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!
(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.
“The Fix” at the Washington Post lists their top Wisconsin political blogs:
* Real Debate Wisconsin
* Widgerson Library & Pub
* Daily Takes
Who can argue with such a thorough, well-researched list?
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.
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.)
My new commentary is up at WPRI – it deals with the Legislature’s rush to get out of town without any kind of meaningful budget repair solution. And poop.
Read it here.
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.)
Despite high parental satisfaction with Milwaukee’s publicly-funded school choice program, other choice proposals around the country continue to face opposition from those who object to using public funds for private schools.
Necessity being the mother of invention, some other states have devised other ways of providing parents educational choices. For instance, Rhode Island instituted the “Rhode Island Corporate Scholarship Tax Credit Program,” which grants corporations tax credits for contributions they make to a private school scholarship fund. According to the Rhode Island Scholarship Alliance:
Initially open to C-Corporations, the program was expanded to include S-Corps, LLCs, and LLPs, who can receive a tax credit in return for scholarship contributions, and reached its total of $1 million in approved tax credits through fiscal year 2008. Any family with a household income of 250% or less of the federal poverty level is eligible to apply for tuition assistance at the 60 participating private schools. This year, over 250 families across the state received assistance through the program to attend schools of their choice, with scholarship awards averaging $2000 to $5000 per student, and have allowed a number of families to consider school choice options for the first time.
While the education establishment continues to push for pumping more money into the same substandard school system, other groups are coming up with creative ways to get kids the education they deserve.
(Via the State Policy Network Blog)
A couple of epic Mr. Show clips to waste your time:
“McHutchence vs. Greeley III:”
“Protesters”
“Civil War Re-Enactments”
“Titannica”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmNApZRy3wk&hl=en]
While the media in Wisconsin continue to hyperventilate over Johnny Depp being in our state for two days, they are missing other major national stars passing through. Apparently, the remaining “Bret Michaels: Rock of Love II” contestants were in Milwaukee yesterday.
Steve Hyden of The Onion AV Club has the details:
Here’s how not to feel like a loser: Don’t hang out at a jewelry store on the edge of Milwaukee and wait nearly 30 minutes for three reality TV “stars” to show up for a meet and greet. Apparently, 99 percent of humanity already has learned this lesson, because I was joined by exactly six other people at Robert Haack Diamond Importers on Thursday to meet Ambre, Jessica, and Destiney. The trio was in town to appear at a series of promotional events culminating in a Rock Of Love bash at one of the preeminent meathead bars downtown. I hate crowds, so I opted to spend a few awkward moments at a sparsely attended, early afternoon event at a depressingly dingy diamond store. It was a perfect metaphor for the show, which pretends to be flashy and glamorous but in reality is kind of dirty and unseemly. Of my six compatriots, three were Robert Haack employees, one was a security guard, one was a slightly sheepish-looking dude in his 20s, and one was an excitable and unapologetic female fan in her 30s. When the girls finally rolled in for the 1 p.m. event at 1:30, Excitable Lady quickly pounced, her orgasmic glee barely concealed despite predicting just a few minutes earlier that Daisy would beat out these tramps for Bret Michaels’ affections.
How did I not know about this? My one chance at meeting REAL stars.
I would bet that after they left, sales of steel wool and Clorox went through the roof. Someone has to scrub this town clean.
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.
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?
For those still questioning the veracity of Sinbad’s story, just remember – HE AIN’T LYIN!
With governments all over the country figuring out how to handle their growing immigrant populations, WPRI thought it would be instructive to examine the economic effect immigrants have had on the City of Green Bay. The report attempts to quantify the costs and benefits of a large immigrant (both legal and illegal) population in a small city in Northeast Wisconsin. Among its findings:
The full report can be read here.
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.