Archive for the ‘Prescient observations’ Category
Wisconsin State Journal’s editorial about recalls falls down on the job
Folks, I am livid after reading this extremely biased, slanted staff editorial by the Wisconsin State Journal, one of the best-known papers in the state. The WSJ has the nerve to say that recalls are bad because they extend the election cycle, and when, pray tell, will it end?
Well, I’ll tell you when it’ll end. When we finally have some responsible people in government who stop behaving like Wisconsin is their personal fiefdom and that the rule of law need not apply. As Grant Petty, writing for Madison’s alternative paper The Isthmus, wrote in his response to the WSJ editorial:
It was not simply that I disagreed with your position. I disagree with other publications’ positions all the time without necessarily feeling insulted by them. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was that you had once again ignored or grossly oversimplified deep and important issues affecting Wisconsin while basing your position on superficial ones.
Petty goes on to say later on in the article that many things have caused the people of Wisconsin to recall their legislators (especially those of the Republican variety); these things include, but are not limited to:
- The lack of transparency in government, for the rule of law, and for the constitutionality of our courts by our elected officials.
- Creating new obstacles to voting in traditionally Democratic demographic groups (minorities, the poor, college students, elderly who don’t live in nursing homes)
- What Petty calls “blatant pay-to-play favors” for major campaign donors (including the one railroad exec. who pled guilty to an illegal campaign contribution of $49,000 to Scott Walker)
- A state Supreme Court that Petty calls a “rubber stamp” that was “bought and paid for by Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce,” a lobbying group that traditionally backs Republicans and conservative ideology. and
- Last, but not least, the overarching inaccuracies of the vote going back at least to 2004 in Waukesha County; Petty describes several troubling aspects of the vote in the 2011 judicial race between Justice David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg that changed the outcome of the election, starting with Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus’s finding of 7500 votes over a day after the election had supposedly ended and continuing on with problems with the voting machines and electronic tape malfunctions that were never explored or explained (including one where the totals inexplicably read March 30, 2011, not April 5, 2011 as they should’ve; Barbara With, who observed the Waukesha County recount, explicitly made sure the Government Accountability Board knew about this and testified as to what she’d seen and heard and entered her picture of the faulty tape into evidence, yet the GAB, again inexplicably, refused to believe or accept this and left this testimony out of the official record).
Note that all of this — all — is why most people in Wisconsin, including a sizable minority of Walker’s own party, remains livid regarding the conduct of our current crop of public officials (mostly the recently-elected Walker and many of the Republican officeholders who are being recalled, including State Senator Alberta Darling). Petty said it extremely well, and I only wish that I’d have written this summation myself; this truly is why Wisconsin is upset and has recalled an unprecedented number of people (remember, before this year, only four people had ever been forced to run in recall elections, with two of them holding their seats while the other two, including my former Republican state Senator George Petak, R-Racine, lost).
As to why the WSJ decided to write a slanted, utterly biased editorial? Who knows? But I do know that whenever I read their paper online in the future, I will keep their partisan slant in mind and judge their reportage accordingly.
Other than that, I agree with Petty’s contention that we should be far more concerned with out-and-out election fraud in this state because we’ve apparently had problems now in Waukesha County since 2004 and nothing, but nothing, has been done about them and apparently nothing, but nothing, is going to be done about them because apparently the political powers who now run the state (all three branches of government are run by Republicans, remember, as I’ve stated before) like it the way it is even though most of the rest of us emphatically do not.
And that, my friends, is not only sad. It’s shameful, and should not be tolerated in what we so euphemistically call “a democratic state.”
Writing and Editing — some Helpful Books
Folks, over time I’ve probably read just about every book on writing and editing there has ever been — or at least it seems that way.
Now, you might be asking yourself why I’ve done this. Simple. I enjoy picking the brains of other writers and editors, and the easiest way to do this is by reading about their particular processes as written down in various books. Some are dry as dust, yes — but the best ones make you laugh, and think, and you’ll come back again and again to ’em in order to find some pearl of wisdom that you’d perhaps overlooked before.
The first, and best, of the three books I recommend is Carolyn See’s MAKING A LITERARY LIFE. Ms. See has fun with her subject; she uses witty commentary and true-to-life examples, but what I’ve gotten out of her book most is the value of being polite. (This is something my late husband Michael would’ve appreciated, I think. He felt people often were impolite for no reason whatsoever and had no patience with it. I have to agree that most of the time, I share his oft-expressed viewpoint.) Because being polite is the way to build literary friendships — expressing your appreciation now and again doesn’t hurt, either. (Ms. See believes you should write what she calls “charming notes” to other writers and editors because life is too short not to express praise when warranted. Though she also believes you should write these notes when you’ve received rejection letters, as a way to turn a negative into a positive — those types of notes are, “I’ve received your rejection and I will be sending you back something else in X time,” which also is a way to keep yourself on track and focused on the long-term goal.)
The second book is Anne Lamont’s BIRD BY BIRD. The title comes from something Ms. Lamont’s father once told her brother after he’d procrastinated about an assignment (this one on birds); it’s a way of saying, “Take things one at a time,” no matter how many things there might be in an assignment (or in this case, a book). Ms. Lamont’s wisdom, similar to Ms. See’s, has a great deal to do with real-life examples. Ms. Lamont admits her first drafts are very far short of perfection (she calls them a synonym for “crappy” that I won’t use here at my family-friendly site) and says the only thing good about them is that you’ve gotten something on the page — anything at all — and that a first draft is not supposed to be perfect so we writers shouldn’t beat ourselves up about that.
This is a very interesting attitude, because we all seem to have the tendency to say, “Oh, no! This is terrible! Why do I write, anyway, if all I can do is this trash?” But as Ms. Lamont says (and Ms. See does, too), the purpose of the first draft isn’t to be perfect — it’s to get it out there, so you can start working on what it will eventually be — good prose, a compelling story, you name it — and get on with the job.
Finally, there’s Sol Stein’s STEIN ON WRITING, which actually is more helpful as an editing primer because Stein explains what he does when he edits. The reason he does this is to help writers catch their own mistakes before they ever get to the editor, but I know that it’s very difficult if I’m in “editing mode” to shift out of that and just write because they’re markedly different things (writing a first draft is messy, as both Ms. Lamont and Ms. See pointed out). And if I think too much about editing while I’m writing, I don’t get much done because I think it’s “all crap, so why bother?” and that’s not good. (Instead, it’s counterproductive to say the least.)
So, read these three books, and see what you can get out of them — and don’t say I’ve never done anything for you.
Cell Phone Etiquette and Other Stories
For this Friday’s blog, I want to talk about something completely different: cell phone etiquette.
Why this particular subject, you ask? Because I’ve run into more ignorant people this week than I can shake a stick at, all of whom did — or more importantly, said — something stupid while on their cell phone.
First up was the gentleman at the local pharmacy who was jabbering away on his cell as his three kids rampaged through the store. I felt like saying, “Hey, buddy! Watch your kids! Keep ’em from stealing the pharmacist blind!” as the kids were running up and down the aisles, throwing candy at each other, knocking over displays, and generally behaving worse than my Mom’s three dogs.
Now, this guy was probably talking to someone from his workplace, as his expression was grave and he was using a calculator in his other hand to add up figures as he aimlessly walked through the store. But that does not excuse him; he still must supervise his children, lest he end up with an unexpected bill in the hundreds of dollars (if not thousands) after his three kids under the age of ten wrecked the store without his cognizance or knowledge.
Next, there was the jerk at the gas station who was yelling at the top of his lungs into his cell about his bodily functions. Apparently he was trying to make his much-younger girlfriend blush — his GF looked to be in her low-to-mid 20s, while this guy had to be in his upper 30s at the very least — and he definitely should’ve known better than to talk about his hernias, his latest bowel movements, and how many times he threw up the night before in public, much less as loudly as possible.
Finally, there was the guy who was swearing profusely as he took money out of the ATM at the grocery store. Was it because he couldn’t get money out? No, it wasn’t — instead, it was because something had gone wrong at home (or maybe with his job) and he was using every profane word he could (plus making up a few new ones) to express his displeasure. All while he either thought no one could hear him (not likely), or didn’t care.
Look. I understand how it is when you must take a phone call, even if you’re out. But when that eventuality does occur, you need to be polite to others.
In these three situations, what should these men — and note, they all were men (as women in general tend not to behave this badly in public for whatever reason) — have done? Well, the first guy should’ve taken his phone call in the car and his kids should’ve sat there quietly (or as quietly as they could) until he was done. Then he should’ve bought them all lollipops (or whatever small treat they wanted) for behaving in the car — or he should’ve then proceeded to take the kids home and punish them if they hadn’t behaved. In no way, shape, or form should he have taken the call in the store and let those kids run up and down the aisles screaming, whooping and hollering as they were — much less making a huge mess, as last I saw they were in the process of doing.
As for the second guy, this may seem overly obvious, but here goes: Don’t talk about your bodily functions in public, period. Really, we don’t want to hear about it. And if you are that hard-up to embarrass your girlfriend, well, it’s either time for you to get a new girlfriend or, better yet, for her to trade you in for a better-behaved model, someone who might actually appreciate her for a change.
As for the third gentleman (using the term loosely, of course)? Try not to swear in public. If you do need to swear, do it quietly, because yelling the “f-word” at the top of your lungs is rude.
And remember, guys, this very basic thing — it’s more than likely that your side of the conversation on your cell is going to be overheard. Use your common sense and see this as the public conversation it is, and treat it accordingly. Or prepare to suffer the consequences as more and more people realize what a completely unlettered jerk you’ve turned out to be, just because they’ve been the unwitting victims of your poor cell phone etiquette.
“Dancing with the Stars” Semifinals — is the fix in?
Folks, I just finished watching the semifinals for the television show Dancing with the Stars (henceforth called “DwtS,” their acronym; note I’m referring to the current United States show), and I am wondering whether what on Earth the judges were smoking tonight. To the point that I’m wondering whether the fix is, indeed, in . . . but first, some background.
DwtS is predicated on stars coming in who have little or no dance ability and little or no dance experience, both learning to dance and “put on a show” in the grand old show biz tradition, so I expect some stars to be better one week and not so good the next. This makes the show fun, unpredictable, yet interesting, as the stars are usually outside to well outside their comfort zones in learning to dance.
I’ve watched DwtS since their second season, the year Cheryl Burke and Drew Lachey won the “coveted mirror ball trophy” (which is actually a tacky piece of hardware that tends to fall apart within a year, but the stars want it anyway no matter how gaudy and trashy it is); I’ve seen many good dances, many bad dances, and many “huh?” dances. I’ve learned what makes up a good paso doble, what makes a good cha cha cha, etc., and I’ve also learned that the most successful stars fuse their personality with their technical ability, showing real, measured improvement from week to week as they go. (Often, they also show a measurable weight loss, as has contestant Kirstie Alley this season. More on Alley in a bit.)
However, I’ve never seen a night quite like this one, where I honestly felt that one couple — Chelsea Kane and Mark Ballas — were handed high scores after doing extremely questionable routines where Kane’s dancing seemed stiff, wooden, and much less of everything than any previous week (including her first week, as Kane had some dance experience, depth unknown, before she came into this intense competition). Kane had three dances — a very stiff tango, where her legs and body didn’t seem to go together very well, an extremely stiff rhumba (mind you, the rhumba has to be fluid and sexy, and Kane was neither), and worst of all, a stiff and clumsy cha cha cha. Yet for these three dances, she was praised and given high scores — a perfect thirty (three tens, the highest score given out on this show) for the rhumba, which was a travesty of justice — then given 15 extra points in the “winner-take-all” cha cha when it was stiff, wooden, clumsy, and even the “tricks” (flashy things to divert your attention) lacked polish?
I really didn’t agree with that “winner-take-all” thing at all. First off, in the “elimination rounds,” I thought Ralph Macchio danced better than Hines Ward, yet they kept Ward; in the other one, Kirstie Alley clearly out-danced Kane (and was probably the best cha cha dancer of the night), yet didn’t advance over the stiff and wooden Kane? Why?
As for the other dances, well, Macchio’s time should be up. He’s now healthier — last week he more or less got a “pass” from the viewers as he wasn’t able to dance well due to a hamstring injury — and wasn’t really any better until the cha cha (and I’ve already discussed how unjust that was), his third dance of the evening. Ward’s other two dances were clean and precise, and I liked his tango a great deal (that one deserved a thirty; the other one, not so much, but his pro, Kym Johnson, was dancing with an obvious amount of pain after sustaining a severe neck injury and I believe the judges gave him a little bit more for the first two dances than he deserved — Ward should’ve won the cha cha considering the judges put him there with a unanimous vote, considering how terrible Kane was, but there you go). And Alley danced with grace, elegance, and fire in her Viennese Waltz and Paso Doble — two diametrically opposed dances that are both extremely difficult — and really deserved to win that cha cha competition, too, on merit.
At any rate, Mark Ballas seems to go to the finals every year — and before some folks write in and tell me, “No he doesn’t,” I did say seems. He was there last season with the underperforming Bristol Palin; he’s been there with Shawn Johnson (a good dancer and gymnast), with Kristi Yamaguchi (an outstanding skater and a very good dancer also), and should’ve been there with Sabrina Bryan. He’s quite a good dancer and obviously teaches his students how to dance, of which I approve — but his attitude leaves me cold. (Even allowing for how DwtS can edit folks, Ballas should be more aware of how he comes across on camera. He acts like he’s the star, not his pro, and that’s just wrong. Though of course as a DwtS pro, he has fans rooting for him no matter who his partner is, he needs to remember to be humble — or at least learn to fake it a little better.)
And as for Kane — man, can she please eat a cheeseburger or two? Because she’s way, way, way too thin — every time I see her, I think how she needs to eat more. And when Ballas picks Kane up for the overhead “tricks,” I think, “Whee! She weighs what, two pounds? How tough was that, Mark?” (Compared to the real work Maksim Chmerikovskiy has put in, first teaching his partner Alley to dance and dance well, then to compensate for Alley being a big, beautiful woman — albeit less of one than when she started, as she’s obviously lost at least sixty pounds during the course of this season’s DwtS — I really don’t have much sympathy for Ballas at all.)
Look. It’s just a cheesy reality show, but I enjoy it. I like to see the dancers improve — and they all do, to some extent (even Bristol Palin improved last season). It’s a tough gig to be on DwtS; people get injured (look at Macchio’s injury last week, or poor pro Kym Johnson’s this past week). It’s hard to dance in front of hundreds, maybe a couple of thousand people in person, then know millions of people will see you dance either on television or YouTube. I can’t imagine the sort of pressure that puts on all the contestants and my hat is off to all of them — even the rather klutzy Kane this evening.
But it chaps my hide something fierce when the competition does not seem on the up and up. And I’m sorry — I know Ballas in particular, if he sees this blog for whatever reason, will not agree with me, but unless the camera angles were bad for all three dances with Kane, these were the worst three dances she has had all season. She may have an injury; she may well have been ill; she may be the funniest, cutest, nicest contestant they have ever had on DwtS. But she didn’t deserve the high scores she got tonight, nor did she deserve to win that cha cha as she really shouldn’t have even advanced over Alley in that first “elimination round.”
So the question is: is the fix in? And if it is, why should I watch this show if Kane and Ballas are destined to take home the cheesy trophy?
Kate and Prince William’s Nuptials: Who Cares?
Today is a recount-free zone here at my blog, mostly because I actually observed the statewide Wisconsin mandatory judicial recount for myself and am exhausted from doing so. This is why I decided to look at the other huge worldwide issue — that of Prince William of England’s upcoming wedding to Kate Middleton — and have come to a decision regarding my feelings on the matter.
To wit: who cares?
Honestly, I don’t get the hype here that has provoked story after story after story on network news, cable news, and on the Internet. It’s not like this is a sudden thing — after all, Kate and Prince William have dated for seven years, right? So while I’ll give Kate and the Prince some real props for their persistence, and some more for getting to know each other very well before committing to a marriage, I still do not understand the build-up to the royal wedding.
Yes, Prince William is the likely successor to his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, as it’s rumored that his father, Prince Charles, will be bypassed in William’s favor. Yes, Prince William, like his brother Prince Harry, looks very much like his deceased mother, Princess Diana; yes, his mother would assuredly be very proud of her son getting married regardless of his station. (There’s more press when you’re royal, true. But any mother is likely to feel much the same, royalty or no, when her son is about to walk down the aisle and make a lifelong commitment.)
Still. I did understand some of the hype behind the Prince Charles and the then-Lady Diana Spencer because she was quite young (twenty, I think), appeared quite innocent, and she was leaving her entire way of life behind at such a young age. She was young, fresh-faced, entrancing in her perceived innocence and someone everyone in the world could root for because of all of these qualities.
This marriage — well, it’s not the same. Both Prince William and Kate Middleton are in their late twenties, and are not seen as young, innocent, immature, naïve, entrancing in their innocence — no, none of that. And while that’s actually helpful to their long-term hopes for a marriage (the better you know each other, the better chance you have for a successful marriage), it doesn’t exactly make for a riveting story-line.
Part of the reason the Prince Charles-Lady Diana wedding was so interesting to watch was the contrast between the then-kindergarten teacher/assistant Diana and her betrothed, Prince Charles — an international bon vivant, painter, polo player, sometime diplomat and much, much more. And Charles was considerably older than Diana when he married her; she was only 20, and he was 32.
So what we had in the Charles-Diana wedding was a handfasting of opposites, and that was compelling theatre that interested many. While what we have now in the William-Kate nuptials is more the meeting of the minds, two people who know each other well and seem much better-prepared to marry, and while that’s all well and good for both their personal and dynastic hopes, a compelling drama it does not make.
So I reiterate: Why should I care about this wedding, again?
New review at SBR: Seven Deadly Scenarios
Folks, I talked more about SEVEN DEADLY SCENARIOS in my previous blog post (about the importance of military planning); now it’s time to talk about the review I’ve just done at SBR for this terrifying book.
http://shinybookreview.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/seven-deadly-scenarios-seven-chilling-reads/
Andrew F. Krepinevich is a military “futurist,” meaning he projects what’s now known about various countries or terrorist groups and then tries to extrapolate from that in order to give our military some sort of strategic advantage. Because it’s important to plan, yet so many of our military high-rankers continue to do what military high-rankers have always done — prepare for the last war, not the one that’s coming — well, that’s what keeps Krepinevich on track, and that’s exactly what SEVEN DEADLY SCENARIOS is all about.
Truly, you owe it to yourself to read this frightening book, just to know exactly what the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and all of the folks who work with these august personages) have to deal with on a daily basis.
The Importance of Military and Strategic Planning
Folks, I’ve been reading SEVEN DEADLY SCENARIOS by Andrew F. Krepinevich this week, and it’s a reminder that we need strategic and military planning as a country. This is an especially timely reminder because we have three wars currently going on — in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Libya — and if we don’t use our fighting forces wisely, we may as well kiss them good bye and save steps.
What Krepinevich does by postulating seven scenarios that could incapacitate the US of A (one being a pandemic, another the global collapse of the economy, the third an unexpected attack by China, and four others), military planners need to do in order to try to plan for the inevitable. Planning exists for a reason; if we refuse to plan, we run the risk of having completely and totally unanticipated things happen. Military “futurists” (as Krepinevich describes himself) try to anticipate things well in advance as best they can, then hope someone will learn from their scenarios so if these horrible things happen, we as a country won’t be caught flat-footed.
The most chilling things I learned from SEVEN DEADLY SCENARIOS are historical, however; from the introduction, I found out that military exercises in 1932 — yes, 1932! — showed the vulnerability of the United States at Pearl Harbor, yet the only thing the “games arbiter” did was to say that what the opposing forces in the war games did was “out of bounds” because they came in on Sunday, before dawn, and did something unprecedented.
Let me say this again. Everyone said when Pearl Harbor was hit, “How could this happen? Why would anyone do this? Especially in this way? We didn’t see it coming!” Yet the United States did have warning. Their own people, at least a few of ’em, saw vulnerability in advance and yet they weren’t heeded.
Astonishing.
Then, in another historical incident, the German panzer battalions showed how quickly they could advance on a country or nation during war games exercises in 1937 — yet France did not pay enough attention (didn’t realize the blitzkrieg was coming for ’em) and felt in 1940 that they’d have many months to resist Hitler. And were wrong, because as we all now know, France fell after only six weeks, then were under Hitler’s domination until the end of the war in 1945.
And finally, Lieutenant General (retired) Paul van Riper, in what was called the “Millenium Challenge,” found ways to exploit the vulnerability of our current high-tech military forces but was ignored — once again, the war games “arbiters” ruled what van Riper was doing was “out of bounds” and the rules were changed so the current high-tech military could win the Millenium Challenge for themselves. And the lessons van Riper was trying to teach as commander of the “Red” (basically, he was aping the military capacity of Third World, mostly-Muslim countries, proving that low-tech does not equal stupid) were once again blown off.
Look. I would prefer we didn’t have wars, much less three at once. But since we do have wars, and it looks like we’ll always have a need for fighting men and women, we’d best start learning how to use our people effectively and learn from things like the Millenium Challenge rather than finding a way to make the current crop of military commanders feel good about their current forces — especially as I thought “self esteem” was not something military commanders were supposed to concern themselves with (most especially not their own self-esteem, such as when they rig war games to provide an outcome favorable for themselves as was most certainly explicated by anecdotal evidence by Krepinevich).
These SEVEN DEADLY SCENARIOS are scary, especially as there’s no conclusion to them — Krepinevich lays the stuff out there, then it just ends, almost as if the reader is placed into the Oval Office and must, for one moment, realize the burdens placed upon the Commander-in-Chief. And they’re even scarier when you realize these scenarios must already be known or Krepinevich wouldn’t be talking about ’em; the ones that have been kept private must be even worse, and that is truly appalling indeed.
WI Senate Rs make questionable procedural move
In Wisconsin, you are obligated to give 24 hours notice before calling a conference committee on any given bill, but the Senate Republicans did not do so today in order to, in advance, get the Assembly’s notice and bring the Assembly back to vote. And they did it all within five minutes.
Why did they need to do this? Well, Scott Walker knew he was losing the battle of public opinion, so he had the Senate Republicans strip the language regarding the public employee unions out of the “budget repair bill” — after saying for weeks this was a fiscal issue, now it apparently isn’t? — while the conference committee passed 4-0 (with lone Democrat, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, unable to vote as he pointed out this conference committee was a violation of Wisconsin law and statute as he wasn’t given 24 hours notice, nor was he given any idea of what, exactly, he was voting on as there wasn’t a bill summary as there usually is).
Here’s a story from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that goes into most of the particulars (not speaking about Barca’s part in it, oddly enough; the Kenosha News doesn’t have anything yet, either, as of 7:02 PM CST):
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117656563.html
Note that I witnessed this extraordinary event by watching WTMJ TV (channel 4 in Milwaukee, WI), and saw Barca’s comments for myself; if I can get a transcript of what Barca actually said, I will be glad to update this post and add his remarks.
Here’s part of the article, quoting Robert Dreps, a noted Wisconsin attorney:
Attorney Robert Dreps, an expert on the state open meetings law, said he did not believe the conference committee could meet with such short notice.
State law generally requires a 24-hour notice for public meetings, but can be called with just two hours notice when more notice is impossible or impractical, said Dreps, who has represented the Journal Sentinel in the past.
“I can’t imagine how they can meet that standard,” he said.
I’ve never seen this before in all my life; a conference committee called before a bill was passed? With no bill summary? No 24 hours notice? Then the Senate passing the non-fiscal items (i.e., stripping the collective bargaining of unions) in an 18-1 vote in about two minutes (starting at 6:12 PM and ending at 6:14 PM)? Only Dale Schultz, a Republican from Richland Center in western Wisconsin, voted no.
Note that by declaring this a non-fiscal measure, the quorum needed was lower — but that may not be a legal maneuver either. As I get more information, I will add more and more to this blog in the days ahead.
How can anyone say this was clear, transparent, or “doing the people’s business” in any way, shape or form with a straight face?
More to the point — how does this help the “Republican 8” who are vulnerable to recall efforts this year? How does this help the people of Wisconsin, period?
*** UPDATE THREE as of 11:43 P.M.: Note that there is a Web site to help recall the “Republican 8” state Senators who are available to be recalled right now. Those Senators are Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Dan Kapanke, Sheila Harsdorf, Robert Cowles, Randy Hopper, Luther Olsen, and the most likely one to be recalled of them all, state Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills (this is a suburb of Milwaukee which contains Marquette University). At the moment the Web site sends everyone to an Act Blue page, so I have taken down the link . . . if that site goes back to a normal place, not taking people to Act Blue (I’m for Act Blue in general but not when I’m trying to go somewhere else), I’ll restore the link. ***
**** UPDATE FOUR: The link has been restored to show staging directions — places and people to see to get recall petitions for the Republican 8, so here you go:
http://www.recalltherepublican8.com/
**** END UPDATE FOUR AND GO, RECALLERS! ****
Right now, as of 7:11 p.m. CST, the protestors are back on the streets of Madison** and are furious. This just shows, once again as if we hadn’t figured it out, how duplicitous Scott Walker and his cronies in the state Senate really are.
My best guess is that these Republicans really don’t think they’ll be recalled, or that those who aren’t yet vulnerable to recall believe next year things will have calmed down and that they’ll easily hold their offices. But I have news — anyone who voted “yes” on this horrible thing in the Senate today will be recalled, whether this year or next. (I think Dale Schultz is safe as he voted “no.” The rest of the Senate R’s had best look out.) Because this clearly was not what the voters of Wisconsin wanted, and if the Republicans really think this was the right thing to do, well, they’re going to have to pay for it with their careers.
As State Senator Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) put it,
“This is a travesty is what it is,”Larson said about the vote. “I can’t sit by and let them kill the middle class.”
Larson said Republicans will pay a political price for curtailing collective bargining for public-sector employees.
“Everyone who is party to this travesty is writing their political obituary,”Larson said.
Amen, brother!
** UPDATE ** Here’s an article from the Kenosha News that points out what Peter Barca actually did:
http://www.kenoshanews.com/newsnow/newsnow.php#1171804
And here’s a statement from that article from state Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Ashland, one of the “Wisconsin 14”:
Before the sudden votes, Democratic Sen. Bob Jauch said if Republicans “chose to ram this bill through in this fashion, it will be to their political peril. They’re changing the rules. They will inflame a very frustrated public.”
Once again, and with feeling — can I get an “Amen, brother” on that one, too?
** UPDATE TWO *** Here’s something from Talking Points Memo about what Peter Barca attempted to do:
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D) attempted to make a motion to delay the meeting or make amendments — and was not recognized for a motion by the chair, state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. Barca argued, over Fitzgerald’s attempts to say there would be no motions, that the conference committee violated the state’s open meetings law, which requires at least 24 hours notice before a government meeting, unless there is good cause to act more quickly.
Read more at: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/peter-barca/2011/03/
** Note that in Kenosha, which is the southern-most city in Wisconsin that’s right next to the state line with Illinois, there was a protest march in favor of the “Wisconsin 14” Democratic Senators and the public employee unions, which drew 1200 people in the middle of a working day. This tells you that people remain fired up about this issue and are not going to stop protesting, and that was before what Scott Walker (and his 45-minute meeting earlier today with Senate Rs) and his cronies did this evening.
The protests will continue until morale improves — and in this case, morale will only improve with every single last Republican being recalled, including Scott Walker. So look for recall after recall this summer, and recalls again in January of 2012 until every Republican who approved of this gets recalled.
Valentine’s Day — for Love, not Conspicuous Consumption.
I’m tired of these jewelry companies, et. al., framing the narrative of Valentine’s Day and turning it into a purely commercial event.
Every year around this time I grit my teeth and want to scream after seeing all the ads for jewelry, flowers, Vermont Teddy Bears, the Pajamagram, and anything else that can be sold as “a unique testament to your love” on what’s purported to be the most romantic day of the year: Valentine’s Day.
But Valentine’s Day should mean more than an evening out (lovely though that is); it should mean more than a bouquet of flowers, any piece of jewelry (no matter how lovely, or expensive, it may be); it should mean more than sending a Pajamagram or a Vermont Teddy Bear (cute as the latter is, and practical as the former can be).
No. Valentine’s Day should be about your love for your partner. Period.
I don’t know why this isn’t discussed more; I know I’m not the only person in the world to feel this way. But when I see these commercials, I just get so disgusted, so irate, and so frustrated. Many people believe exactly what these advertisers tell them to believe: that it’s important to spend money on Valentine’s Day, to have a “unique testament” to your love (in the form of the advertiser’s choice, of course), rather than to do what’s truly important — spending time with your loved one.
Take it from me: no one wonders at the end of his or her life if you should’ve given your lover (wife, husband, soulmate) another gift, or wonders if the gifts you’ve given of a monetary nature were big enough.
Instead, what people wonder about is this: “Did I spend enough time with my husband/wife/significant other?” (Much less the ancillary questions of: “Did I show how much I care enough?” and ” Did I love (him/her) enough?”) Or, put another way, people wonder whether or not they fully expressed their love for their partner, and sometimes have regrets that they didn’t say or do enough emotionally. But they certainly do not worry about whether or not they did enough financially, in the sense of gift-giving, years later!
So, please, for those of you who truly love another, do your best to concentrate on what you have that you can’t quantify with money because it’s priceless — each other. Spend time with one another, and love each other, and have fun because you’re so jazzed to be in each other’s presence . . . and stop “counting coup,” financially. Please!
Lobbyist Jimmy Williams says “It’s Hate” that causes shootings, not guns.
This, friends, is the best thing I’ve heard from the pundits since the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ, last Saturday afternoon.
To be brief, Jimmy Williams, who is a Democratic lobbyist, said on today’s ‘Dylan Ratigan Show” on MSNBC that it is not guns alone that kill people. He noted that on 9/11, the terrorists did not use guns. In Oklahoma City, the terrorists did not use guns. And while some terrorists have used guns like Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald, they undoubtedly would’ve found another way if they hadn’t had guns because they were drunk on hatred.
So to be even more brief: “It’s hate,” said Jimmy Williams.
Williams elaborated that people learn hatred at home but can learn differently; he used his own experience growing up in the South, mentioning that his father had far different views about black people than he did, and that he’s told his father many, many times he’s wrong. And that focusing only on the fact this guy Jared Lee Loughner, 22, is severely mentally ill is missing the point.
Amen, brother!
Listen. I get really upset when someone blames all mentally ill people for something like this. The term “mental illness” has broadened to the point to include people who are grieving the loss of a loved one (transitory depression), those who suffer from panic attacks (the most high-profile one being football Hall of Fame running back Earl Campbell), and those suffering from situationally-based depression. None of these types of people are likely to go on a killing spree, though some are responsible hunters and take their responsibility as gun owners seriously.
So just saying, as one gal did here on the Dylan Ratigan show (I forgot her name already, sorry), that “all crazy people should not have guns” is really beside the point.
Also, what, exactly, is your definition of a “crazy person?” Is it, like the famed definition of pornography by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, something you’ll “know . . . when you see it?”
Jimmy Williams is right to say that it is hate, pure and simple, which makes someone — crazy or not — go out on a rampage like this one. And he’s right to say that hate — not being crazy — is what led to the deaths of six innocent people and the wounding of fourteen more (some of whom, like Congresswoman Giffords, remain in critical condition at this time).
You need to see this video from Dylan Ratigan’s MSNBC show; I can’t seem to get it to properly upload, so please go to this link where you should be able to see it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#41026206
Cut and paste this link if Word Press does something odd again . . . it should work and bring you to Dylan Ratigan’s home page, where this video (about ten minutes in length) will play, and you’ll see Jimmy Williams extraordinary “cut through the bull” moment, along with a few others who didn’t understand, plus host Dylan Ratigan, who did.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 