Let’s stop yelling and start talking

Finding common ground will lead to better solutions

 

(Waring R. Fincke practices law and politics in the town of Barton and is vice chair of the Washington County Democratic Party.)


    Things electoral have settled down a bit. We face serious problems and concerns that we elect and expect our representatives to fix. Solutions cannot be found in further slash and burn, take no prisoners politics.
We want to believe Gov. Walker’s plea to end the partisan divide given in his election night acceptance speech. It will have meaning if he and local Republicans join us in repudiating the anonymous comments that were placed in the newspaper boxes and on the cars of Barrett supporters here in West Bend and mailed to several here and in Slinger.
The worst of the post-election anonymous notes reads:
“Scott Walker, Rebecca Kleefisch, the taxpayers of Wisconsin — the True Middle Class of Wisconsin have won a great victory. WE have taken back the state – from the greedy, corrupt public unions and their mindless minions (you).
“If there were any justice every idiot who signed a recall petition would be sent a bill for $25 to cover the cost of this stupid recall. However, it will be enough if you just crawl back under the rock you slithered out from and never see the light of day again. Go away. Move to Illinois or California and be among your own kind.”
The “Unionistas — A Poem” is almost as bad. The anonymous letter sent to a teacher in Slinger comes in a close third. The veiled death threat I received has no place in the public discourse.
Let’s leave campaign signs where they are placed and leave it up to the property owner to remove them. Yelling at us from passing cars accomplishes nothing. Swerving in front of our cars on the freeway and honking is just plain dangerous. We encourage our supporters to not engage in this kind of behavior. If we have a criticism or a suggestion, we urge people to sign their names and stand up publically for their beliefs.
We live here, own homes and pay taxes, just like you do. We want our kids to go to good schools that provide a great education, just like you do. We own businesses and work here contributing to our communities, just like you do. We want responsive government that solves problems in a fiscally responsible manner, just like you do. We want our property values to go back up, just like you do. We want to participate in public discussions about the future of our communities, just like you do.
We can and will disagree about lots of issues and the possible solutions to problems we face, but at least we hope that Gov. Walker’s words will lead to more serious discussion of the actual issues across the partisan divide. The time for demonization of those we disagree with has gone. Neither side is going away, we just have to find ways to share our ideas and learn to compromise again.
We exercised our legal right to seek redress of our grievances through the recall process, Republicans have done the same. The Republican get-out-thevote and fundraising efforts were superior and Gov. Walker won. So let’s stop the harassment and name-calling, get down to serious discussion of the issues and find the common ground necessary to find solutions.
How about some community forums to discuss issues of local importance like education or health care? Let’s explore the diversity of our communities by having a frank discussion about racial stereotyping and poverty. Let’s work together to clean up a park or the Milwaukee River. What about a discussion of the history of the labor movement and how it contributed to the quality of our lives? Let’s plan a festival to celebrate the value teachers bring to our children and communities. I am sure there are other ideas on how we can better understand our differing points of view. Let’s hear some. If you want to sit down and talk, let us know where and when.

Suprise, suprise.

Perhaps this is a tiny step forward in the pragmatic, messy, compromising road to a more civilized society.



Unintended consequences, problems, obstruction by republican assholes, and continued griping by the "holier than thou" crowd is sure to follow this. This is the big thing accomplished by the Democratic party in their brief window of opportunity. It is far from perfect of course, but to realists it will do good, it is on the side of light for the most part. Yes, insurance companies will get more customers and probably have more clout the next time around to stop further reform.

Hat's off to Chief Justice Roberts on this one, I always had hope that he would demonstrate some independence from the extremist agenda. In this case he did, a far cry from the other cons on the bench.

In the end, this was government passing a law that will help sick people get through the gatekeepers to the medical care they need. Everything else is details. It will make a difference to them, the ACA will save some people who otherwise would not have been cared for. And it gives a thumb to the eye of all those republicans who chanted "let her die" and all of the other inhuman cruelty they expoused.

democracynow on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Misfire, notes

I had a feeling Al was stepping into a trap from the first lines of his column. Opening with a straw man when the radical impulse behind the decision to take down the "no guns allowed" sign in the library would be self-righteously asserted as common sense despite its ridiculous premise was an unfortunately poor start. Al's prose is in quotation marks, Owen's responses are in red.

"Are we really going to allow firearms in the library where our children go for Story Time, to study and do projects?"

Yes.

"Do guns in the library align with our conservative values?"

Yes.

"Hunting with friends or older children might be a family value,

Might? It is.

but morphing that into guns in the library doesn’t make any more sense than guns at work, guns in the hospital or guns in church."

Since the premise of gun rights being based in hunting is false, the conclusions aren’t valid.

Instead of demolishing the straw man, Al not only abandoned it but legitimized the absurd premise of his first statement. Owen, shameless fascist that he is, endorsed the absurd part and then was freed from what should have been a stigmatizing statement to dilute a shocking mix of guns and children. "Our conservative values?" Whose? By drawing the unacceptable into the acceptable, Al has already lost. The first rule when debating sociopaths must be "do not expect a rattlesnake to stop being a rattlesnake." I am sure Al was making his case to the large number of self-described conservatives in West Bend who actually respect tradition and are skeptical of change, but it only takes one fascist in conservative's clothing to blunt this case.

The problem here is one of definition. What does conservatism mean? Now I am not a conservative but I have studied the ideology going back to Edmund Burke. Fancy book learning, not fly by my gut and accept what those in authority spoon-feed me. It is probable that back when Al was on the rifle team "conservative" meant what he thinks it means, but today's conservative movement of which Owen is openly a part of really shares little of those assumptions. The audience he was trying to reach probably feels the same way, but buy into the redefinition of conservatism that was painstakingly engineered over many decades. Conservative today no longer means, respect for tradition and not wanting things to change, accepting authority of government and that society is made up of many groups, not simply a collection of separate individuals that owe nothing to each other. In other words, a conservative would question why this change to library policy is necessary and would be skeptical of simple assertions that guns around kids is something parents should desire. A real conservative would ask why, when there is no problem with violent crime in the library, do we all of a sudden need the right to carry concealed weapons in the library or anywhere else the individual who owes nothing to his fellow citizens desires.

Unfortunately, Al began with a rhetorical question real conservatives could follow, skepticism about consequences, but dropped it to focus on bigger social issues.

Owen's rejection of hunting as the base of gun "rights" speaks volumes about his conception of these rights. He can blather on about the constitutionality of the right to bear arms, but really it is about his right to feel secure at your expense. For years, the central argument of gun "rights" people was the reasonable proposition that they wanted to hunt, Owen just evicerated that reasonable idea. Let's get down to the lowest common denominator here, a gun is a tool of violence, it is nothing else. I will repeat Homer's aphorism that "the blade itself incites to violence," a truism of the ancient world that has not lost its validity today. The current "mania," that Al rightly identifies but Owen waves away with a snooty retort about the constitution while wishing away the first and more poignant part of the 2nd Amendment, is about power and domination, not defence or security.

Our local gauleiter: Defending your rights to shoot people in the library

My last posting was a column by a local citizen upset that the library board forced the staff there to take down the "No guns allowed" sign. I put it up without any alterations or editing in case anyone wanted to share it. Now I feel compelled for some reason to post gauleiter owen robinson's condescending and vicious response, along with those of his loyal brownshirted asshole followers. I cannot even begin to answer it, I need to throw up.

I admit that I was avoiding this for a few reasons, but Al’s column in the West Bend Daily News is in need of a good fisking. It’s not an easy task because it’s so full of false assumptions and inane rhetorical questions as to render it a monument to Mr. Fisk, but I’ll try… here we go.

Are we really going to allow firearms in the library where our children go for Story Time, to study and do projects?

Yes.

Do guns in the library align with our conservative values?

Yes.

Hunting with friends or older children might be a family value,

Might? It is.

but morphing that into guns in the library doesn’t make any more sense than guns at work, guns in the hospital or guns in church.

Since the premise of gun rights being based in hunting is false, the conclusions aren’t valid.

Where does this gun mania end?

Mania, eh? If supporting the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a “mania,” then count me as a maniac.

What is the danger we face in the library?

The same as anywhere else. Last time I checked, there weren’t armed guards in the library or security checkpoints. Any fool with a gun could walk in there. Why can’t an armed citizen?

Do we plan to draw down on teens talking above a whisper?

No.

Are we standing guard over the late fees?

No, but your idiotic questions are wearisome.

I don’t hate firearms.

Really?

Actually, I enjoy them.

Uh huh.

During my ROTC days, I was a member of the Rifle Club.

So your experience with firearms goes back to your ROTC days 40 years ago? And somehow that justifies your anti-gun attitude today? Whatever.

I find firearms interesting. Many are a beautiful display of visual and mechanical craftsmanship. They beg us to handle them and test our skill.

I agree.

Many of my friends are gun collectors and/or hunters. They are solid citizens with families and responsible jobs. Some are community leaders. They enjoy displaying and firing their collections, but they also understand the destructive power and safety issues associated with firearms. Almost all of them are sticklers for firearm safety. They know there are places for guns and there are places where weapons don’t belong.

I agree with all of that. Gun owners I know are also responsible citizens who respect their power. They also appreciate that guns in the hand of a responsible citizen are a good thing.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I’m good with that.

If you follow that with a “but,” then you really aren’t…

But

There it is…

don’t we teach our children that with rights come responsibilities?

Yes. And?

Is it responsible to brandish weapons in our library?

No. Not without cause. And the concealed weapons policy has nothing to do with that. The key word is “concealed.” By definition, a concealed weapon is not brandished.

Just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it.

Agree.

Members of our community are losing their homes. Many are without jobs and health insurance. Our schools are struggling to maintain valuable programs, yet we are expending our energy and political capital on guns in the library?

Really, how much energy was spent? Were any other initatives put aside for this vote? Were any job initiatives curtailed? Or is this a desperate attempt by the writer to claim that supporting the 2nd Amendment is somehow a drag on jobs?

Is that our priority?

Supporting the Bill of Rights? Yes. Why isn’t it yours?

Is this what leadership in West Bend has come to?

Again… if the leadership of West Bend is supporting the Bill of Rights, then thank God it’s come to that.

We are attempting to attract industries to our city. We are competing with every other municipality in the country, and who knows how many venues outside of the U.S. Growth businesses have their pick of sites. Every community knows that these businesses will be investing millions of dollars. Consequently, cities are putting their best foot forward. They know that any black mark can drop them from consideration. So what kind of message does guns in our library send to these potential employers?

That’s interesting. Yes, West Bend is competing with cities around the country. And Wisconsin was the 49th of 50 states to pass a concealed carry law. In other words, the vast majority of cities in the nation already support citizens exercising their rights. Wisconsin is just catching up. Are you really saying that companies that have opened up new facilities in South Carolina, Indiana, Texas, etc - all of which have had concealed carry for years - will shun West Bend because we support our rights in public buildings? Really?

Does it say, “Great place to live and work?” Or does it say, “What the heck is going on there?”

It says “we support our citizens’ rights.” Don’t you?

I hope we haven’t removed solidly qualified people from the Library Board, and replaced them with less able members simply because of their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

That’s an interesting comment because it is based upon the assumption that the current Library Board members are “less able.” On what basis is that comment made? Is there any evidence that the current members are less qualified, or for that matter, that the previous members were more qualified, other than Al’s disagreement with the concealed carry vote? I doesn’t appear so.

Who would have thought it would come to this – Library Board members appointed because of their stand on guns?

Yeah, it really sucks that Library Board members support all 10 parts of the Bill fo Rights.

Do we choose our doctor, plumber or mechanic based on their Second Amendment ideology?

No, we choose them based on their ability. And to date, Al has not yet shown that the current Library Board members’ abilities are anything short of supurb - except that he disagrees with a single vote.

Why would we choose our Library Board based on it?

Because the Library is a public facility and the people who run it should be chosen by the community. It’s funny that he isn’t objecting to the fact that previous board members had a distinct ideology - one that wasn’t in sync with the majority of the community.

We need to decide if we want to make our library the best it can be or the best armed it can be.

These are not mutually exclusive objectives. It’s a false choice. My family’s personal library is better than most, but it’s librarians are also better armed than most.

How do we want to be viewed?

As a free people endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

Do we want to be known as Wild, Wild, West Bend?

That’s an old and tired meme. Again, Wisconsin is late to allowing concealed carry and in the previous 48 states - including the 4 that don’t require any permit whatsoever - the fiction of a “wild wild west” has never EVER happened. The fact that Al would trot out this old and tired fear tactic speaks to his old and tired argument.

Or do we want to be seen as we have been for decades, as a community with solid values and a promising future; a community, with enviable schools and beautiful parks; a great place to raise a family?

How does that change with the Library Board’s policy? As far as I see, we’ve improved that reputation as a community.

Do you think this is what Alyce and Elmore Kraemer had in mind when they made their $5 million dollar gift for the library expansion?

I don’t know. Unless you are prepared to answer the question, don’t answer it. I suspect that they wanted to provide a venue for reading. Nothing has changed.

What do you suppose the past leaders of our community would be saying?

The good ones? “Yea!” The crappy ones? “Darn.”

Would they be proud of us?

The good ones would.

Would they say that we are honoring their sacrifices by building on what they started?

Again, the good ones would.

Or would they say, “What are you thinking?”

The bad ones would.

I imagine I will be shouted down for my plea

Here comes the cheap pre-defense. He’s automatically trying to position any opposition to his opinion as “shouting down” and such drivel. If he were a man who could stand by and defend his position, then no such anticipatory statement would be necessary.

to keep guns in perspective and enjoy them in their proper place.

The key word there is “proper.” Who defines that word? Al? Me? You? If you support individual liberty, then the key word is “individual.”

And unless more good citizens come forward and object, I will probably lose this appeal for sanity.

By his definition, I am a bad citizen and apparently insane. By his definition, the only “good” citizens are those who support his view. But he is correct… he will lose this battle.

But isn’t it time for other reasonable community voices to step up and say, “I’m OK with changes that make West Bend a better place, but this isn’t one of them … no guns in the library.

No. It’s time for reasonable community voices to step up and say, “I’m OK with changes that make West Bend a better place, including supporting the 2nd Amendment in the Library.”

Instead, let’s use our energy to help people find jobs, keep their homes and afford insurance.

This again? So we can’t put energy into jobs and homes and insurance without supporting the Bill of Rights? These are not mutually exclusive efforts and Al is trying to create a false choice.

And let’s make sure that today’s students are getting the same solid education their older brothers and sisters got.

I agree. Complete with a full appreciation for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I can think of no better way than to demonstrate our support for our rights in our everday dealings.

Let’s move West Bend forward, and let’s start with no guns in the library. It’s the wrong priority. It’s a step in the wrong direction.

It’s only a move in the wrong direction for those who oppose the 2nd Amendment. And for now… the matter is settled. By Al’s own standards, we should not expend any more political capital on this issue. Let it lie

1. Logic must not get in the way of a decision based on emotion, and sadly, this is what we’re dealing with here. I’m assuming that his definition of a “proper place” for a gun would include the gun safe and the range, and not much else. He can get that now (for the time being), in Chicago.
   
   Posted by Jason on June 24, 2012 at 0555 hrs
   
   
2. To all the “Incurable Do-Gooders” that are hung up on the West Bend Library gun policy .... get a life.
   
   Posted by Mcbragg on June 24, 2012 at 0604 hrs
   
   
3. I’m amazed at the emotional reaction by a small handful to this decision. Meanwhile, in my district I’ve had exactly one constituent contact me, and it was someone who approved of our action.
   Life goes on, and we’re a little freer now. What’s the problem?
   Carry on.
   
   Posted by Tony Turner on June 24, 2012 at 0806 hrs
   
   

4. Members of our community are losing their homes. Many are without jobs and health insurance. Our schools are struggling to maintain valuable programs, yet we are expending our energy and political capital on guns in the library?

   I actually laughed out loud when I read this part in the paper. The library board has zero ability to do anything about people losing their homes, or people struggling with jobs and health insurance, etc.
   
   Posted by Matt Stevens on June 24, 2012 at 0851 hrs
   
   

5. The library board has zero ability to do anything about people losing their homes, or people struggling with jobs and health insurance, etc.

   Maybe we can Matt…? With the power of reading!
   
   Posted by Chris Jenkins on June 24, 2012 at 0929 hrs
   
   
6. So, just to be clear here, if someone is in public “brandishing their weapon”, they could be arrested for that, as that has nothing to do with Concealed Carry?
   On Friday, an 85 year old man was killed by the police in a senior citizens apartment complex in Hurley WI. Earlier, he had been “brandishing his weapon” in the managers office. The manager successfully took the gun away & the man retreated to his apartment - probably not hard to take the weapon considering the guy is 85. A friend of the man advised police that there were more weapons in the apartment. Eventually the SWAT team had to shoot him to resolve the situation.
   
   Posted by NoName on June 24, 2012 at 1044 hrs
   
   
7. Correct, brandishing a weapon without cause could lead to you getting arrested. Brandishing your weapon means you have actually removed it from it’s holster and you are waving it around or gesturing with it in a threatening manner.
   So the man in your story had the gun in his hand, out of it’s holster, and was waving it around or pointing it in a threatening manner. There was obviously something “off” with the guy if they then had to later also shoot him as a last resort to resolving a situation.
   You see, one of the biggest misconceptions the anti-gun crowd has is that the presence of guns or the introduction of concealed carry somehow enables otherwise law-abiding citizens to breaking the law. That simply isn’t true, and there is no factual data or information to back up that emotionally charged claim. In direct conflict with their claim, look at the US. We have had huge jumps over the past decade in gun sales, and more states introducing concealed carry or getting less restrictive on gun control. Yet the US overall has had a decrease in violent crime rate over the same period. On the other hand, you have countries like the UK and Canada that have banned guns altogether, and since doing so have seen a jump in violent crime as high as 77% since doing so.
   Now why is that? It’s because people who would break the law and commit violent crimes will do so in spite of any gun control laws in place. In fact, it emboldens them to do so. The “hot” in-home burglary rate (hot meaning people are home at the time the burglary takes place) in the united states is 13%. In the UK and Canada it’s over 60%.
   
   Posted by Matt Stevens on June 24, 2012 at 1148 hrs

Guns in the library – a misfire

AL
RUDNITZKI

Are we really going to allow firearms in the library where our children go for Story Time, to study and do projects? Do guns in the library align with our conservative values? Hunting with friends or older children might be a family value, but morphing that into guns in the library doesn’t make any more sense than guns at work, guns in the hospital or guns in church. Where does this gun mania end?
What is the danger we face in the library? Do we plan to draw down on teens talking above a whisper? Are we standing guard over the late fees?
I don’t hate firearms. Actually, I enjoy them. During my ROTC days, I was a member of the Rifle Club. I find firearms interesting. Many are a beautiful display of visual and mechanical craftsmanship. They beg us to handle them and test our skill.
Many of my friends are gun collectors and/or hunters. They are solid citizens with families and responsible jobs. Some are community leaders. They enjoy displaying and firing their collections, but they also understand the destructive power and safety issues associated with firearms. Almost all of them are sticklers for firearm safety. They know there are places for guns and there are places where weapons don’t belong.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I’m good with that. But don’t we teach our children that with rights come responsibilities? Is it responsible to brandish weapons in our library? Just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it.
Members of our community are losing their homes. Many are without jobs and health insurance. Our schools are struggling to maintain valuable programs, yet we are expending our energy and political capital on guns in the library? Is that our priority? Is this what leadership in West Bend has come to?
We are attempting to attract industries to our city. We are competing with every other municipality in the country, and who knows how many venues outside of the U.S. Growth businesses have their pick of sites. Every community knows that these businesses will be investing millions of dollars. Consequently, cities are putting their best foot forward. They know that any black mark can drop them from consideration. So what kind of message does guns in our library send to these potential employers? Does it say, “Great place to live and work?” Or does it say, “What the heck is going on there?”
I hope we haven’t removed solidly qualified people from the Library Board, and replaced them with less able members simply because of their interpretation of the Second Amendment. Who would have thought it would come to this – Library Board members appointed because of their stand on guns? Do we choose our doctor, plumber or mechanic based on their Second Amendment ideology? Why would we choose our Library Board based on it? We need to decide if we want to make our library the best it can be or the best armed it can be.
How do we want to be viewed? Do we want to be known as Wild, Wild, West Bend? Or do we want to be seen as we have been for decades, as a community with solid values and a promising future; a community, with enviable schools and beautiful parks; a great place to raise a family?
Do you think this is what Alyce and Elmore Kraemer had in mind when they made their $5 million dollar gift for the library expansion? What do you suppose the past leaders of our community would be saying? Would they be proud of us? Would they say that we are honoring their sacrifices by building on what they started? Or would they say, “What are you thinking?”
I imagine I will be shouted down for my plea to keep guns in perspective and enjoy them in their proper place. And unless more good citizens come forward and object, I will probably lose this appeal for sanity. But isn’t it time for other reasonable community voices to step up and say, “I’m OK with changes that make West Bend a better place, but this isn’t one of them … no guns in the library. Instead, let’s use our energy to help people find jobs, keep their homes and afford insurance. And let’s make sure that today’s students are getting the same solid education their older brothers and sisters got. Let’s move West Bend forward, and let’s start with no guns in the library. It’s the wrong priority. It’s a step in the wrong direction.”
(Al Rudnitzki is a retired Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance manager, past educator and resident of the town of West Bend.)

T. Frank on Money politics

Everytime you think it can't get worse... it does.From Harper's:

"We have been heading in this direction for a while, thanks to trends in campaign finance that brought us bundlers and PACs and 527s. Citizens United upped the ante by effectively inviting corporations and unions to spend as much as they liked on “electioneering communications.” What really changed, however, was neither the abolition of spending limits nor even the touching solicitude paid to corporations by equating their speech with that of human beings. No, Citizens United (and the related SpeechNow case) altered the political landscape most profoundly by ushering in the Super PAC."

Oh the places you go when the money and the power is on the line.
Of course, Dr. Frank hits the appropriate historical analogies.

"Political advertising, in other words, might correctly be understood as a modern-day form of largesse. When presidential candidates run TV commercials assailing one another, they are playing the role of aristocrats in some medieval ceremony, throwing handfuls of coins to the toiling masses. And beside these gilded personages stand the commentariat, marveling in song and rhyme at what a fine democratic tableau it all is.

Alternatively, we might see TV commercials as one of the few stimulus programs Republicans fully endorse. They are also just about the only form of redistribution from the billionaire class that the rest of us will ever see."

While it is still about the money, boodles of it, the king-making game played by billionaires is also a way of forcing us to love them and insulate them from criticism. Buying fawning affection from talking heads and popularity contests.

"The rise of the Super PACs, and the sheer volume of cash they enabled candidates to devote to mudslinging without ever dirtying their hands, was something new. Just as new, and equally alarming, was the public’s cognitive capitulation to the process. Over the course of the past few decades, the power of concentrated money has subverted the professions, destroyed small investors, wrecked the regulatory state, corrupted legislators en masse, and repeatedly put the economy through the wringer. Now it has come for our democracy itself."

The best point:

"Many efforts to grapple with the Super PAC phenomenon bog down in the slough of advertising criticism, which offers not one but two misleading schools of thought. One holds that advertising is diabolically powerful, capable of transmitting into the minds of the millions whatever views the man with the camera chooses. The other insists that advertising is not effective in the least, that consumers are wily and evasive, always charting their own course."

We cannot even approach the solutions when the prevailing winds all blow in the wrong directions. Like Orwell's "Newspeak" when the words to describe dissent die, the ideas behind them are forgotten.

Reboot

In some ways, The Long Road marks my attempt to relaunch this site after pulling myself back from the depths of despair. It is my first shot at building a real corner of the internet for trustworthiness I value so much in real life. It is up to you to decide whether or not I am worthy of your trust.

The failure to recall scott walker hurt pretty badly, I was ready to load up my minivan and flee to Canada that night. Yes it was personal, more on that later, but it said so much about my neighbors. Whatever their reasons, voting for a man who is the absolute epitome of deceit, a consumate con artist, and the real harm he has inflicted through his decisions has shaken my faith in mankind. Yes, I worked very hard to get an education and get somewhere that I can pass on all the things I have learned. So the budget cuts and attacks on teachers, and loss of income and respect for public servants hurts me and my family personally. But I would still be upset at the scapegoating and punishment meted out to good people even if I did not count myself among them. It is a simple issue of fairness and justice. It also is not partisan, the republicans could have chosen another candidate who had some integrity and I could have accepted the outcome. But walker is about the most dispicable human being yet to hold office. He and his supporters are the enemies that must be marginalized if Wisconsin is to be something to "believe in again." Their behavior of divide and conquer is worthy of scorn and should rightly be stigmatized.

Putting that to rest I feel the need to justify or rationalize the ads on this site. I have subscribed to audible for years now and feel they are a business worth supporting. They provide a product I want at a fair price and have never conned me, that is why I fly their banner and hope that you will give them a try. As I have mentioned before audiobooks are a great way to pass travel time or work time and learn something in the process, or simply be entertained while doing something that requires your eyes. Reading, whether in print or online, is something that is difficult to multitask and needs your full attention. I hope the ads are not too much of a distraction if you are not interested.

The same goes for amazon, they may not always have the best price but they haven't driven all competition out of business either. Often in grad school they had the books and editions I needed for research and shipped them at a reasonable cost and time. You can get a heck of a lot more than books there too, I once got a pressure washer that was great for cleaning gutters and washing my car from them. The only ad I haven't personally used (because I didn't know about them while in school) was textbooks. The idea is sound, rent books for school for less than  the net cost of buying them and then selling them back for pennies at the end of the semester. I would have loved to do that for classes outside my major that had some really expensive books I did not plan to keep. So yeah, I'm kind of acting like a salesman for them and I hope it does not breech an ethical boundary. I want to be honest about it. It would be nice if the effort I put into this blog generated some income, even I can't get away from the need to pay bills and eat on occasion. But that is secondary to the real purpose here.

The Long Road

Is the United States experiencing an inexorable decline? Is there nothing to do but sit back and watch? Since 2000, the answer seems to be an undeniable yes. Where to even begin? First, the problems we face are the result of choices made by Americans, from the supreme court edict allowing gwb to take the presidency, to stock market and housing market crashes. Even 9/11 was the result of a choice, in this case the choice of our "leaders" to ignore warnings and take appropriate measures. All the problems in America today resulted from bad decisions, at least, "bad" from the point of view of the majority of Americans. The point being, American decline is largely man-made and not the result of acts of God or even foreign malice. The disaster following Hurricane Katrina could have been minimized by competent leaders acting in the public interest, the same goes for the BP oil spill and the numerous mine accidents. American decline, therefore, is not inexorable, it is the result of decisions made by bad people looking out for their own interest and not the public's.

Does it follow that many problems facing our nation and our people could be solved by replacing the bad people with good leaders who would work in the public's interest? It really remains to be seen. We first need to believe there are good people out there. Then, that they can defeat the bad. Finally, that good leaders can reverse the previous decisions of bad ones. While the problems we face, from corruption and exploitation, to insecurity in all its forms, and the host of environmental issues, were man made and the result of decisions, once made they become part of the real world. It is easy to look the other way while business pollutes, exploits, and steals; it is much harder to punish, rebalance, and clean up the results. As Yoda said, the dark side is not stronger but it is easier, quicker, and more seductive than the light. And as the American Yoda, Ben Franklin, said "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The hole dug by decades of malice by greedy Americans will take much more work to fill in as it was to dig. But what is the alternative?

All the manifestations of decline are symptoms of a larger problem, lack of trust. This is not some grand revelation entrusted to the GH's of the world, it is apparent everywhere. But lack of trust is the cause of everything else that follows. Why can't good people get elected? People do not trust them. Why don't people believe in the Enlightenment principle that all people are basically good? Lack of trust. This is the age of the anti-hero, the great con, the belief that no one can possibly have any motive other than self-interest. Why do people mistrust unions? Because business has spent countless years and countless dollars implanting the idea that "union bosses" are by definition corrupt, leaders cannot possibly have anyone's interest at heart apart from their own. By contrast, why do people not recognize how badly they are being screwed by rich, greedy businessmen? Because, subconsciously at least, they understand that business may lie about everything else but at its heart they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, make money by any means necessary. That a salesman or a boss or the smiling actor in a commercial is deceiving you is as natural as the lion stalking the gazelle, and for the same reason.

Capitalism in the American sense simply is not possible without dishonesty, and the backstabbing ways of the capitalist trickles down to every other aspect of life. Why do so many possibly otherwise decent people get so insanely bent out of shape over abortion? Because anti-abortion people mistrust the motives of women, the values of self-interest have been so internalized that they are projected onto others without any reasoned articulation or oftentimes even evidence. The only reason a woman would want an abortion is she is selfish and incapable of loving another life, the immorality of speculators screwing each other over transplanted into "the other." Evidence to the contrary just bounces off the frame. All others must by definition be as selfish as we are, shallow and superficial as the dingbats on Jersey Shore or other "reality" show. This is just one example but apply the projection of immorality and lack of trust frame to almost any contentious issue and the process comes out almost the same way.

The Long Road back to a decent society starts with rebuilding some sense of trust in others. Not everyone is out to screw you over. Many are for certain, and those are the bad people at all levels that got us into this mess in the first place. We, the good people, have to figure out some way to reach out to those who have been screwed over, who have been victimized and build bridges of trust. No, certainly not all people can overcome their programming, and far too many are the con artists and selfish, immoral monsters who are parts of the underlying problem. The latter are the true enemy, the behavior that must be stigmatized, the source of the decline and must be fought tooth and nail if there is any hope. We the good people have allowed the immoral speculators and businessmen to poison society too long. Building a durable trust between well-meaning people with different ideas and different experiences in the spirit of tolerance, respect, and pluralism is the only way to get on that Long Road back.

Is this me?

I feel like such a burnout lately. No energy to analyze the myriad stories floating around. Have I been at this too long?

Not as long as this guy: How and why a political junkie lost his mojo from Daily Kos.

"At 79 years old, and about 60 years of deep, active, and personal political involvement, I am ready to “call it quits”. It’s not that I am unconcerned about our state, our nation, or future – its just that politics in today’s America (especially presidential politics) is so unbecoming…so unattractive…so exhausting…so…well you get the idea. At any rate, it’s not for me anymore. Maybe others (younger no doubt) will have the fortitude to press on."

I'm not even half that age or experience but I know just how he feels. This game is for the young and vicious. Here is the important lesson:

"I am frustrated by the power and astounding unreliability of the internet – which has become a cesspool of misinformation. With the simple click of a mouse, you can send a host of “untruths” to virtually hundreds of computers with the false assumption that whatever you are communicating is true. Too often it is not. Additionally, whatever scurillous message you are transmitting, can be morphed, embellished, and even further distorted as is commences its journey around the internet. I used to attempt to stop, correct, and even clarify those messages to the senders. Not any more. It is hopeless."

That may be it, the tenacious children of darkness find it easy, both morally and physically, to spread lies in service to power. Anyone wishing to hold back the tide cannot possibly compete. This kind of work pays in only one direction. Truth, facts, even what we see with our own eyes has just been bulldozed by stampeding propaganda. Ideology trumps all. No compromises, no admission of mistakes, deny the obvious. And they are winning.

Maybe I'll get my mojo back. I hope so, our work is cut out for us.

Afternoon DK

Can't seem to stop listening to this song. Is it just about oil spills and environmental degradation? Or is there some nuclear imagery in there too? Anyway it has a great melody, even if the lyrics are about a self-centered rich guy on his private beach. "I squish dead fish between my toes, try not to step on any bones." Ugly.

Just in case any recovering punks out there forgot which album these are from. If anyone can remember an AT release that just had the bat logo on the cover and was a bunch of other artists covering DK songs, let me know because I can't find it anywhere and am dying to know who covers "Moon over Marin" on that album.

The State of our Schools

An apology

Education in West Bend district deserves nothing less

WARING
FINCKE

My last column sparked an attack request for an apology from West Bend School District Vice President Bart Williams. As is often the case with those critical of my positions, Williams’ attack was not about the issues I discussed, but directed at me personally. Rather than respond in kind, I offer an apology to the citizens of our community about the state of public education in our school district.
I am truly sorry that we have a school district that has allowed itself to abdicate its responsibility to provide our children with the best education possible. The School Board has approved all of the following, either tacitly or by choice.
We no longer have librarians in any of the elementary schools. There is one for the two middle schools and two in the high schools who cannot leave their buildings while students are present, yet are responsible for all the elementary school libraries. Elementary school librarians helped kids learn to read and research, while instilling a love of books and libraries.
We no longer have any school social workers. With more and more kids from families with multiple needs, our need for social workers to bring much needed assistance to help keep kids in school is greater than ever.
Our high school guidance counselors have been given the workload of the social workers, without any of their training or skills, on top of their own responsibilities to help kids with schedules, college applications and financial aid. They have been limited to 15 minutes per kid for senior planning conferences with students and their parents.
We now have two police officers assigned to the high schools. During the past three years, they have been involved, on average, in more than two incidents per day resulting in citations. Some teachers are apprehensive about going into the hallways during class changes because students, echoing community vilification of and lack of respect for educators, have verbally assaulted them. Discipline is ineffective and it appears that no one has realized that social workers might have been able to avert some of these problems before police intervention was required. The kids who have learned to disparage teachers at home feel free to express it at school knowing there will be no consequences.
Recent class-size increases and the addition of more classes taught have greatly reduced the amount of time teachers can spend with individual students, much less their own families. Specialty teachers, paid by the classes taught, have taken a pay cut through reduction in the number of classes taught while having an increased work load because they have more students per class.
Our superintendent does not have the usual credentials or licensure for his position. He does not live in the district and his own children do not attend public schools, much less our own. His chief operating officer sends one of her children to private school as well. What does it say about the quality of our system when its leaders choose not to send their own children to the schools they lead?
The superintendent’s end of the year thank you staff email was interesting, not just because it was sent out after many had left for the year. In it, he acknowledged not having sufficient resources for teaching supplies by thanking teachers for using their own money to make up the shortfall. He thanked them as well for the unpaid time spent on weekends calling parents and grading papers, and for coming in early and staying late to get their work done.
The district lost more than 20 teacher positions, unfilled after retirement and resignations, this year and also lost programs such as the middle school house system and Avid, which helped at-risk students stay on course. Our superintendent is misleading the community by claiming that the new reforms have allowed a balanced budget without “significant” program losses or staff layoffs.
I am truly sorry for the state of public education in our community and that our School Board has let it come to this. No improvement is in sight, as next year’s projected budget does nothing to fix any of it. Mr. Williams, you have my apology.
(Waring R. Fincke practices law and politics in the town of Barton and is vice chair of the Washington County Democratic Party.)


This is what you get when extremists are allowed to sneak into local office, The Public sphere is starved, Public servants are scorned and demonized, incompetents are appointed. The arrogance is breathtaking, people who have no business running a school system turn around and make ad hominem attacks on anyone pointing this out. Get ready Wisconsin and the US, this is what awaits us unless we can come together and keep these incompetent saboteurs away from our schools.

Frat-boys or Fascists?

From Salon:

Joan Walsh, editor at large for Salon.com, penned this missive about a disruptive "reporter" at the President's Rose Garden address. The occasion was an executive order halting deportation proceedings against the children of undocumented immigrants. The "frat-boy" pretend reporter and real life provocateur bleated during the address “Why do you favor foreigners over American workers?” then immediately played the victim. Now, obviously this is disgusting, disrespectful, and part of a definite pattern of right-wing disruption, coming from a supposed "reporter" doubly so. But, clueless Joan does the cause of civilization a disservice by trying to shoe-horn this behavior into the already too narrow conventional wisdom of acceptable American political discourse.
She sort of gets it that we have witnessed a real change in the American right:

"Conservatism has always been associated with deference to authority, but lately it’s only for authority they respect. The Romney campaign has been glorying in this new form of frat-boy conservatism, first sending campaign supporters to heckle Obama adviser David Axelrod during a press conference, and yesterday sending its bus to circle and disrupt an Obama event, honking its horn. It reminds me of the famous “Brooks Brothers riots” in Miami during December 2000, when supporters of George W. Bush threatened to physically prevent county officials from recounting votes in that heavily Democratic stronghold. Of course, it also harks back to Romney himself in prep school, tackling a gay classmate and cutting off his long blond hair while he cried and asked for help."
The problem is that Joan does "our" side no favors by pointing this episode out and placing it alongside the other outrages perpetrated by the right wing. "Our" side already is thoroughly disgusted with the childish, bullying antics repeated daily by supposedly independent operators. Independents, those people characterized by George Lakoff as "morally complex" and able to interpret both points of view, absorb this kind of analysis inadvertantly as reinforcing the "strict father" mentality. And the right wing nut jobs simply cheer for their side against the hated enemy.

The problem is the legitimization of fascist tactics into the frame of "conservatism."

Well-paid... yeah right

Gotta dedicate this song to the teachers all over Wisconsin and the US.

The failure of the effort to recall [i'm with stupid] really hit hard and I am slowly getting back on my feet. Part of my rehabilitation has been to "run home" to my punk roots, though this song had never been too far from my thoughts, rediscovering it brought back the idea that this battle is eternal. We have faced the forces of darkness before and won, we can do it again.

(Zombie) Guns in the library

My efforts to wake up the Kraken have been unsuccessful, short of poking him with a stick I don't know what to do. That would be really dangerous. Not as dangerous as this potentially is, but still, those tentacles really hurt.



It was only a month ago that he posted about the new board members, whose only qualification to oversee the library was their zeal to overturn the eminently reasonable idea that guns do not belong in the library, and we now see how fast things can move when zealots are running things.

I do not really have anything insightful to add, the sheer ridiculousness of it should be enough.

A simple observation though, whenever a tragedy occurs where some raging psychopath shoots up a public area and these gun-happy meatheads assert that it could have been prevented by someone there with a gun, does it ever occur to them that there was, in fact, someone with a gun there?

It can't happen here

A poignant book review written when I was still but a small fry. That's sea monster humor son, get with the program.

Fascism in America: an all-too real work of fiction

            In Sinclair Lewis’ novel It can’t happen here, totalitarianism overthrows our constitutional government in the guise of down home traditional values. Set just before the 1936 election, Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, a fictional Southern Democratic Senator with a demagogue’s flair and team of cynical operators behind him, sweeps into power on the promise of redistributing wealth to all the workers of America. Oh, and he has a 15 point platform to subvert Congress and the Supreme Court, throw unemployed people into camps and specific plans for all of the enemies of our country, namely Jewish bankers, communists and African-Americans among other things. This story sends a chilling message to Americans that benign, liberal government is not written in stone and the constitution is just a piece of paper unless good people stand up for what’s right.
          Sinclair Lewis was “the first American to win the Nobel Prize for Literature”; he wrote novels critical of rural America, the dreariness, materialism and perils of ambition found there. (The Sinclair Lewis Society) “His concern with issues involving women, race, and the powerless in society make his work still vital and pertinent today.” (SLS) His wife was instrumental in this book’s inspiration as she had interviewed Hitler in 1931 and discussed European political developments at that time with her husband, who was at the same time seeing, “the irrational demagoguery of Huey Long and Father Coughlin and the proliferation in America of fanatical political groups” (Tanner 57) “Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer bought the film rights… with Lionel Barrymore cast in the lead role, but early in 1936 the film was abandoned… for fear of international complications and the displeasure of the Republican Party.” (Tanner 58) The objection of the GOP is odd, in my view, since the leader of the resistance is a Republican. In any case, It can’t happen here would have to wait until 1983 to be brought to the small screen as the mini-series “V” in which the fascists are recast as extraterrestrials. (Wikipedia)

            The reader sees events mainly through the eyes of a small town newspaper editor, Doremus Jessup, an educated, intelligent man of sixty years who sees through the façade around Buzz. Nestled away in an archetypal small New England town called Fort Beulah, Vermont; Doremus feels that even if the insanity surrounding the Windrip candidacy doesn’t subside, he figures that life will go on. Personally, Doremus is a “small-town bourgeois Intellectual”, “a mild, rather indolent and somewhat sentimental Liberal”. (68-9) None the less, his editorials often took a position considerably to the left of his readers and when “[h]e got named Bolshevik… his paper lost a hundred and fifty out of its five thousand circulation” (69) Life does go on, but with horrible consequences for Doremus when his gardener, Shad Ledue, becomes the new county commissioner and takes revenge on his former employer for perceived past slights.

          If Doremus is the hero, the villains are played by a remarkable coterie of individuals and organizations committed to wrenching the reins of power into their own hands.  Buzz himself was a powerful orator, after hearing him speak in New York City and being deftly moved by it; Doremus remarked to himself “[b]ut what Mr. Windrip actually had said, [he] could not remember an hour later, when he had come out of the trance.” (140) Bishop Paul Peter Prang was a radio preacher whose “League of Forgotten Men” delivered to the senator votes in order to win, these are characterizations of the late Huey Long and Father Coughlin that Mr. Lewis was so concerned with addressing. (60-1) Muscle was provided by Colonel Dewey Haik and his paramilitary Minute Men, “a nationwide league of Windrip marching-clubs… the shock troops of Freedom!” (129-30) Intellectual power was provided by Lee Sarason and Dr. Hector MacGoblin, who coined the phrases and songs used by the campaign to more or less distract people and persuade them to vote the right way. The new regime’s ideology was called “corpoism” after the United States was renamed “The American Corporate State” with Windrip soon becoming “The Chief” instead of the president. (142, 214)
            The country was reorganized into Provinces, Districts and counties; with the old geographical distinctions being discarded. The unemployed were rounded up into “enormous labor camps” to work on state projects or hired out to the private sector. (216) Political opponents (like Doremus and most of his friends, eventually) were eventually interned in concentration camps for torture and often execution when “caught trying to escape” (422) The corpos preferred method of torture was a combination of flogging with a “steel fishing rod” and forcing the victim to drink caster oil. (423) Eventually Doremus escapes to Canada and joins the resistance, which does invade and take control of a large area of the US. However, the counterrevolution bogs down and the book ends in a stalemate, even though it is clear that corpoism is largely a spent force due to overreach.  By the novel’s finish, much intrigue has occurred at the top leaving Buzz exiled, Sarason assassinated and Col. Haik as the new Chief.
           This book was written in 1935, before Americans fully understood what totalitarianism was and it was subsequently turned into a play for the WPA theatre, perhaps as a reminder to stick with the mostly moderate policies of Franklin Roosevelt. I feel this novel is overshadowed by George Orwell’s 1984, also warning against totalitarianism of the Stalinist formulation, which was published after the full horrors of World War II were revealed. But Lewis predicted quite a few of the horrors of fascism, right down to concentration camp inmates betraying each other to get out. (430) I believe this story, told on the stage and on the page, helped inoculate America against fascism and in that way played a small part in saving the world from fascism during the 1930’s and 40’s. Paraphrasing Edmund Burke, Doremus comments that: “The tyranny of this dictatorship isn’t primarily the fault of Big Business, nor of the demagogues who do their dirty work. It’s the fault of Doremus Jessup! Of all the conscientious, respectable, lazy-minded Doremus Jessups who have let the demagogues wriggle in, without fierce enough protest.” (258)
            The author’s wife, Dorothy Thompson, “was an expert on European fascism” and no doubt a major source of research, however the edition I read contained no acknowledgements. (Tanner 59) The edition also lacked a preface and I was left somewhat unmoored at the beginning of the story, with only a passing knowledge of the content it took a while to orient myself in this world. Mr. Lewis mentions so many real-life individuals mixed with his fictional characters it was sometimes hard to differentiate them, a reader without historical knowledge of the period and the several references to the Civil War era that Doremus draws strength and reflection from. The book paints a lucid picture, with most of the good guys in the story unable to believe what has happened and even less able to protect themselves from the madness; a representative example is Dr. Fowler Greenhill, who attempts to rescue his father-in-law Doremus from jail and give the local corpos a piece of his mind as though freedom of speech and due process of law still existed and is summarily shot on one corpo’s whim. (269-72)
            Although I could hardly put this book down I did find it overly detailed, with too many simultaneous plot-lines going on at once and far too many characters. I can imagine that this chaotic style helped to reinforce the chaotic events described; and the extensive character development certainly helps the political discussions in the book seem less like the author arguing with himself. “In a remarkable burst of creative energy in 1935, [Lewis] wrote It Can’t Happen Here in a matter of weeks, and his publisher rushed it into print.” (Tanner 57) As such, it is a remarkable effort and great public service, relevant to all Americans interesting in preserving the rule of law in our nation. Above that it is valuable to a college course on this time period because it does an excellent job of relating what life was like in the 1920’s and 1930’s; mentioning the technological innovations, political atmosphere and above all translating the rise of  home-grown fascism for people who think that revolution and dictatorship can only happen elsewhere.

Trying to make sense of it all

From crooksandliars:

"This was a big loss for the left: How is something that was entirely expected to happen a big loss? Pretty much all the polling said Scott Walker was going to stay in office, he had a massive money advantage, the Democratic candidate was uninspiring and was fought against in the primary by left-wing groups, voters don't like recalls, recalls almost never work and Walker had already beaten this candidate not even two years ago. So how is this a surprise outcome and how is it "big" in any way? If a professional basketball team plays a college team and beats them, how would that be big for the pro team? The upset would've been big, but the status quo, while painful, isn't big. From the beginning, this was a movement that was something that people were hopeful about, but there was never any real evidence that Walker was going to lose. There was lots of evidence that he should lose, but one of the first things you study in public opinion polling classes is how little voters make their choice based on issues. On the issues, Wisconsin voters aren't that much in line with Walker, but since most voters aren't making their decision based on the issues of the day, that doesn't matter much.
The only victory in Wisconsin was a moral victory: When the broad recall campaign started last year, it had two goals: recall Scott Walker and recall enough state senators to flip control of that chamber to the Democrats. One of these worked and the other didn't. And, at least until next year, it seems as if Walker's agenda will be nearly completely stalled. The ultimate goal of both of these recall efforts seems to be to stop Walker from further harming the state. It looks like -- barring a recount -- that such a goal has been achieved, at least, potentially, until the next election. How is that not a victory?
Unions are big losers in Wisconsin: The only way you could make such an argument is if you lay the entire campaign at the feet of the labor movement and/or you convincingly make the case that the voters chose Walker's anti-union agenda on purpose. I don't think either of those arguments is consistent with the facts. Unions were part of a broad coalition that was fighting against Walker for, what, six months? And how much of that time was spent on winning the election, as opposed to the Democratic Primary or the petition gathering process? Unions, as with other groups, fully focused on defeating Walker for about a month. To claim the labor movement is dead because it couldn't pull off the unprecedented feat of taking out a sitting governor who was elected by the people in a month fails even a basic logic test. And, again, decades of political science research shows that less than 20 percent of the electorate makes its candidate choice based on current policies. Exit polls showed that 10 percent of yesterday's voters who rejected Walker's assault on unions voted for him. 38 percent of union members voted for him. 52 percent of voters who think things have gotten worse under Walker voted for him. If voters were voting based on issues, even issues that directly affect them, in any significant numbers, how could these exit poll results exist?
The left lost because it had a bad message: Exit polling makes it very obvious this isn't the case:

First, 60 percent of voters thought that recall elections were only appropriate for official misconduct, while 27 percent said "any reason." Another 10 percent said "never"—and those voted for Walker 94-5. It's hard going into any election with 10 percent immediately off the board, and for those who said "only official misconduct," Walker won 68-31. Turns out people just didn't like the idea of a recall—something worth filing away as an important lesson learned.
Second of all, young people didn't turn out. Only 16 percent of the electorate was 18-29, compared to 22 percent in 2008. That's the difference between 646,212 and 400,599 young voters, or about 246,000. Walker won by 172,739 votes. Turns out having the recall in the summer, when the universities were out, was among the biggest strategic miscalculations.

How can you win an election when 70 percent of the electorate doesn't think the election itself is valid? Now it is probably the case that Walker has engaged in official misconduct, but he hasn't been charged with anything, which is kind of what the word "official" implies. Until he's charged, most Wisconsin voters don't think that any recall is valid. Despite that, the vote against Walker significantly outpaced the belief that the recall election was valid. Similarly, the decline in youth turnout outpaced the Walker margin of victory. What I can't understand is saying something like "this means liberalism lost," when it's clear that people didn't reject liberalism, they rejected the recall election itself. If Walker loses re-election in 2014, that will pretty much cement my take on this and I'll predict that Walker will not be elected governor of Wisconsin in 2014.
Young people don't matter: See above. Young people could've decided the election, but they didn't because they weren't taken enough into account in determining the strategy for the recall. This is a complaint that a number of people on the left have been making for years. And when young people are taken into account, it has a significant impact. One of the reasons Barack Obama won in 2008 was that he expanded the playing field of the electorate, including youth outreach. Why hasn't the left continued this approach much since then? If we don't turn this around -- and not just with youth, but with all groups that underperform in voter turnout -- we'll continue to lose.
The Wisconsin results show that GOTV money is wasted: It's pretty clear that some more GOTV money spent on young people could've changed the outcome of the election. And since Walker won by 172,739, it's certain that some more spending on GOTV, particularly if it were spent earlier, could've had a significant impact on the margin of victory.
Electoral politics are a dead end for the left: The left had some electoral victories in 2006 and 2008, then immediately proceeded to abandon some of the significant changes they had made in order to achieve those victories. It's also quite clear that things like Citizens United changed the rules of the game and not in our favor. Add to that, in the 1960s, conservatives started methodically building a movement that now has them in major positions of power and has them with the infrastructure and financing they need to dominate elections despite being out of touch with the people on most issues. Part of the problem is that the left, while they have recognized the need to build a similar movement, still hasn't built anything like what the right built and it doesn't seem like they are really even trying to. Sure, a lot of good people are doing a lot of good work, but too much of that work is still siloed off and there isn't much of an overall movement being built, certainly nothing like what the right has done. Elections are part of that movement, but too many on left have focused solely on elections -- which gets you some victories -- and haven't focused enough on building the infrastructure that wins you elections even when you don't have good candidates, campaigns or messages. The right has that infrastructure, how else can you reconcile the fact that, from Florida alone, terrible candidates like Allen West, Sandy Adams, Daniel Webster, David Rivera and Steve Southerland are in Congress? It's because you can plug any idiot into the Republican system and they can find a way to win in a competitive district. Democrats only win competitive districts with stellar candidates and/or campaigns. We can talk about that infrastructure at a later date...
Democrats need more moderate or centrist candidates to win: This one is simply a matter of looking at the numbers. How many wishy-washy centrist Democrats win election in competitive districts? How many extreme Republicans win election? How many centrist Republicans win election? It looks to me like of these three groups, extreme Republicans are most likely to win in a competitive district. Why is that? Money is obviously a factor. So is infrastructure and candidate training, recruitment and staffing. But it seems pretty clear that how "extreme" the candidate is doesn't seem to hurt them a whole lot if they make it clear what their values are and stand by their convictions. Voters seem to like that more than candidates who are more moderate. This is an argument that people smarter than me have been making for years. And it seems just as true today as it was when people made it years ago. Every time Democrats lose an election, the establishment left calls for more centrist candidates. Then Democrats lose again. Go back to the polling from 2008 and remember that the electorate overwhelmingly thought that Barack Obama was more liberal than the average American (forget that he never was for the moment), and yet they voted for him anyway. Because of the success of the right-wing message machine, my guess is current polls would also say that Obama is more liberal than the average American (forget again that it still isn't true) and compare that to the swing state polling and it seems likely that he will be elected again, despite being thought of as more extreme than the rest of the population.
Money either "doesn't matter" or "is the only thing that matters": It's obvious that money can matter in elections. 2010 is a prime example of that, particularly if you look at places like Florida where Gov. Rick Scott bought the job using his own personal fortune. It doesn't always matter, it isn't the only factor and it can be overcome, but it's clear that outspending a candidate 7-1 (or more) has to have an effect on the outcome of the election. Walker might've lost if he had less money. But it's also clear that spending more money doesn't always win elections, particularly if the other side has adequate funding and uses it more wisely and runs a better campaign with a better candidate. It's clear none of that happened with Walker's opponent. Victory depends on sufficient money coupled with a good candidate and a good campaign. In Wisconsin, we lost on all three of these, so it's no wonder Walker stayed in office."

When people say the parties are the same...

This is what they mean. From The Nation:

"When out-of-state anti-union parties obliterate the autonomy of a state—strange, considering conservatives believe so deeply in those states’ rights—and the Democratic Party remains largely complicit in the gutting of public sector unions, where are pro-union protesters to go?
Their choices in the election booth are bleak.
Walker’s challenger, Tom Barrett (D), surrendered the narrative early on to Walker when he stated he was not labor’s candidate. Ditto on austerity. Even though Wisconsin’s corporations are taxed at a rate below the national average, Barrett never challenged Walker’s rationale that the state is “out of money.”
As a result, Democratic voters were experiencing some serious ennui about their candidate. 47 percent of Barrett’s backers said their vote was more against Walker than it was for Barrett.
As for voters, the hostility toward unions (52 percent of voters polled said they supported the changes to the collective bargaining law), can easily be explained by the facts that fewer people than ever belong to unions, and Democrats have joined in on the union-bashing, oftentimes embracing the same “special interests” narrative first shaped by the right.
Alienation from the traditional leftist institutions was the cause of the original occupation of Wisconsin’s state capitol, followed by a slew of occupations all across the country and the world. Burnt by the Republicans and abandoned by the Democrats, protesters turned to nontraditional forms of protest, including camping in public spaces and refusing to leave.
Tuesday’s loss is unquestioningly demoralizing, but it is unsurprising. Pro-union supporters were outspent $30 million to $3 million. Wisconsin is under siege by anti-worker forces."

It is not that we are not all abundantly aware that the gop is openly fascist, it is that we have been abandoned by corporate Democrats as well. No one speaks for workers. That is why people become frustrated with both. No matter how many of us sign up as volunteers to "pound the pavement" and make calls, etc. the image of the Democratic Party is... I don't know either. No matter how many of us really believe in the old school image of the party as on the side of the working-class and try to bring it back, there are national forces working against us.

"Yeah, okay, President Obama might secure Wisconsin in November, but what will Obama do for unions and their supporters? If the recent union-gutting history of the Democratic Party is a barometer, pro-worker voters are in for a tough decision.
But if pro-worker protesters in Wisconsin, and all across the country, have proven anything, it’s that they often thrive when pushed into the margins of society. It was only after Wisconsin’s dark hours in which Walker all but eliminated collective bargaining rights for public workers than tens of thousands of protesters launched the original Occupy.
The dedication of these pro-worker protesters is unquestionable. However, what is up for debate is the soundness of traditional institutions, such as the Democratic Party and corporate cash-soaked elections, which are simply not worthy of these individuals."
History alert: This is basically how it has always been. America is a business run society. The blip created by the New Deal coalition was an aberration. "We" the workers of America, have basically always been on our own. We have lost much, and that drives a great deal of the anger out there. That is the great irony of contemporary America, business has inflicted this harm and instability on us, disrupting our lives and making everyone fear the future. The fascist gop, the party of business, has given the public all of this trouble aaannndddd a narrative explaining why it is all government/liberals fault. The Democrats give us... nothing at best. They cannot really fight back out of fear of alienating their delusional financial backers. That is why it appears like they are the same, the majority of voters need a narrative not a list of tiny policy tweaks and technocratic explanations. NONE OF THEM GIVE WORKERS A REASON TO TRUST THEM.

And so it begins

 Found in a West Bend, WI mailbox this morning.

Previously, they were smashing Barrett signs in the middle of the night in drive-bys. Can you envision doing something like this? I cannot, but I am not a Right Wing Authoritarian Follower.

This is straight Mob stuff. Intimidation tactics. And coming in the middle of the night, delivered by night riders, it has no other purpose that to cause fear. "We know where you live and we do not appreciate your opinions, we will go to great lengths to silence you." The political nature is reminiscent of another group of night riders and I will be so impolite as to name them. The ku klux klan.

Still think I'm crazy? Still think we are not headed for civil war? Think this election settled anything? I'll admit, I did not think that threats would materialize if the fascists stole it won.

Despair or Discouragement part two

It was really hard getting out of bed this morning. They say personal tragedies come in threes, knowing [I'm with stupid] is still going to be governor for two more years was just the capper. On the personal level, it has to at least signal that looking for a job with the state is pointless. The other two, well maybe it was just coincidence. Just personal anecdotes, nothing even approaching political analysis. My only thought is Wisconsin is a goner, there is no point wasting time trying to civilize it.

I always suspected that the little town I reside in for the moment was full of vicious, mean-spirited, and xenophobic assholes. Every interaction with the slobs, rednecks, and general white trash that call the former Schlesingerville home has left me despairing for the human condition. Last weekend was pretty much the last straw though. My wife had to work and we had a showing of our house (yes, we are actively trying to leave) so I had to take my daughter out for a while. We had a wonderful time at the park nearby playing with a local girl a little older than my daughter. She was there with her aunt, who I chatted with a little on very pleasant terms. I was just thinking maybe everyone here wasn't so bad when the church nearby started ringing its bells and the aunt said "wow, does that happen all the time?" Found out, she was from Milwaukee so that explains that. Her niece was almost a micro-version of the bossy, self-righteous, and intolerant attitudes regularly encountered here. Apparently, bad attitudes are programmed early.

Finally time to leave and I found that my car's battery had died. Ugh. In a small town a motor vehicle is basically mandatory because there is no public transportation and nothing is within walking distance. There are practically no sidewalks either, so even walking at all is discouraged. There were people nearby watching my travails, just watching. NO ONE OFFERED TO HELP. I had to call my wife at work and ask her to come jumpstart the car. So then not an hour later, after driving on the highway to charge the battery aa little, I stopped at subway to get us a late lunch. Came back out to find the thing had died again. AGAIN, PEOPLE ALL OVER, NOT EVEN A SIDEWAYS GLANCE. The wannabe preppy redneck with the crotch rocket parked next to me even held his hand up to shield his eyes and drive away as quickly as possible without looking at me. Anyway, I finally figured out that the battery cable had come loose and got it back on, with my wife's help and tightened it down. So, small towns are supposed to be helpful, or at least that was what I had always been led to believe. Was it that I am a man and supposed to know these things? Could they just smell the incorrect ideas and opinions I hold? I could just be projecting. But I see the same awful attitude everywhere I go in Southeast Wisconsin, frowning faces that say "I hate my life and I am going to try and make you miserable too."

So these are the people that were drawn to [I'm with stupid] and his promises to hurt teachers and cut those "entitled state workers" off from their undeserved benefits. These are the people who march in lockstep to the beat of "individual responsibility" meaning "fuck you." Yes, I'll be impolite enough to say it.

Then we got the results of our showing. I do not know if it was just lack of tact, sloppiness, or what but the realtor sent us the exit survey results. My wife (with a little help from me) had spent the past two days cleaning, scrubbing, decluttering, and generally making our house look incredible. It merited a "fair" rating from these prospective buyers. Also, we got to see that they would not be coming back and had no intention of making an offer, even if we dropped the price to the level they thought it was worth. Which would be a full 40% below what we paid for it. It was already 35% under our sale price, and far far below what we owe on it. I do not know if this was an intentional "fuck you" on the part of our realtor and the schmucks who brought these rude people through our home, but definitely tactless at least.

So, this is where I live, around some of the most rotten, rude, self-important assholes perhaps to ever walk the Earth. Who knows if they really are a majority, or even a plurality. But you can keep them [I'm with stupid] you and your gloating brownshirts make a wonderful little fascist wonderland.

Money wins

Not only is it ridiculous to call an election with only a quarter of the votes in, there are still lines of people waiting to vote. I am not saying [I'm with stupid] will not succeed in buying his job on the reactionary wrecking crew, but for crying out loud.
And it isn't as though this is the first time the people have been buried under a mountain of corporate money. In 1896 William Jennings Bryan was outspent 5 to 1 by the creature of business William McKinley, crushing the Populist uprising against the robber barons. The Populists were a rural phenomenon, closed minded, racist, and so on but with some element of class-consciousness. They understood that East Coast banks were milking their labor and extracting wealth from the West to aggrandize the urban elite. Not just banks but railroads and all sorts of speculators as well.
While the historian Richard Hofstadter characterized the Populists as frustrated capitalists in The Age of Reform the reality is all too familiar to us today. It is not capitalism, it is the extreme inequality that feeds political corruption and cronyism that the Populists were angry over. And it is the same today.

The difference between then and now, I hate to say, is that the United States was a rising society then. Wealth was actually being created, things were being built. Today, we are in decline, it is now undeniable. When people are so clueless that they would actually vote for a dictator and cheer about it. When the predominating meme is "fuck your neighbor." When wealth is being again extracted from working people, not to build anything, but to buy useless trinkets for traders. Traders; those useless bullies and louts who crashed the economy and then stuck us up for a bailout. And the greatest feat those assholes pulled was to convince lots of uneducated bigots, in Wisconsin and all over the US, that they were on their side!

Go big or go home I guess. When the con men and bullies that are selling us out left and right can pose, successfully in so many eyes, as the champions of the downtrodden even as they inflict more and more pain on those very downtrodden.

Well, I've got nothing. This isn't some dumbass fundamentalist sneaking on to the school board. It is hundreds of thousands of people wildly cheering dictatorship. It is big money from billionaires buying government and masses of people too dumb to figure out that it is bad for them.

Welcome to the permanent state of Mississippi North.

PS. The gloating from the meatheads is already unbearable. If you thought they were arrogant before, God, you've seen nothing yet.

Today: Vote Barrett!

So, horserace it is. After all the hard work by thousands of volunteers gathering signatures for an historic recall of the sitting governor, it all comes down to a conventional election between a fascist prick who has done incredible damage to institutions of civility in this state, and a mild-mannered Democrat promising to end the unprecedented hostility and polarization of Wisconsin.

First of all, bringing this about was not easy. All the yappers who call for making recall harder are really saying they just have a viceral hatred of the people exercising any power against their "rightful" rulers. In essence, anyone who thinks this was easy is saying they hate democracy and think "the people" should sit down and shut up. That goes double for the wailers decrying the "huge taxpayer expense" of this recall. This dishonest logic dismisses the huge gobs of corporate money going to pay for incredibly dishonest tv and other advertising. If there was any truth to the "job creator" myth, this ought to let some of the air out of it for even the most feeble-minded epsilon semi-moronout there. If you just put money into the hands of corporations and the obscenely wealthy, this is what you get.

You also get a coordinated robocall campaign telling people if they signed the recall petition it counted as a vote. You get the only sitting governor with a criminal defense fund, wonder how many jobs this crap is creating? You get mysterious editing to [i'm with stupid]'s wikipedia page to purge any reference to his illegitimate child. You get a relentless, multi-decade propaganda war against taxes, and unions, and regulation of buisness. You get a flood of speculative money that drives up the price of gasoline and other neccessities. And, of course, you get a 10-1 spending advantage for the the posterchild of incompetence and deceit.

Amazingly, this pile of bribe money has not moved the polls much. The lines have been drawn for a long time and interrupting the usual commercials for toothpaste and insurance with political screeds has only succeeded in turning people off from the process. But, that is probably what they were really meant to do in the first place. Although the polls have tightened, they still show a statistical dead heat. Driving decent people out of paying attention really only helps one side, and it is not the Democrats. The Barrett campaign released their internal tracking poll yesterday showing not just statistically, but really a dead heat. I hope it is correct and not just a last-minute GOTV tactic. Supposedly republicans are all fired up to go defend their dear leader at the polls, while Democrats are reluctant and lacking enthusiasm. Huh? Over a million people not too long ago signed petitions to recall [i'm with stupid] and now they are disgruntled? Have the collective "we" seen money triumph so often that we have given up?

There are two factors that have not gotten much attention as far as I have found. Cellphones and the diebold or es&s's influence. I personally do not have a land line for pollsters to call and I do not know anyone under 35 who does. So who the heck are they calling? College students and young people ought to be the most fired up of all demographics, are they even sampled? Sure, obstacles have been thrown up by anti-democratic schmucks and students are often too busy or apathetic to vote, but how will we know if so many are not polled? Second, how rigged are the voting machines this time around? Supposedly the Justice department is here to monitor the integrity of the election and we use optical scan machines with paper ballots so hopefully the creative hackers will not factor much. But how will we know for sure?

If you are reading this post I probably do not need to remind you to vote, but please vote if you are able. It is all we can do at this point and then cross our fingers that the chips fall in the direction of civility and away from the divine right of kings. Officials govern by the consent of the people, on this historic occasion it is time to show scott walker that he has lost our consent.