Surprise! Federal Judges Want Rs to Redraw WI District Maps
Folks, even I didn’t see this one coming.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, at this link, reports that the three-judge panel from the United States District Court (Eastern District of Wisconsin) has asked the Wisconsin Legislature (thus in actuality, the Wisconsin Republican Party as all three branches of government in Wisconsin are currently controlled by the GOP) to “consider re-drawing” the district maps that are currently in dispute by taking into account the problems Latinos and the Democratic Party have with the maps and fixing the problems accordingly.
The Journal-Sentinel reports:
The court gave the Legislature until 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to decide whether it wants to revisit the maps it approved last summer. If it does not, the trial challenging the maps will resume Wednesday. If lawmakers agree to take up the maps anew, the court would give them until mid-March to approve them.
Apparently the reason the judges want the Legislature to re-draw the maps (rather than go to trial) is because they honestly feel that the Legislature should draw the maps — just, perhaps, not these maps. (Or in science-fictional terms, “These aren’t the maps you’re looking for. Move along.”)
Here’s more from the article that discusses what presiding judge J.P. Stadtmueller thinks:
At the opening of trial, presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller said drawing district lines is the purview of lawmakers, and it would be best for them to put those lines into law. However, he said, the plaintiffs have raised significant issues, particularly on the treatment of Latino areas and in the way it moved hundreds of thousands of people into new districts. He said legislators should consider setting new maps with those concerns in mind.
Next is my favorite part of the article:
Stadtmueller and the others on the panel have repeatedly criticized Republican lawmakers for being overly secretive in how they drew the maps. Almost all lawmakers signed secrecy agreements about the maps and they tried repeatedly to prevent their aides from having to testify or produce documents. Those attempts were unsuccessful, and last month the panel ordered the Republicans’ attorneys to pay the other side $17,500 for filing frivolous motions.
Note that Stadtmueller said that the “one-day pause” should not be taken as an indication of how the three-judge panel will rule — but then again, does it really need to be, considering the fact that on four prior occasions, the three-judge panel has heavily chastised the Wisconsin Rs for backroom shenanigans and an absolute lack of transparency?
My take on this is simple: if the judges didn’t believe there were grounds to strike down these maps — and good grounds, at that — they wouldn’t have made this extraordinary offer to the Wisconsin Rs. Because the offer basically says this: “Fix the maps on your own. Or we’ll likely end up fixing them for you.”
The entirety of the Wisconsin Legislature, along with Governor Scott Walker (R), now have until 5:30 p.m. CST to make a decision as to whether or not they’re willing to re-visit these maps and attempt to re-draw them in a way that the court is likely to approve.
If I had to guess at what the Wisconsin Rs are going to do, though, my guess is this: they won’t re-draw the maps. They’ll instead go back into court tomorrow, and try to impugn the three-judge panel on every media station that will allow them to do so within the state of Wisconsin (and probably on national cable such as Fox News, too, no doubt) because somehow, these three judges will be seen as “activist liberal judges” who just want to cause trouble for the Rs because the Rs are sweet, innocent, and completely in the right in every way, shape, or form. The fact that two of these three judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, mind you, will go completely by the boards when it comes to the media, but I can assure you that the judges themselves know full well who appointed them, and why.
This is why if I were a Republican, I’d be calling my legislators — and the Governor, too, no doubt — and urging them to take this deal before it’s too late. Otherwise, the judges will not be pleased . . . and my best guess after that, considering all the chicanery that’s gone on over the past year-plus since Scott Walker and the R-dominated Legislature came to power, is that the GOP will end up getting its comeuppance in a way that party had never foreseen — otherwise known as, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”
Vinny Rottino Redux, AKA Rottino’s Persistence Pays Off
More people should be like Vinny Rottino.
As most of you who follow this blog know, I’ve been keeping an eye on the Racine-born Rottino. His quest to become a major league baseball player is compelling for many reasons, but the biggest and best reason to follow Rottino’s story is because he refuses to give up on himself.
Rottino knows he has the talent to play in the major leagues, and because he knows that, he is willing to do whatever it takes to make it.
Racine Journal-Times sportswriter Peter Jackel wrote a very nice article about Rottino in yesterday’s edition; the headline read, “Irresistible force: Resilient Rottino Rewarded with Another Shot.” (I really like that alliteration there; whoever wrote that headline did a great job.) Take a look at that article here:
Jackel points out in his article that Rottino was the Milwaukee Brewers minor league player of the year in 2004 — his second year in the minors — and though he’s had some at-bats and a bit of playing time here and there with the Brewers, and last year with the then-Florida Marlins, Rottino has never had extended playing time with any major league team (as he’s also spent time in the Los Angeles Dodgers’ minor league system, too).
But the New York Mets wanted Rottino because of his tough-minded, hard-nosed attitude; this is why they signed him last November. As Paul Depodesta, the Mets Vice President of Player Development, said in Jackel’s article,
“Vinny’s hard-nosed style of play absolutely played a role in our decision to sign him. We know he’ll fit well with our manager, Terry Collins, who shares Vinny’s passion and intensity, and he’ll be appreciated by the fans in New York.”
This is a great deal more than is usually said about any guy who’s expected to be a career minor leaguer (or as the baseball types have it, a “four-A” player — someone who is really good in AAA, but isn’t quite good enough to play in the big leagues).
Podesta also says in the article that one of the reasons the Mets signed Rottino is because he can play a number of positions, including at least two of three of the most-valued positions — catcher, center field, and shortstop. Rottino was a shortstop in high school and college, so he knows that position well. He plays all three OF positions, though he really doesn’t have the speed to be an everyday center fielder. And he is a very good catcher — a dependable backup — which is a neat trick considering he didn’t even start learning the position until he was around 26 years old.
Rottino will be 32 in early April. He knows he’s not a prospect anymore — Jackel even said so in his article — but he has a lot to give any organization that gives him a chance. Rottino can hit left-handers rather better than his major league average (a sample-sized 36 ABs) indicates. Rottino has “gap power” — meaning he’s not a home run hitter, but he’s a reliable threat for doubles and the occasional triple. He’s a contact hitter who rarely makes stupid mistakes (and if he does make one, he immediately corrects it and doesn’t compound his error; I cannot imagine Rottino making the mistake Jerry Hairston, Jr., made in the Brewers NLCS on that double-error play, for example), he won’t run you out of innings, and he has deceptive speed — even at his somewhat advanced age for a ballplayer, he had 17 SBs last year, which led his triple-A team, the New Orleans Zephyrs. (Not bad for a catcher, huh?)
Anyway, I know Rottino can play, so if he gets a shot, he’ll do well.
The rest of us need to learn from his example; keep trying, and don’t give up, no matter what you do. All you can do is give yourself the best chance to make it in your field — in my case, that’s writing and editing, and I am somewhat older than most people who are hoping to make it in this business (let’s just say “older than Rottino” and be done with it, OK?) — and keep working on your “tool set” every day. (For Rottino, he takes lots of batting and fielding practice. For someone like me, that means something along the lines of, “Write something every day.” And considering I’m a musician, too, the days I am able to circumvent my carpal tunnel syndrome and practice my saxophone count as advancing toward my goals, too.)
You see, like Rottino, all I can do is to “keep (myself) in the game.” So if there is an opportunity, I’ll be practiced and versatile enough to seize that opportunity before it’s gone; I cannot make the opportunity, but I can definitely prepare myself to seize upon it whenever that opportunity finally presents itself.
Rottino himself said it best, though; when Jackel asked him what will happen if Rottino doesn’t make it in the bigs this time, Rottino said he’d keep trying (this was summed up by Jackel in the article). Then he said this:
“I think God has got me on this path for some reason and I’ll find out why someday.”
I am so glad that I’m not the only one who wonders about this sort of meandering path (though it seems to me that Rottino’s path has been slightly less circuitous than my own).
But I will not stop, folks; I plan to be like Vinny Rottino. I know I have the talent, and I know I will persevere. With perseverance and talent, I hope to seize upon any opportunity that comes to hand. Because that’s literally the only way to win.
Good luck, Vinny — and may the wind be at your back.
For the Fourth Time, US District Court Rules Against WI R-Controlled Legislature re: Redistricting Plans
For the fourth time, the United States District Court (Eastern District of Wisconsin) has ruled against the Republican-dominated Wisconsin Legislature and its attorneys over the new district maps the Legislature drew last year. These maps were drawn in secret, the public had only one day to comment publicly on them in Madison, and then they were passed by party-line vote in the Republican-dominated Legislature. No Democratic legislators had any input into these maps because the Republicans completely shut them out.
Worse yet, the Republicans, nearly to a person, signed non-disclosure agreements with attorneys in order to try to cloak their legislative business under the “attorney-client” privilege that’s commonly given to legal defendants.
But this did not work.
So, for the fourth time, the US District Court (Eastern Dist. of WI) has said that all the deliberations of the Republicans via e-mail with and without their lawyers (that is, communication to and from their lawyers, and communication among themselves) do not qualify as something that can be protected via attorney-client privilege. And the judges’ comments, once again, are scathing.
Here’s the link to yesterday’s story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
And here’s a link to the actual order by the three district judges, two of whom were appointed by Republican Presidents:
http://media.jsonline.com/documents/redist-021712.pdf
Here are a few words from the judges’ decision that explained why they have ruled against the Republicans (again):
The documents produced by the defendants consist predominantly of a series of email messages discussing the support of certain Hispanic community groups for redistricting legislation and also discussing the floor debates on a pending bill.
In the Court’s view, it is quite apparent that these email discussions involve advice on political strategy, as opposed to legal strategy, and, therefore, are not afforded attorney-client privilege protection.
But wait! There’s more!
Without a doubt, the Legislature made a conscious choice to involve private lawyers in what gives every appearance of an attempt—albeit poorly disguised—to cloak the private machinations of Wisconsin’s Republican legislators in the shroud of attorney-client privilege. What could have—indeed should have—been accomplished publicly instead took place in private, in an all but shameful attempt to hide the redistricting process from public scrutiny.
OK, let’s have that last sentence again, shall we? With emphasis this time (as added by yours truly):
What could have—indeed should have—been accomplished publicly instead took place in private, in an all but shameful attempt to hide the redistricting process from public scrutiny.
What bothers the judges here is also what’s bothered me from the start regarding the redistricting process. Simply put: this should’ve been done in the full light of day, where Wisconsin voters would’ve had weeks to weigh in on what they thought of the districts (rather than only one day in Madison for people to hurry on up there and try to talk sense into the recalcitrant Rs). The Democrats should’ve been consulted even if the Rs had still refused to listen. And the actual redistricting itself should’ve been far less cumbersome than it’s turned out to be, which it would’ve been if the Rs had just done things openly rather than try to give themselves some sort of out via “attorney-client privilege.”
But let’s hear some more from the District judges, shall we?
In concluding that the documents at issue here are not privileged from disclosure, the Court does not mean to suggest that the attorney-client privilege is unavailable to government entities. It is simply not available in this instance because of the Legislature’s peculiar (and frankly unfortunate) decision in this case to so blur the lines between political, strategic, and legal advice as to make those lines practically disappear. In so doing, the movants—who, in fact, seem to act on behalf of only a portion of the Legislature despite their assertion that they act on behalf of the full Legislature (and, by extension, all of Wisconsin’s citizens)—have tried to hide the redistricting process from the very people whose rights are at stake in that process.
Amen! (I couldn’t have said it better myself.)
The judges continue:
And those very people, Wisconsin’s citizens, have paid through their tax dollars for the efforts ostensibly taken on their behalf. The Court finds it highly doubtful that any lawyer’s client would delight in having the documents and communications for which they have paid kept beyond their reach. Thus, in these particular circumstances, it would be inappropriate to shield from disclosure the communications provided to the Court for in camera review.
Now, did you note the language the judges used? “The Court finds it highly doubtful . . . ” is quite pointed language from a judge (much less a three-judge panel). But what about this next line? “. . . the Legislature’s peculiar (and frankly unfortunate) decision in this case to so blur the lines between political, strategic, and legal advice as to make those lines practically disappear” is practically acerbic, coming from a judge. And this next line — my favorite in the whole five-page order — “What could have—indeed should have—been accomplished publicly instead took place in private, in an all but shameful attempt to hide the redistricting process from public scrutiny” makes the point that the judges have had quite enough of this, thank you, so let’s get on.
All of this is why it’s noteworthy that the judges’ ordered the R-dominated Legislature and its hand-picked lawyers release all e-mail communications. Because, you see, the judges have obviously had enough — and for the fourth time, they’ve said so.
Persistence: Keep it Going
Folks, there are many things that I could talk about tonight, but rather than talk politics, sports, or the latest outrageous things going on in Wisconsin, I’d rather talk about something near and dear to my heart: the willingness to persist.
You see, no matter what you do in this life, if you believe in what you do, you must keep trying. No matter how long it takes, refuse to give up on yourself; do a little bit every day that advances you toward whatever your goal may be, and down the line, not only will you reach your initial goal, you’ll probably reach goals that you’d previously believed insurmountable.
I’m a writer, an editor, a reviewer, a musician, and a composer. (Many other things, too, but those will do for now.) I decided long ago that I was going to do something every day that would help me advance toward my goals, and that’s helped me continue despite what would seem to be mighty long odds.
Ultimately, I’m just like anyone else, except for one thing: I am highly motivated, and I refuse to give up. (Well, that’s two things, albeit two closely-related things.)
Today, what I did to advance me toward my goal(s) was to edit for several hours, then write this blog. Tomorrow, I plan to write a review, then work on AN ELFY ABROAD and KEISHA’S VOW (both Elfyverse novels); if all goes well, there’s a collaborative project with another writer that I hope to work on as well.
Lazette Gifford, who runs the Forward Motion Writer’s Group (at http://fmwriters.com), has said that all you need to do is to write 100 words a day. Most writers fiddle around on the Internet, or fiddle around doing something else rather than write; if you write just 100 words a day, at the end of the year, you will have 36,500 words written. (This would be a novella if completed at the end of a year, or approximately one-third of a full-fledged novel if you’ve decided that your story needs more fleshing out to make sense.)
In my case, I tend to use the little bits of time I have to sketch things out on notepad (which counts, too) rather than open up a file on the computer. But I do tend to get more than 700 words written in a week, too; most of the time, even in a bad week, I manage to get 4000 words written, or 16,000 average in a month. If I’m very ill during a week and can’t write, I continue to sketch things out and write notes in prose-form, which also counts as actual work. Then my next weekly total looks astronomical — something like 10,000 words in a week — as most of the work has already been done; now I just have to flesh things out with dialogue and descriptions and such.
At any rate, please don’t listen to anyone who says you “can’t write” or that your reviews don’t make sense or that your editing leaves a lot to be desired. This is going to happen to us all (or something similar will); all we can do is persist, persist, persist. And then persist some more. Because persistence is the key; without it, you absolutely cannot win.
So keep on keepin’ on, folks. And I’ll meet you on the flip side.
Valentine’s Day 2012 — A Slow, Quiet Day
Today was a slow, quiet day in most respects; I mostly focused on editing. But then I realized that I hadn’t posted a blog subject in several days (bad, bad me), so that’s why you’re seeing a new one even though I have little to say of consequence.
That being said, let’s get to it.
Folks, those of you who have living spouses and/or significant others, I hope you’ve had a wonderful Valentine’s Day.
For the rest of y’all, who are in my position — that is, widows and widowers — do your best to remember how it felt to be fully alive in all senses, and how it felt to love and be loved in return. That’s the best way we have to honor our loved ones, so treasure those memories and do not surrender them even if (when?) you manage to find someone new to love down the road. Because if someone falls in love with you, they have to fall in love with every part of you, not just the parts they like — or the parts that are easiest to love. And as a wise man once told me, “Michael was a very big part of your life. How you could possibly excise him in order to tempt someone else into a relationship is beyond me. So don’t listen to anyone who tells you not to talk about Michael, because that person is, as you say, ‘plain, flat wrong.'” (Three guesses as to who said this, and the first two don’t count.)
Anyway, this is what I said last year, and it still holds true for this year and many years to come:
https://elfyverse.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/valentines-day-for-love-not-conspicuous-consumption/
So remember, folks; V-Day should be all about love, not all about what gifts you give (or get in return).
Enjoy!
Powerball Jackpot at $325 Mil; Broke Down and Bought a PB Tix
Folks, you may recall my post a few weeks ago about Powerball raising their basic price per line from $1 to $2 — and about how I believed that was a stupid, pointless, and unnecessary act.
While I still believe all that, when the jackpot hits $325 million, it’s hard to resist buying a ticket. So I did buy one — and only one — due to the nature of the very high jackpot.
Does this make me a hypocrite? Yes, it does. (But at least I’m an honest one.)
My reflections on the $2 Powerball game after a few weeks of settling remain mostly unchanged; I don’t think the slight lowering of the odds (as it used to be that you had 42 balls to pick from in the actual “Powerball” part; now, there are 36 instead) and quicker rollover to higher jackpot amounts are worth having to pay $2 per line.
I still think, most of the time, you’re better off burying a dollar bill in the backyard and leaving it there until spring (or whenever) and then digging it up again than you are playing a line of Powerball ($1 a line or the current $2 per line).
But see above, as I broke down and bought one anyway. (A fool and her money are soon parted, as they say. Though I suppose there are worse ways to spend $2, too.)
We’ll see if it does any good.
————-
Note: The reason “persistence” is tagged as a category here is because up until Powerball changed their price per line, I’d played nearly every draw since the games inception. I continue to play the same numbers; the only difference is, now I am unwilling to play Powerball unless the jackpot is a really huge amount.
Just Reviewed Theresa Meyers’ “The Hunter” at SBR
Folks, if you like inventive steampunk, especially with at least one mechanical horse and in a Western milieu, look no further than Theresa Meyers’ THE HUNTER.
However, as Meyers’ novel is also a paranormal romance, and as the romantic aspects of this book leave something to be desired (mostly because the putative hero of the book, Colt Jackson, doesn’t seem to have the brains necessary to attract anyone, much less a worldly-wise demon of a succubus named Lilly), this one was tough to grade.
Please read my review, which has just been posted at SBR as per usual:
Then you’ll understand why grading THE HUNTER was so difficult, as the pluses are many — but so are the minuses.
Enjoy!
Whitney Houston dies at 48
Whitney Houston has died at age 48.
I heard the news tonight on various channels, including MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, so there is no mistake. Houston is dead, and her beautiful voice and ability to emote while singing has died with her.
From a musical standpoint, there was a great deal to admire about Houston. She had an operatic range, which is rare for singers of popular music (only Mariah Carey among current pop singers has anything close to the range of Houston). She also chose great songs from great songwriters; for example, one of Houston’s best-known songs, “I Will Always Love You,” was originally written and performed by Dolly Parton — herself no slouch as a singer. Yet Houston was able to add something to Parton’s excellent song to the point that if you asked ten people who’d heard each version which one they liked better, seven out of ten would probably say they liked Houston’s version better.
Houston’s death is a great loss for the music community. And even knowing that the Grammy Awards are tomorrow (where music as a whole celebrates music and musicians), and that there will have to be a Houston retrospective, it doesn’t help overmuch because it just doesn’t seem right that someone so vital die at age 48.
As anyone who’s read my blog knows, I resonate strongly to this because my late husband Michael died at age 46, suddenly and without warning. Then my best friend Jeff died last year, suddenly and without warning, after he’d fought off the worst of a terrible bacterial infection and seemed to be on the upswing, at age 47. This is why it really and truly does not seem right to me that someone who still had so much left to give is dead at age 48.
I tend to think a person’s life has to be measured by what he or she did with it; in the case of Houston, I believe she was as successful as she could be, considering the terrible toll drug addiction had exacted from her. She was a gifted performer, a fine singer, and by many accounts was a very kind person whose only real weakness was drugs.
At any rate, Houston’s life is over; she’s done all she could, and now all we have left are the recordings she left behind.
I refuse to say “rest in peace” because the phrase has been so overused that it’s trite. I’d rather say that my heart goes out to Houston’s daughter, Bobbi Kristina, Houston’s ex-husband, Bobby Brown (someone that Houston stayed close to even after she divorced him), her mother Cissy Houston (a gifted singer in her own right), and cousin Dionne Warwick (one of the best singers of the ’60s, ’70s, and early ’80s), along with anyone else who knew Houston or loved her music. May they be comforted by their memories and/or her music; may her spirit find happiness in Eternity. (Amen.)
————
** Note: Whatever else that can be said about my late husband, or my best friend Jeff, know that up until the day of each man’s passing, they learned, changed, grew, and became better people the longer they lived. This is not to say they were saints (saints are boring); they were good men, which is a whole lot tougher thing to be than it seems.
Whitney Houston, according to Rev. Al Sharpton, had beaten most of her demons (this is my best paraphrase from hearing Sharpton on CNN and earlier on MSNBC); CNN has reported that Houston was about to star in her first movie in 15 years. So as far as anyone knows right now, Houston was clean and sober. She was able to act. And she was able to perform again, albeit with a voice that was badly ravaged by drugs — though even had she “stayed clean” throughout her life, the voice tends to break down for many operatic-trained sopranos in their late 40s.
To my mind, Houston’s life was a success. Not because she was such a great singer, but because she kept trying and didn’t give up. In this way — and perhaps only in this way — she was like my husband, or my friend, and that’s the main reason I mourn her passing.
Just Reviewed books 1 and 2 in Jim C. Hines’ “Princess” Series
Folks, if you’re looking for an intriguing, funny read about princesses who can and do fight for themselves, look no further than Jim C. Hines’ “Princess” series.
Both THE STEPSISTER SCHEME and THE MERMAID’S MADNESS are funny, have unusual story twists, and are lively adventures that will hold your interest.
While I believed the first book, THE STEPSISTER SCHEME, was far better than the second book in this series, they’re both worth buying in paperback.
That’s why I reviewed these books at Shiny Book Review tonight; please go to this link for further details:
Enjoy!
Barb Caffrey's Blog 