead pigment used in paint as far back as 1904 but continued marketing their products through the 1970s, he wrote for a 4-2 majority.
As a result, the entire industry can be sued for their role in polluting millions of U.S. homes with toxic paint. Otherwise, children like Steven Thomas, now 17, would have no way to seek remedies against the makers of the decades-old paint that gave them lifelong health problems, Butler reasoned.
The ruling, the first of its kind against the industry nationwide, set off a debate that continues to reverberate as Butler seeks a 10-year seat on the high court. He references the case on the campaign trail as he touts his record of holding big businesses accountable for wrongdoing.
(The link is to a Minneapolis TV station that ran the same article, but it did appear in the Local Section of the State Journal with a different title.)
Finally, we are starting to get reporting in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race that actually reflects what the judicial philosophies of the candidates might be, and how they might rule on future cases. So kudos to Ryan Foley at the Associated Press for putting this piece together. And for those who think I\’m digging this article merely because it\’s critical of Butler, I welcome any substantive criticism of Mike Gableman, as long as it pertains to his actual record.
Lo and behold, the State Journal also printed this article today:
Budget plans may dig bigger hole for future
The competing solutions to repair the state \’s broken budget can be summed up in four words, an independent report has found: Spend now, pay later.
When the Legislature passed the two-year budget in October, fiscal analysts projected a gap between estimated revenues and expenses in the next budget of $896 million.
The faltering economy has since lowered projections of tax money the state will receive, forcing policymakers to revisit the current budget.
But two of the proposed fixes add to the problems down the road, according to the report by the Legislature \’s nonpartisan budget office.
Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle \’s plan increases the potential shortfall in the next budget by $520 million, to $1.42 billion, the report found. A plan by the Republican-controlled Assembly raises the deficit by $753 million, to $1.65 billion.
This article gets it exactly right – it exposes the fraud that both Governor Doyle and the Assembly are trying to perpetrate on the Wisconsin public with their respective budget bills.
So while the State Journal has deserved criticism in the past, it certainly merits praise when it gets it right. Here\’s hoping they continue this winning streak.
Side note: Favorite Grandpa Simpson quote:
(Writing letter:) Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
P.S. I am not a crackpot.
Side Side note:
In discussing the lead paint issue, Butler draws the following comparison:
Butler said over-the-top attacks on the ruling by business interests have hurt Wisconsin\’s economy while the ruling itself has not. He compares the case to 10 people putting poison in a water well. When someone gets sick after drinking the water, all of them say, \’\’Sure, our poison is in the well, you can\’t prove mine hurt you.\’\’ But they all knowingly contributed to the risk to the public.
Actually, that\’s a pretty dramatic misrepresentation of the opinion in Thomas v. Mallet, the lead paint case. Butler\’s hypothetical presumes 10 people are all contributing poison to a well. Under the Court\’s new \”risk contribution\” theory as described in Thomas, if only three of those people were pouring poison in the well, the other seven could be found liable whether or not they ever poured any poison in the well during the entire life of the well.
Says former Supreme Court justice Diane Sykes about Thomas:
As extended in Thomas, “risk contribution” theory relieves the plaintiff of the requirement of proving causation, allowing recovery against manufacturers not because of any specific factual link to the plaintiff’s injury but because each contributed to a general risk. The burden is placed on the manufacturer to prove that it did not produce or market lead paint during the relevant time period or in the relevant geographic marketplace. As a factual matter, this manufacturer burden of exculpation is nearly impossible to carry because the court made it clear that the relevant time period is not the time period of the plaintiff’s exposure but the entire time period that the houses with lead paint existed—a period spanning nearly eight decades.
Living in Wisconsin subjects all of our residents to the cultural push-and-pull our state thrusts upon us. On the one hand, we have time-tested rituals that we treat with reverence. Fish fries. Hay rides. Cows. Packer football. Many of these, although not all, are inextricably linked to the small-town, rural ethos found in the Dairy State.
On the other hand, while we all recognize these as sacred Wisconsin institutions, we aren’t necessarily rushing to export these images of Wisconsin to the rest of the nation. We have a strong sensitivity to how we’re portrayed nationally, and don’t particularly take kindly to being branded as exclusively rural.
Heck – most of the popularity of the UW’s stem cell project is due to the fact that it proves to the rest of the nation that we don’t live in houses with hay floors.
Then Johnny Depp showed up.
When news hit that a big-time Hollywood movie would be filming in Wisconsin, residents took it as a sign that Wisconsin had finally hit the big time. Hollywood had finally given us the stamp of cultural approval for which we so longed. Finally, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the biggest in popular entertainment and get to shed our image as corn-fed yokels.
Predictably, when “Public Enemies” began shooting in Columbus this week, it immediately reinforced our image as corn-fed yokels. Local news breathlessly led off their broadcasts with news that Johnny Depp had arrived to free us of all of our feelings of cultural inadequacy. A young woman standing near the movie set breathlessly confided to a Madison television reporter that “this is the most exciting thing I have ever done in my entire life.” The same TV station ran pictures of Depp taken by fans that appeared to be taken with the Hubble Telescope.
Not to be outdone, another channel interviewed a subtle young woman who indicated her desire to have the movie star plant a baby Depp in her womb upon visiting his trailer. (A “Depp charge,” if you will.) A third station combed the crowd looking for the woman who had been waiting out in the cold for Depp the longest. In reality (and unbeknownst to the reporter), the report actually exposed the fact that Columbus currently has an 85% unemployment rate.
Now don’t get me wrong – it certainly is exciting for the people of Columbus to have such a big event in their town. I can’t imagine things would have been any different in any small town in America.
But the media have a responsibility to put this all in context for people. It’s not as if Christ himself had descended upon South Central Wisconsin. (In fact, I believe he just retired from his job in Green Bay.) One of these days I fully expect to hear the local broadcast start out:
“Tonight, we’ll have details on a virgin birth reported in Columbus, Wisconsin. But first, JOHNNY DEPP was here!”
As a side note, the economy is on fire and you will likely be thrown out of your house in a couple months. Maybe you can call Johnny Depp to bail you out.
First, a qualification – on the 1 to 10 outrage scale, this barely registers a \”1.\” But it is interesting, nonetheless.
Today on his radio show and on his blog, Charlie Sykes was critical of a pro-Mike Gableman for Supreme Court advertisement. (I happen to share his sentiment, incidentally.) In his words, he decided to \”throw a flag\” on his own team for the inappropriateness of the ad.
Miraculously, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, who it appears goes out of its way to deny Sykes\’ existence, thinks this is newsworthy. On their \”All Politics\” blog, a mention of Sykes\’ position warranted its own posting. Funny that every time Sykes makes an outstanding point criticizing a Democrat, it disappears into the ether.
Now, I understand that there\’s a certain \”man bites dog\” element to a right-wing radio talk show host being critical of his own preferred candidate. But it is ironic that Sykes suddenly becomes so newsworthy when he\’s critical of a Republican.
It\’s a long, time-tested rule that if you happened to be a Republican looking for the media to cover you, all you have to do is criticize other Republicans. This is largely how John McCain became the media darling he currently is. You don\’t have to look too hard to find stories about anti-Iraq war Republicans, yet trying to find news articles about pro-war Democrats is like finding Eliot Spitzer in a monastery. People under 30 years old in Wisconsin only know who Bill Kraus and Lee Sherman Dreyfus are because of their infinite press appearances as \”Republicans bashing Republicans.\”
Perhaps no dissent among Democrats exists on any issue. Maybe every single one thinks Louis Butler\’s equally baseless ads attacking Gableman are perfectly appropriate. But somehow, I\’m not sure we\’d be hearing as much from them if they did.
SIDE NOTE: The Journal Sentinel blog post was written by Stacy Forster, who is an outstanding reporter – and I am NOT alleging any kind of bias on her part. I just think it\’s interesting how this whole \”Republicans criticizing Republicans\” phenomenon fits into the larger picture.
The NPR music crew made their way down to Austin, Texas last weekend for the South by Southwest music festival. While down there, they managed to maintain a blog, as well as archiving some live shows, including R.E.M., Vampire Weekend, Yo La Tengo, Jens Lekman, and Eau Claire native (and current darling of the indie music scene) Bon Iver (A.K.A. Justin Vernon).
Definitely worth checking out. You\’re paying for it, might as well enjoy it.
This ESPN story detailing the lengths to which \”die-hard\” fans are willing to go to be buried with their favorite teams is a must-see.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMGpbNqmADw&hl=en]
You\’re telling me a plot in a Packer Cemetery wouldn\’t be the hottest real estate in Green Bay?