Wisconsin Blogosphere Lacks Diversity

So this past Saturday there was a "Blog Summit" held at Marquette University's Law School.

By the way, it was also Greek Week at Marquette. There was an air band competition on Saturday at 2:00 pm at the Varsity Theater.

But I digress.

I can't give any personal observations because I didn't attend the summit.

In case you missed it, too:

About 90 people attended the roughly three-and-a-half hour summit, which consisted of a series of five panel discussions with top bloggers and political commentators from around the state. In addition to the panel on diversity, other topics included blogging's impact on the '06 and '08 campaigns, how blogging has affected journalism, the legalities of blogging and the future of blogging in Wisconsin.

Bloggers Jay Bullock and Owen Robinson commented on the future of blogging and led a lengthy discussion with audience members on a variety issues relating to blogging.

Bullock, who authors Folkbum's Rambles and Rants, said he is encouraged by increased cooperation he has seen among blogs in not only coordinating messages, but action as well. Robinson, who blogs at Boots and Sabers, stressed that the blogosphere developed organically and it is impossible to predict where it will go.

Ninety people -- I'd say the summit was well-attended.

In today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, columnist Eugene Kane writes his reflections on the summit.

On Saturday I attended a "Blog Summit" at Marquette University sponsored by WisPolitics.com, a political Web site. For a "mainstream media" journalist who has been writing a blog for more than a year, it wasn't exactly like going into the belly of the beast, but it was close.

"Belly of the beast"?

That's a bit extreme.

Hardcore bloggers are similar to the folks who sit around pretending to be general managers of professional sports teams on draft day; some bloggers think of themselves as citizen journalists and bring an intensity to their chosen diversion that can seem a tad out of proportion to their actual impact on things.

The half-day summit at Marquette University Law School was billed as the second such event, representing the growing impact of blogs written by both professionals and amateurs on current issues in the media, politics and society. Many at the summit - which was attended by approximately 90 people, according to WisPolitics.com - were the faceless and sometimes nameless writers who post blog items with stupefying regularity.

Kane mocks the "hardcore bloggers" and questions their grasp on reality.

That's rather mean-spirited. Maybe he genuinely feels threatened by them. In all likelihood, he wants to get bloggers to write about him.

...I was invited to participate in a panel discussion on the need for more diversity in the blogosphere. Some bloggers were reportedly eager to make my acquaintance, although few took the opportunity.

Many were the same conservative bloggers who regularly take pleasure bashing my column. They also read my blog on JSOnline, which makes me as much a blogger as anyone these days, although some would like to build a bubble of authenticity around the term to restrict its use only for those who pass some sort of "citizen journalist" criteria.

As best I can determine what they mean is, if you don't get paid to blog but do it anyway, you're in.

I spoke on a panel titled "Are All Voices Being Heard in the Internet?" along with writer Dasha Kelly and Milwaukee School Board member Jennifer Morales. Both women blog for OnMilwaukee.com. When moderator Mike Gousha opened our session, he remarked about the lack of diversity in the room. Most were white males.

"I'm glad you brought that up," I joked to Gousha.

It was clear the blogosphere in Milwaukee is similar to most institutions in town: predominantly white and filled with folks who only want to talk about race relations if they can blame all of the problems in the black community on Ald. Mike McGee.

If Kane really thinks that attendees of this blog event present an actual sampling of the diversity of Wisconsin's virtual community, and particularly the Milwaukee area, then I think he's making a mistake.

Anyone can write a blog. There are no color barriers that are imposed by society.

His statement that "the blogosphere in Milwaukee is similar to most institutions in town: predominantly white," is classic Kane.

Note to Kane: The participants in the blogger summit don't necessarily reflect the diversity of the metro blogosphere.

Moreover, I think it's inaccurate, although amusing, to consider something as undefined as the blogosphere to be an "institution."

I guess he just wanted to lash out at "whiteness" in his column. He's made a career of it.

...I noticed some of the bloggers in the room have an aggressive and even combative style on the Internet, but when you meet them they come across as perfectly civil people. The folks who found time to speak to me assured me they liked my column and blog even if they didn't always agree with it. They forgot to mention how they'd give up a lung to have my job.

I think bloggers will continue to increase their relevance and impact as long as they don't start taking themselves too seriously. It's good to have folks out there keeping the mainstream media on its toes, but it's important to remember just like the NFL draft, the real game is played on the field.

It's not in your basement.

Yes, Kane seems genuinely ticked off by the bloggers, people without a degree in journalism. Naturally, he's ticked off by "whiteness."

Although he does acknowledge the relevance of bloggers, he feels the need to put them in their place and label them as delusional wannabes, confined to their basements, and jealous of his authority. That's kind of weird.

You don't need a degree in journalism to express your opinion, and you certainly don't need to be employed by a media outlet to exercise your freedom of speech.

Michael McGee's "Psycho-Political Message"

Last week, Milwaukee alderman Michael McGee, Jr. said on local radio that people should throw bricks at speeding cars as a strategy to get the to slow down.

I really want to organize some of these young guys in the community. When they see people speeding recklessly and swerving down the hood man, just start brickin’ em, for real… And start bricking these cars, man, gorilla style… And they are going to learn that you can’t drive down certain blocks and feel that they can be reckless.

When the local media picked up on McGee's comments via Badger Blogger, he tried to weasel out of his proposed solution to the problem of speeders.

McGee issued a statement.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides the statement in full:

"Earlier this week on the "Word Warrior Report," a radio program on 860 WNOV-AM, comments I made were misconstrued and then posted on a misinformed, fledgling blog site. The site indicated that I was trying to incite violence.

"While on the radio, I spoke about a "Rock The Car Campaign" which would send a statement to speeders and reckless individuals that they would be held accountable for their negligent behavior. In light of the many hit-and-run homicides and accidents that have occurred in our city, I believe something drastic must happen. I don't truly believe that throwing rocks at speeding cars will solve the problem, but I wanted to send a pyscho-political message to the reckless individuals who violate the lives of innocent citizens.

"The Rapid Response Team and I will be enforcing the Street Code of Conduct, which advocates for healthy behavior in the community, and we will bring our message to neighborhoods such as 10th and Ring and 12th and Chambers beginning Saturday, May 5, 2007. It is our intention to bring together the leadership in each neighborhood, and to work to transform the nuisance behaviors that plague us daily. One way to accomplish this goal will be to provide summer job opportunities for youth and concerned residents to help clean our streets and alleys. We also will be performing street patrols in conjunction with law enforcement authorities, and more strategies will be released as we reach the summer months.

"Again my comments are to be taken to hold reckless individuals more accountable, and to create urgent dialogue in regard to the rising violence that's taking place in many of our neighborhoods."

Does Milwaukee really need a leader that wants to "send a psycho-political message" like throwin bricks at cars?

Of coure not.

Why can't McGee just apologize for his horribly irresponsible comments rather than playing the "psycho-political" card?

McGee says:

It is our intention to bring together the leadership in each neighborhood, and to work to transform the nuisance behaviors that plague us daily.

I don't think that suggesting people throw bricks at speeders is a sincere effort to work to transform the nuisance behaviors.

It IS a nuisance behavior.

Russ Feingold Confuses Me

I don't understand Russ Feingold.

Yesterday, he appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

With Congress expecting President Bush's veto of the Iraq funding bill, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., presented two different scenarios today for where to go from here.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," Brownback advocated a political "three state, one country federated solution in Iraq."

...Brownback warned that legislating a deadline for troop withdrawal is tantamount to legislating defeat. "A deadline -- I think the day we pass it -- al Qaeda declares victory over us and much of the world will agree," Brownback said.

I can't imagine the three state solution having any success. It would never get off the ground.

How could the factions ever reach an agreement on how to draw up the borders for the three states?

Dividing up the country won't solve the problems.

I do agree with Brownback about the deadline for troop withdrawal. It would be a disaster.

Russ Feingold disagrees.

Feingold responded that he was dismayed by what he called the Bush administration's "disregard and disrespect for the will of the American people."

"American troops are dying for no good reason at this point. They are in a situation where they are being sacrificed because people want political comfort in Washington," Feingold said.

Feingold couldn't have put it more plainly.

He believes that Americans troops in Iraq are dying in vain. Their sacrifice is meaningless.

I wonder if Feingold would say that to the loved ones of the fallen.

"You have my deepest sympathy on the death of your son. Your loss must be even more painful knowing that your son gave his life for no good reason."

It is what he thinks. He shouldn't be afraid to say it to a grieving parent or spouse.

When asked if he would try to defeat any funding bill that did not include a timeline for the withdrawal of American forces, Feingold said, "Unless there is some other binding proposal, not just benchmarks, or something else that begins to end this war and shows a real plan for ending the war, absolutely."

Feingold is insisting that he'll stand firm on a timeline for troop withdrawal. No compromises on that. It's his way or the highway.

Feingold stopped short of agreeing with the recent comment from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the war in Iraq was "lost," but suggested that the country's current prospects looked dim. Feingold said, "This war was won militarily years ago, but if we're talking about this occupation succeeding, if this situation is getting better, if our troops are there for a good reason, at this point, the answer is no."

WHAT?

Did I hear that correctly?

Feingold said, "This war was won militarily years ago."

I guess he would agree with the message of President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, delivered on May 1, 2003, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

It certainly sounds like Feingold would agree.

The military mission WAS accomplished in Iraq. Feingold says we won the war years ago. He wouldn't agree with Harry "The war is lost" Reid.

According to Feingold, we won militarily, now it's time to go home.

Securing and reconstructing the fledging democracy has been difficult, just as Bush said it would be when he spoke on May 1, 2003.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq.

It really bugs me that the Dems are planning to mark the fourth anniversary of the "Mission Accomplished" speech by sending a war funding bill to President Bush that he's certain to veto.

And if Feingold thinks that Iraq's current prospects look dim, then why does he want to abandon the country? Does that brighten Iraq's prospects?

Isn't this the time when Iraq needs support?

Boris and Bill

In today's New York Times, Bill Clinton writes a love letter to his friend Boris Yeltsin.

Bill writes:

Boris Yeltsin was intelligent, passionate, emotional, strong-willed and courageous. He wasn’t perfect, and he had to contend with staggering political and economic challenges as he led Russia away from centuries of authoritarian rule. But lead he did. At the end of the cold war, Russia and the world were lucky to have him.

History will be kind to my friend Boris.

Yeltsin died on April 23.

I wonder why it took Bill so long to formally euologize his good buddy.

It could be that he wanted his op-ed piece to be in the Sunday New York Times. Any other day of the week wouldn't be worthy of the former president.

Another possibility is that Hillary made him do it, to make Americans feel all warm and fuzzy about those wonderful Clinton years.


The Way We Were

I think it's possible that Bill wrote the column as a rewrite of history. He wants us to think of Yeltsin's time in office as an especially rosy time.

Yes, so much good can be associated with the Clinton era, including his friendship with Yeltsin.

Therefore, vote for Hillary.

Too much of a leap?

You were expecting a lib like Bill to be logical?

Bill says, "But at the end of the day, he almost always did the right thing."

Hmmm. Not everyone agrees with Bill.

His assessment of Yeltsin's role in history is interesting. It's much kinder than what The Washington Post offered on April 24, a day after Yeltsin's death.

From The Post:

Mr. Yeltsin ended up destroying much of what he had achieved. In 1993 he ordered the army to attack the same parliament building he had defended; though the political reactionaries inside were the first to take up arms, Mr. Yeltsin's response was brutal. Even more so was his invasion the next year of Chechnya, which, while failing to crush an independence movement, destroyed the republic, killed tens of thousands and set the stage for an even bloodier war by Mr. Putin. In 1996, Mr. Yeltsin won a second free election for president, but only after striking a corrupt deal with a group of businessmen who financed his campaign in exchange for being allowed to take control of some of Russia's biggest companies. Often ill or seemingly drunk, he allowed corruption and disorder to flourish in and outside of government and embarrassed Russians with his pratfalls.

Mr. Yeltsin's final sin was to hand the presidency in December 1999 to Mr. Putin, a product of the same KGB that had attempted the coup of 1991.

Bill didn't mention any of that.

I guess he's just a "glass is half full rather than half empty" kind of guy.

His column about Yeltsin is typical Clinton spin, a reinvention of the truth.

I certainly wouldn't expect Bill, friend of Boris, to speak ill of him and highlight his mistakes and his flaws so soon after his death. Perhaps it would have been best for Bill to just keep quiet instead of giving a false impression.

It's almost as if Bill's was writing about Yeltsin the way he hopes others will write about him someday.

"History will be kind to my friend Boris."

I bet Bill fantasizes that history will be kind to him. I'm sure he fantasizes about lots of things.

Libs Still Slamming Rudy Giuliani for Terror Remarks

The nicest thing I can say about Keith Olbermann is that he's a partisan hack.

It's obvious that the guy is not too bright. That's OK. Not everyone is intellectually gifted.

The thing is Olbermann's miniscule audience of libs believes what he says. They buy into his trash.

Those in his audience not in agreement with the Olbermann perspective watch his MSNBC show because they are masochists. There's no other reasonable explanation.

On Wednesday, Olbermann commented on Rudy Giuliani's remarks at a Lincoln day dinner in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

He and other libs got bent out of shape because Giuliani told the truth.

Why? The truth is their enemy.

Here is what Giuliani said:

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

So? What's the problem?

I agree with him.

The libs are aghast.

How could Giuliani tell (GASP!) the TRUTH?

Keith Olbermann became particulary testy in his rant responding to Giuliani's remarks.

Olbermann charged:

Since some indeterminable hour between the final dousing of the pyre at The World Trade Center, and the breaking of what Sen. Barack Obama has aptly termed “9/11 fever,” it has been profoundly and disturbingly evident that we are at the center of one of history’s great ironies.

Only in this America of the early 21st century could it be true that the man who was president during the worst attack on our nation and the man who was the mayor of the city in which that attack principally unfolded would not only be absolved of any and all blame for the unreadiness of their own governments, but, moreover, would thereafter be branded heroes of those attacks.

And now, that mayor — whose most profound municipal act in the wake of that nightmare was to suggest the postponement of the election to select his own successor — has gone even a step beyond these M.C. Escher constructions of history.

Those are the words of a real slimeball, a lib running scared at Giuliani's popularity with the American people.

Olbermann continues:

...And if you somehow missed what he was really saying, somehow didn’t hear the none-too-subtle subtext of “vote Democratic and die,” Mr. Giuliani then stripped away any barrier of courtesy, telling Roger Simon of politico.com:

“America will be safer with a Republican president.”

At least that Republican president under which we have not been safer has, even at his worst, maintained some microscopic distance between himself and a campaign platform that blithely threatened the American people with “casualties” if they, next year, elect a Democratic president — or, inferring from Mr. Giuliani’s flights of grandeur in New Hampshire — even if they elect a different Republican.

How ... dare ... you, sir?

“How many casualties will we have?” — this is the language of Osama bin Laden.

Yours, Mr. Giuliani, is the same chilling nonchalance of the madman, of the proselytizer who has moved even from some crude framework of politics and society, into a virtual Roman Colosseum of carnage, and a conceit over your own ability — and worthiness — to decide who lives and who dies.

Rather than a reasoned discussion — rather than a political campaign advocating your own causes and extolling your own qualifications — you have bypassed all the intermediate steps and moved directly to trying to terrorize the electorate into viewing a vote for a Democrat, not as a reasonable alternative and an inalienable right ... but as an act of suicide.

Olbermann is horrified that Giuliani would dare to spell out what the future might hold if a Democrat took control of the country.

Olbermann is so desperate for attention and ratings that he compares Giuliani to Osama bin Laden.

That's more than a bit over the top.

It's a pathetic cry for attention.

Did Olbermann or Dems get upset with the "Vote or Die" movement of 2004?

P. Diddy and the best dressed clueless libs donned their "Vote or Die" shirts, never hesitating to say that a vote for George W. Bush and other Republicans would get you killed.

P. Diddy was even honored as BET's person of the year in 2004.

Only a few months after running New York City's marathon and raising several millions for the Big Apple's school system, Diddy didn't rest on his laurels, instead he starred in Lorraine Hansbury`s Raisin In The Sun on Broadway. With Combs in the lead role, the play was nominated for a Tony Award and became one of Broadway's highest grossing productions ever. Later on, Diddy launched Citizen Change -a non partisan organization that aimed to mobilize young voters and lure them to the polls in 2004`s presidential elections. Helped by his ``Vote Or Die`` campaign, 21 million young voters turned out to vote in 2004, 4.5 million more than the previous election. In between acting and leading his campaign, Diddy found time to open his Sean John store in midtown Manhattan and his "Making The Band 2" series once again generated high ratings for MTV.

First, it's ridiculous to suggest that P. Diddy's group Citizen Change is a "non partisan organization."

Second, the catch phrase for his efforts was "Vote or Die."

VOTE OR DIE!

OK, Olbermann and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, etc. -- at least be consistent.

Slam P. Diddy.

It's not right to single out Giuliani for scorn, especially when he is accurately assessing the situation.

Olbermann goes on:

...Which party rode roughshod over Americans’ rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?

Drop this argument, sir.

You will lose it.

What's scary is that some people value the opinion of Olbermann, of the outermost fringe of fringe Leftists.

RELEASING THE HANDCUFFS

The Milwaukee School Board is having second thoughts about using flexible handcuffs to restrain out of control, violent students.

The Board is wimping out.

The message:

We don't want to offend anyone.

Violent students make the schools a dangerous place, but we don't want to hurt their self-images by restraining them while in the midst of violent outbursts.

We would rather put others -- students, faculty, and staff -- at risk than effectively manage the troublemakers.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The yellow light that the Milwaukee School Board gave last week to allowing safety workers in schools to use plastic handcuffs on students who need to be restrained may turn red next week.

Continued strong opposition to the idea, particularly in the African-American community, and major changes this week in the makeup of the board have dimmed prospects for the proposal taking effect.

Peter Blewett, a leading critic of the idea, was elected president of the board Wednesday night and, within 24 hours, called a special meeting to take up the subject at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Milwaukee Public Schools central office, 5225 W. Vliet St.

"Personally, I would like the handcuffs to be taken off the table," Blewett said Thursday. He said he would like a broad-based group to come up with recommendations on what should be done to improve safety in schools.

Better safety strategies are needed, he said, but given the impassioned opposition to the handcuff proposal, "It's hard to make progress on the issue if the idea of handcuffs is still on the table, even if there's a delay about implementing it."

Later Thursday, Superintendent William Andrekopoulos said he was withdrawing the idea to give MPS safety aides training on how to use the flexible handcuffs before full board approval is given. That was a step approved by the board last week.

Andrekopoulos said nothing would be done to pursue the idea in the near future. He said he wanted a broad community discussion of what steps should be taken to improve school safety. His goal, he said, was to use that as a way to develop plans to be put before the board in the fall.

"We pulled our training," Andrekopoulos said. "We are not going to do any training. . . . Our only action right now is more communication around the broader themes."

"I want to hear from the community - what do they want us to do?" he said.

Way to lead, Andrekopoulos!

I wonder if he'd like to comment on the incident at Vincent High School on Thursday.

An assistant principal at Milwaukee's Vincent High School received a cut to his arm when he attempted to intervene in a fight involving a 16-year-old girl who then threw a vase at him and shattered a mirror inside the school office, Milwaukee police said today.

The school administrator, 45, was treated for his injury, said department spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz, and the 16-year-old girl has been referred to Milwaukee County juvenile authorities for possible charges of felony battery to a teacher and criminal damage to property.

Schwartz said the fight started about 1:50 p.m. Thursday when the 16-year-old threw a 14-year-old girl into a garbage can inside a classroom at the school, 7501 W. Granville Road.

The students were taken to the principal's office, where the 16-year-old reportedly continued to fight the younger girl.

After throwing the vase and shattering the mirror, the older teen was taken to the ground and held until police arrived, Schwartz said.

The 14-year-old complained of pain to her stomach and a sore hand. The 16-year-old had cuts to a finger.

Do you find the description of this fight troubling?

I think it's a horrible scene.

Will this elicit the same outrage that the handcuff proposal has whipped up?

It should, but it won't.

And what's the best that Andrekopoulos can do?

He backs down and throws the problem of violence in schools out to the community to solve.

Imagine a doctor telling a patient what treatment is most effective to treat an illness. The patient doesn't like the sound of the treatment. Then, the doctor responds by asking the patient what he would consider a proper approach to treat the problem.

That's nuts.

The handcuff proposal is one of several steps MPS administrators have taken to improve safety this year, including the assignment of full-time police at two high schools, stricter enforcement of a cell phone ban, additions of safety aides and more spending on services for students with mental health emergencies.

But the handcuffs have prompted the largest furor. The power of the image of kids in handcuffs, coupled with specific concerns about the idea and criticism of the short window for public reaction, have turned the idea into a hot-button matter that has brought politicians, organizations such as the NAACP's Milwaukee chapter and radio talk-show callers into action.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the image of two girls fighting in a principal's office, throwing a vase, smashing a mirror, and injuring an assistant principal pretty powerful.

Personally, I think it's a far more powerful image than a student in FlexiCuffs.

Why aren't incidents of violence like the one at Vincent High School "hot-button matters" for politicians and the NAACP's Milwaukee chapter?

Why is so little expected from these MPS students?

Looking for racism?

Look to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Alderman Michael McGee's Brickin' Solution

"[J]ust start brickin’ em, for real"

I was disgusted when it happened on April 3, and I'm just as disgusted now.

When Michael McGee, Jr. won by a landslide in a recall election, it became clear to me just how shockingly dsyfunctional the city of Milwaukee's 6th District is.

The man routinely makes bigoted statements and encourages thuggish behavior, yet his supporters stand by him.

The latest disgrace:

On WNOV-AM, Michael McGee, Jr. discussed his solution to thwart speeders.

Are you thinking he suggested speed bumps? If you are, you don't know McGee. That solution would be rational and LEGAL.

No, no, no.

McGee has a better idea to slow down the dangerous drivers -- THROW BRICKS AT THE SPEEDING CARS!

Badger Blogger has the audio.

Patrick transcribes the crux of McGee's plan:

I really want to organize some of these young guys in the community. When they see people speeding recklessly and swerving down the hood man, just start brickin’ em, for real… And start bricking these cars, man, gorilla style… And they are going to learn that you can’t drive down certain blocks and feel that they can be reckless.

Good grief.

This lunatic survived a recall election!!!

Of course, speeding is a serious problem that can have deadly consequences. The tragic death of 12-year-old Melissa Bavier last week should make that painfully clear.

But an appropriate response to that is not to promise to organize a brick-throwing thug brigade.

Community leader McGee is inciting violence. The message he sends to his followers is to be thugs and be proud of it.

I wonder. Are McGee's statements shocking to people?

Have Milwaukee residents become so desensitized to McGee's antics that they don't care what he says anymore?

Forget about McGee's constituents, the ones responsible for keeping him in office.

What about other Milwaukee residents? They should be contacting their aldermen and demanding that McGee be censured. The decent aldermen need to formally condemn McGee and make it clear that Milwaukee's government doesn't condone the sort of behavior that McGee promotes.

Don't aldermen take some sort of oath to uphold the laws of the city when they assume office?

It's completely unacceptable for McGee, a MILWAUKEE ALDERMAN, to use the airwaves to tell people to brick speeders.

What's next?

Will he tell MPS students to start brickin' faculty and staff if they dare to get in their faces?

Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate

Democratic presidential hopefuls (L-R) former US Senator Mike Gravel, US Senator Barack Obama, US Senator Christopher Dodd, former US Senator John Edwards, US Representative Dennis Kucinich, US Senator Joe Biden, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton arrive at South Carolina University in Orangeburg, South Carolina for a debate. This is the Democrats first debate for the 2008 presidential election scheduled for 04 November 2008.(AFP/Stan Honda)

On Thursday night, Democrat presidential wannabes participated in the first official debate of Election 2008.

It wasn't really a debate. It was more like an interview with podiums.

ORANGEBURG, S.C. -- Democratic presidential hopefuls flashed their anti-war credentials Thursday night, heaping criticism on President Bush's Iraq policy in the first debate of the 2008 campaign.

"The first day I would get us out of Iraq by diplomacy," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, one of eight rivals on the debate stage.

"The first day"?

Is Richardson kidding?

Would January 20, 2009 count as his "first day" as president if elected?

Does he mean January 21, which would be his first full day?

In any event, Richardson is making a campaign promise that he can't keep.

That statement sounds like something a 5th grader would write -- "What I would do if I were president."

Richardson was far from the only candidate to make stupid comments.

"If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will," pledged Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

The question is when. When would Hillary get us out of Iraq? After we win or in time to lose? In her second term?

She's not very specific. It's sort of like when Bill Clinton said that he wasn't alone with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary parses her words, too.

Does the country really want the old Clinton song and dance routine?

I know I don't.

But Clinton found herself on the receiving end of criticism moments later when former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said she or anyone else who voted to authorize the war should "search their conscience."

Edwards, in the Senate at the time, also cast his vote for the invasion, but he has since apologized for it.

I don't get why Edwards and his supporters make such a big deal about his apology for voting for the war.

What's his apology for? Is he apologizing for poor judgment? Is he apologizing for being unable to assess an important issue? Is he really saying that he's sorry he's unfit to make wise decisions?

Of the eight foes participating in the debate at South Carolina State University, four voted earlier in the day to support legislation that cleared Congress and requires the beginning of a troop withdrawal by Oct. 1. The legislation sets a goal of a complete withdrawal by April 1, 2008.

"We are one signature away from ending this war," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. He said if Bush won't change his mind about vetoing the bill, Democrats need to work on rounding up enough Republican votes to override him.

In addition to Obama and Clinton, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut also cast votes in favor of the legislation.

Every Dem senator voted for surrender.

Every Dem senator voted to help our enemies by pinpointing an official date to mark U.S. defeat in Iraq.

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio also participated in the debate, lesser-funded contenders who seemed most eager to challenge their rivals.

Of course, they're more eager to challenge their rivals.

What do they have to lose? NOTHING.

This is funny:

While Iraq dominated the debate's early moments, Edwards was asked about having paid for a $400 haircut from campaign donations rather than from his own wallet.

"That was a mistake, which we remedied," he said. A wealthy former trial lawyer, he recalled once having gone to dinner at a restaurant as a young child and having to leave because his father could not afford the prices.

"I've not forgotten where I came from," he said.

Edwards deflects from putting $400 dollars of campaign donations into his hair by telling a lame story about having to leave a restaurant because daddy couldn't afford it.

Edwards may not have forgotten where he came from, but he sure has left it behind him and embraced a different, incredibly indulgent lifestyle.

He had to direct attention away from his hair. Anyone looking at him has to conclude that Edwards was ripped off for paying $400 for a haircut like that.

Asked about a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, several of the contenders replied they would not impose a litmus test on their own nominees to the high court.

At the same time, they stressed their support for abortion rights, and said their appointees to the bench would reflect that.

I don't know if this is poor reporting or if the candidates dodged the question.

They were asked about the Supreme Court's partial birth abortion ruling.

If this AP account is accurate, none of them directly addressed the issue.

Asked about a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, several of the contenders replied they would not impose a litmus test on their own nominees to the high court.

At the same time, they stressed their support for abortion rights, and said their appointees to the bench would reflect that.

And look at the way Obama spoke about Iran:

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran," Obama replied. "But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region."

I know the candidates were bound by strict time limits in this debate, but I get the feeling that even if he had more time to explain his position on Iran, he wouldn't need it. Does he have a plan for Iran?

Obama is so short on substance.

Not surprisingly, Bush's Iraq war policy found no supporters on the debate stage.

"I am proud that I opposed this war from the start," said Obama — a jab at those on the stage who voted to authorize the invasion.

"The president has a fundamentally flawed policy," said Biden. "The president should start off by not vetoing the legislation he says he will veto."

Dodd said Bush was pursuing a "failed policy."

Of course, there were no supporters of the President's Iraq policy.

The President is against surrendering Iraq to al Qaeda and other thugs.

All the Senate Dems on stage voted for America's defeat in Iraq. I wonder if John Edwards and Bill Richardson were jealous that they didn't get the chance to cast a vote to ensure victory for our enemies.

Overall, the debate was boring and predictable.

It was like a practice session, a warmup. The candidates weren't fighting to win. They may have thrown a few jabs here and there, but they weren't trying to land a knockout punch.

The debate was a waste of time and a waste of the jet fuel that it took to fly the candidates to South Carolina.

Loaded Gun and Drugs at Bradley Tech

Another day, another gun found in a Milwaukee Public School locker.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

A 15-year-old boy remains in custody today after school officials at Bradley Tech High School followed up on a tip that allegedly led them to a loaded handgun and marijuana in his locker.

Police were called to the school, 700 S. 4th St., about 2:30 p.m. Tuesday.

Officers arrested the student on charges of possession with intent to deliver and possession of a dangerous weapon by a child, according to Milwaukee police spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz.

Schwartz said there are officers assigned to the school, however, they were at a district station processing another arrest from the school that occurred earlier in the day.

She did not have information immediately available on the nature of the other arrest.

This time the gun was loaded.

About a month ago, an MPS student was arrested after a gun was found in his locker at Pulaski High School.

That one wasn't loaded, and the story didn't get much attention.

Is this latest instance of a student with a gun at a Milwaukee Public School going to be more of a wake up call to the community?

I doubt it.

This is a killer:

Schwartz said there are officers assigned to the school, however, they were at a district station processing another arrest from the school that occurred earlier in the day.

THERE AREN'T ENOUGH COPS AT THE SCHOOL TO HANDLE THE CRIME.

THE OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO THE SCHOOL WERE ARRESTING SOME OTHER KID.

Unbelievable.

What really bugs me is that Bradley Tech is a state-of-the-art facility and better equipped than many suburban and private schools.

The educational opportunities are there for the taking.

The kids do have a chance.

This 15-year-old with the LOADED gun and drugs is being offered a promising future and he's throwing it away.

What a waste!

Why should tax payers be expected to funnel even more dollars into the schools?

The reality is too many MPS students have NO interest in getting an education.

Very depressing.

Note to Mayor Tom Barrett: Tougher gun laws won't alter that reality.

Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith Vote to Surrender

We know the Democrats are the party of defeat.

We know that they're about surrender.

As Rudy Giuliani has said, the Dems want us to be on defense in the War on Terror.

So do two Republicans.

Two have joined the ranks of those voting for victory for our enemies -- Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith.

WASHINGTON -- A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

...Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska sided with 48 Democrats and Independent Bernard Sanders in supporting the bill. No Democrats joined the 45 Republicans in voting against it. Missing from the vote were GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both staunch advocates of the president's Iraq policy.

"Largely along party lines"?

The Dems voted entirely along party lines.

They march in lockstep for America's defeat, with Hagel and Smith tagging along.

...Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

That's great. Perfect timing.

Bush should put on his flight suit, whip out his veto pen, and send that disgraceful bill for defeat back with a note to the white flag Dems and RINOs: Mission Accomplished.

ONE CHOICE IN IRAQ

(Sparks from the Anvil)

The Senate Democrats are voting to secure victory for our enemies.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate is expected to pass a bill today that would order the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin this fall. Last night, the House voted 218-208 to pass the $124.2 billion supplemental spending measure containing the provision.

President Bush is expected to receive the bill next week, and swiftly veto it.

The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to execute since they took control of both houses of Congress in January.

"The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than the blank checks the president is asking for, for a war without end," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said.

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk on Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

...The huge bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain.

So the Dems in the Senate. along with some wobbly Republicans, are poised to pass a bill that hands our enemies in Iraq and the region and around the world a timeline for our surrender.

They've declared that the war is lost.

America has been defeated.

Given that al Qaeda is active in Iraq and killing Americans, the Dems are handing the extremists responsible for slaughtering nearly 3000 people on U.S. soil a victory.

It's disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.

Independent Joe Lieberman, the man the Democrats threw under the bus, writes just how misguided the Dems are.

He spells out the consequences of their despicable actions in his column, "One Choice in Iraq."

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

...Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Yes, as Lieberman points out, Harry "the war is lost" Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Russ Feingold and all the defeatist Dems are doing exactly what al Qaeda wants.

However, Lieberman cuts those Dems some slack, in effect excusing them for their actions by claiming that he knows they don't intend to aid al Qaeda.

I won't do that. I won't excuse them. I think their intentions about doing al Qaeda's work is irrelevant.

What matters is that they are doing it and for the worst reasons -- personal political gain.

True, there is only one RIGHT choice in Iraq.

Clearly, the defeatist Dems are making the wrong choice, pursuing a path that is certain to provide a strengthened foundation for al Qaeda and its Islamic extremist allies to destroy Israel and threaten America and the Free World.

The Dems are voting for defeat, humanitarian disaster and death.

Hamilton: The Latest Milwaukee High School Brawls

The cell phone ban in the Milwaukee Public Schools may have helped cut back on violence, but it hasn't eliminated the problem altogether.

Let me rephrase that. It hasn't eliminated the problem of violence anywhere near enough.

It seems that students aren't following the rules on cell phones. (There's a shock.)

So the mayhem continues.

Incidents yesterday at a Milwaukee Public School recall a brawl in January at Bradley Tech High School. Thug students were fighting and called thug adults to join them.

MPS policy does not allow cell phones in school settings, but they're everywhere and often backed by parents so the rule is hard to enforce.

"We're overwhelmed by this. We're going to try at Bradley Tech. We sent letters home to the parents," Pochowski told 12 News' Portia Young.

The letters went out last week after a fight at Bradley Tech turned into a brawl because, according to MPS, some girls who were fighting used their phones to call for backup.

Pachowski said cell phone calls invited three carloads of outsiders to the fight.

"For those responsible persons, cell phones are not a problem. It's those irresponsible people, those students who call their family members who then call other family members, and have the audacity to come into a school," Pochowski said.

When the fists stopped flying, six teens and five adults were cited. Now MPS is cracking down on all cell phones, but so far only at Bradley Tech.

It's amazing that fighting thug kids actually call members of their thug families to school to assist, and they show up!

Odds are those same family members don't come to school when there are parent-teacher conferences or other school-related events.

Yesterday, Hamilton High School was the scene of several violent disturbances.

One fight involved a carload of thug adults being called in to serve as reinforcements. Another matter involved a thug parent in search of a particular student, intending to "settle the score."

Hamilton High School in Milwaukee was placed on lockdown Wednesday afternoon following a series of fights involving students and adults.

No one was injured in the disturbances, which began around 1 p.m. when an irate parent showed up at the school demanding to see a specific student to "settle the score," said Roseann St. Aubin, Milwaukee Public Schools' spokeswoman.

Police responded to deal with the parent and about the time they arrived, two male students began fighting in an unrelated matter.

About a dozen students joined in the fight, which school safety aides and police were able to break up, St. Aubin said. At that point the school went on lockdown, keeping students in classrooms.

At the same time, a carload of adults arrived at Hamilton and started fighting with students involved in the earlier fight. They may have been summoned by a student's cell phone, St. Aubin said.

Police were still tallying arrest totals but said between six and eight students and two or three adults were in custody.

What utter chaos!

It's extremely troubling that adults are contributing to the problems by participating in the violence, making matters worse.

This practice of high school students calling in adults to join in fights is just so weird. It speaks to how incredibly dysfunctional Milwaukee is.

Is it any wonder that the Milwaukee Public Schools are so out of control? Clearly, the problems run deep, with roots in the community at large.

When it comes to problems with kids at school or outside of school, I often find myself asking, "Where are the parents?"

We know where they are, at least some of them. They're active participants in Milwaukee's thug culture.

What a complete mess!

Now where are those flexible handcuffs?

Guilty Brendan Dassey

On October 31, 2005, Teresa Halbach was raped, murdered, and her body mutilated.

In March 2007, Steven Avery was found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide in the murder of Halbach, as well as being a felon in possession of a gun.

Late Wednesday night, Avery's nephew 17-year-old Brendan Dassey was found guilty of taking part in Halbach's rape and murder.

Manitowoc -- Eighteen months after Teresa Halbach's family last saw her, a jury confirmed late Wednesday night that learning-disabled teenager Brendan Dassey had helped his uncle Steven Avery brutally murder - then burn - the photographer in a Manitowoc County junkyard.

"We got the verdicts we wanted," said her brother Michael Halbach, who for nearly six weeks of trials in two courthouses had acted as the family's spokesman.

Halbach family members in the courtroom gallery clutched hands when Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Jerome Fox read the verdict: Dassey, 17, was guilty of first-degree intentional homicide, second-degree sexual assault and mutilating a corpse - crimes that could send him to prison for life.

The teenager, who had shuffled through the courthouse hallway without glancing at a bank of brightly-lighted television cameras, did not flinch when the verdict was read and walked out of the courtroom without looking back at his family members in the gallery. Outside the courthouse, his mother, Barb Tadych, said the case had been "set up."

...The closing arguments by each side focused on how much credence jurors should give the detailed confession that Dassey gave four months after the crime and recanted during the trial.

Assistant Attorney General Tom Fallon, one of three prosecutors in the case, focused on the horrific details, and how well Dassey's account fit with the grisly tale told by charred bone fragments, blood stains and DNA evidence. Fallon insisted jurors could not want for stronger proof of Dassey's guilt.

"People who are innocent don't confess in the detail provided, to the extent this defendant provided," Fallon told jurors.

Dassey had told the investigators that, after getting off his school bus Oct. 31, 2005, he took mail to Avery's trailer. There, Avery invited Dassey to have sex with Halbach, who was handcuffed, shackled and screaming. Dassey went home briefly, then returned, stripped, raped Halbach, then, after a discussion with Avery, helped bind and stab her before the pair took her to a garage where Avery shot her. After that, according to the confession, the pair burned her body in a pit.

...[Teresa's brother] Michael Halbach said the most painful part of the trials was seeing Dassey's confession video.

..."Teresa can now enjoy her normal life in heaven," her brother said, "without having to worry about us. The hard part is over."

My heart goes out to the Halbach family.

It must have been torture to hear the details of how their beloved Teresa suffered before she was murdered.

I hope they can find some solace in the verdicts, in knowing that justice was done.

Here's more:

MANITOWOC, Wis. -- Unlike his uncle, who never took the witness stand at either trial, Dassey testified in his own defense, saying he had lied when he told of going to Avery's home, seeing Halbach shackled nude in a bed, raping her and helping Avery kill her and burn the body.

He said he made up the story but may have taken some details from a book he read.

"I don't know," he answered repeatedly when asked why he would say such things.

The prosecution argued that evidence such as leg irons and handcuffs in Avery's bedroom and two bullets — one with Halbach's DNA on it — matched what the teen had told investigators.

Avery's trial drew widespread attention because he had served 18 years in prison for a 1985 rape before DNA evidence showed he didn't commit that crime. Released in 2003, he claimed he was framed for the Halbach murder by the same sheriff's department he was suing for the wrongful conviction.

...In closing arguments, special prosecutor Tom Fallon said Dassey accepted his uncle's invitation to rape Halbach because he wanted to know what sex was like. He helped kill her and burn her body to dispose of the evidence of the crimes, he said.

But defense attorneys argued there was little that tied Dassey to Halbach's death, other than what they claim was a false confession.

I agree with the jury's decision.

I don't buy the argument that Dassey made up such a specific confession, one that he later recanted. I don't think Dassey was capable of fabricating such a grisly story in such detail, a story that was so consistent with the evidence found on Avery's property -- like the charred fragments of Halbach's bones.

He will be sentenced August 6. Dassey may get life in prison. He should.

Dassey's uncle will be sentenced in June. Hopefully, he'll be put away for life, too.

It's beyond me to understand how Avery and Dassey could do what they did to Teresa Halbach.

It's pure evil.

________________________________

Listen to audio from the courtroom.

Watch video from the courtroom.

CALL THE POLICE! A FIRST GRADER'S GOT A GUN!

Yesterday, Wilson Elementary School in West Allis, Wisconsin showed that it will not tolerate students bringing weapons to school.

When a gun was discovered at the school, the police were called to handle the situation.

Should Wilson Elementary be commended for the tough, swift action?

NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!

Here's why:

A 6-year-old at Wilson Elementary School in West Allis got a visit from the police after he brought a toy gun to school.

The first grader was showing the toy to his friends. West Allis police say at no point did anyone believe the gun was real. But school administrators decided to call the cops because possession of a fake gun is a violation of the rules.

The 6-year-old got a talking to from police, but he was not taken into custody.

"I don't think it's horrible, especially with what's going on right now. I think that hopefully it scared the kid to realize that that's something you shouldn't do," said Melissa Skenandore, the parent of a 6-year-old at Wilson.

The West Allis West Milwaukee School District defended the decision, saying they take all infractions seriously. The district would not say if any action had been taken against the first grader by the school.

THIS IS SO STUPID!

It's a waste of tax payer dollars.

Don't West Allis police have better things to do than respond to a call about the possession of a toy gun by a first grader?

It would have been far more beneficial for the school to schedule an assembly and have an officer talk to all the children about guns and safety.

Why take a cop off the streets to talk to this little boy?

Certainly, school staff could have handled the matter. Are they that incompetent that it's too much for them to manage the situation?

The West Allis West Milwaukee School District assertion that "they take all infractions seriously" is a lame excuse for the overreaction.

This "infraction" was a child bringing a toy to school.

Did he break the rules? Yes.

Did he attempt to frighten or threaten other children and lead them to believe that the gun was real? From this report, it doesn't sound like it.

That means that first graders are able to draw distinctions that Wilson Elementary and the West Allis West Milwaukee School District are incapable of doing.

I don't fault the school for having a zero tolerance policy on guns, including toy guns.

It would have been completely appropriate for the school to take disciplinary measures against the toy gun-toting tot.

It was completely ridiculous for school administrators to call the police in this case.

I'm sure a lot of things happen that are in violation of school rules.

Are the police called in when a first grader takes another first grader's crayons, or God forbid, a scissors?

Children need to be taught the rules and they need to understand that violating the rules will result in punishment.

The school does spell out the consequences for breaking the rules.

From the Woodrow Wilson School Parent/Student Handbook:



Note this one:

7. Referral to agencies, police, or juvenile authorities for court action.

Did bringing a toy gun to school rise to the level of severity that such a dramatic response was deemed necessary?

Calling the police was the wrong action to take. Rather than circling the wagons, district officials should have noted that and shown some common sense.

The school and the district officials look like fools.

There was never any danger because the gun was always known to be a toy.

Did police need to be called in to scare the 6-year-old, as one of the school's parents suggests?

NO!

That stunt not only is inappropriate, I think it borders on abusive.

Let's face it, if a child or anyone plans to go on a shooting spree and commit mass murder, I think it's highly unlikely that a visit from a cop would be enough to scare the individual straight.

Dowd Taunts Michelle Obama

Maureen Dowd is like the junior high school girl with a crush on a boy who doesn't know she's alive.

Dowd desperately wants Barack Obama's attention. She desperately wants something.

How to get it?

Attack his wife.

In her column today, "She’s Not Buttering Him Up," Dowd expresses her discomfort with Michelle and Barack Obama's shtick on the campaign trail.

She writes:

Usually, I love the dynamics of a cheeky woman puncturing the ego of a cocky guy.

I liked it in ’40s movies, and I liked it with Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel, and Cybill Shepherd and Bruce Willis in “Moonlighting.”

So why don’t I like it with Michelle and Barack?

Tell us more, Maureen!

What are your insights on why you don't care???

I wince a bit when Michelle Obama chides her husband as a mere mortal — a comic routine that rests on the presumption that we see him as a god.

The tweaking takes place at fundraisers, where Michelle wants to lift the veil on their home life a bit and give the folks their money’s worth.

At the big Hollywood fund-raiser for Senator Obama in February, Michelle came on strong.

“I am always a little amazed at the response that people get when they hear from Barack,” she told the crowd at the Beverly Hilton, as her husband stood by looking like a puppy being scolded, reported Hud Morgan of Men’s Vogue. “A great man, a wonderful man. But still a man. ...

“I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There’s Barack Obama the phenomenon. He’s an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right?

“And then there’s the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy’s a little less impressive. For some reason this guy still can’t manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesn’t get stale, and his 5-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is.”

She said that the TV version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she’d like to meet him sometime.

Dowd goes on to cite a litany of other instances of Michelle Obama tweaking her husband -- the god-like, messiah candidate.

What's weird about the column is that Dowd never gets around to really explaining why she's uncomfortable with Michelle Obama's comments.

Dowd does bash her for failing to rein in Obama's dealings with the sleazy Tony Rezko.

...Michelle conveys the appealing idea that she will tell her husband when he’s puffed up or out of line. She aims high — she ordered her husband to stop puffing on cigarettes as he started campaigning. But then, why didn’t she see the red flags on the Rezko deal?

In order to get a bigger yard for their new house on Chicago’s South Side in 2005, the Obamas got into what the senator now confesses was a “boneheaded” real estate arrangement with a sleazy political dealmaker named Tony Rezko, who has been indicted on influence-peddling charges.

On Monday, The Chicago Sun-Times reported more shady Rezko news: “Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko’s low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems,” from a lack of heat to no lack of drug dealers and squatters.

Mr. Obama riposted that “it wasn’t brought to my attention.” But isn’t that where a dazzling, tough, smart and connected wife could help a guy out?

So what is the point of Dowd's rambling column?

Is it to expose wife Michelle as slimy?

Is it to draw attention to candidate Barack's dirty side?

Like so many of her columns, this one is a weird, personal, PSYCHOanalytic piece with just a bit of news tossed in to lend it an air of credibilty and purpose beyond her own navel-gazing.

Since Dowd can't seem to understand why she doesn't like Michelle Obama's comments about the "real" Barack, I'll offer some amateur analysis of my own.

Dowd doesn't like the fact that Michelle Obama has a successful career, and a husband and children.

Michelle Obama has it all and Dowd can't stand it.

Yes, that works.

ABC'S BREAKING NEWS: Rosie O'Donnell

I don't know whether to laugh at this or shake my head in disgust:



Does Rosie O'Donnell's failure to renew her contract warrant a "BREAKING NEWS" banner on the ABC website?

Did ABC cut into regular programming to break the news to America?

Are we really supposed to care?

April 25, 2007 -- ABC has been unable to come to a contractual agreement with Rosie O'Donnell. As a result, her hosting duties on "The View" will come to an end mid-June.

Despite controversy — or maybe because of it — O'Donnell was good business for ABC, owned by the Walt Disney Co. Ratings for "The View" during February sweeps were up 15 percent in key women demographics over the same time in 2006.

I think it's incredible that the Walt Disney Co. gave O'Donnell a forum to spout her always extremist liberal, oftentimes crude, views.

I think it's interesting that this announcement (Excuse me, BREAKING NEWS!) came just a day after the report on her foul-mouthed performance at the "Matrix Awards in front of 2,000 feting New York's most accomplished women in media at the Waldorf-Astoria Grand Ballroom yesterday."

The loose-lipped lesbian dropped the F-bomb as Barbara Walters lowered her head on the dais and covered her face with her hand. O'Donnell concluded a rant about Donald Trump by grabbing her crotch and shouting, "Eat me!"

O'Donnell also said she was sad when Trump called her "disgusting" and "fat" because, "it was always my dream to give an old, bald billionaire a boner."

The annual luncheon of N.Y. Women in Communications - which honored Cindy Adams, Meredith Vieira, Joan Didion, Susan Lyne, Arianna Huffington and Lisa Caputo, among others - featured as presenters News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch [See photo, facing page], Joy Behar, Nora Ephron, Martha Stewart and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Also on hand were 17 sweet-faced high school girls who won scholarships to pursue their dreams of careers in media.

...O'Donnell's publicist, Cindi Berger, told us: "When you ask for Rosie, you know what you're getting. She's not a shrinking violet. She's a stand-up comedienne. She says things that are provocative."

Perhaps O'Donnell has become a bit too provocative.

In any case, she's leaving The View.

Barbara Walters distanced herself from the failed contract negotiations.

According to Barbara Walters, creator and co-executive producer of "The View," the co-host will be missed.

"We have had, to say the least, an interesting year … an exciting, fun-filled, provocative year. We have all gotten together and you will be missed," Walters said, adding, "I do not participate in the negotiations for Rosie. It was between your representatives and agents. This is not my doing."

...In a statement released to ABCNEWS.com today, Walters said: "I induced Rosie to come back to television on 'The View' even for just one year. She has given the program new vigor, new excitement and wonderful hours of television."

It amazes me that Walters always comes to O'Donnell's defense and praises her.

I don't get why she does that. Why such loyalty?

Has Walters really tossed her last shreds of integrity out the window?

Brian Frons, the president of daytime programming for the Disney-ABC Television Group, told ABCNEWS.com, "Going in we knew we would have an amazing year with her, and that anything beyond that would be gravy… So here we are a year later, and while we've tried to come to terms on a deal that would extend her co-hosting duties on 'The View,' we find ourselves unable to agree on some key elements."

... "That's the business, and something we knew was a real possibility the entire time. So we part as friends, and hope that we can entice Rosie back next year to take part in a series of one-hour specials for us like our recent show on autism. And maybe, if we're lucky, we'll be able to convince her to guest co-host once in a while as well."

Sure, O'Donnell and ABC part as friends.

O'Donnell got loads of attention and ABC reaped the profits of her offensiveness by the jump in ratings.

Everyone was happy, right?

Wrong.

If all parties were really so happy, then contract negotiations wouldn't have failed. If O'Donnell really was such an asset, ABC would never have let her go. There would be no "key element" that couldn't have been successfully negotiated.

I think the sponsors were getting squeamish about advertising on The View.

Sometimes a jump in ratings isn't worth the plummet in standards of decency and overall civility.

I think this failed contract negotiations story is an excuse to let O'Donnell and ABC bow out of this unholy alliance gracefully.

Well, sort of gracefully. There's nothing remotely graceful about O'Donnell.

Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment, Richard B. Cheney

Dennis Kucinich has big plans, big stupid plans.

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post writes:

"I do not stand alone," Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.

The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee.

I'm confident in saying that I do not stand alone in thinking that Kucinich is mentally unstable.

...It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney. Kucinich had called his news conference for noon on the terrace of the Cannon building. But minutes before the event, his office sent out a statement: "News reports this morning indicate the Vice President was experiencing a medical crisis. Until the vice president's condition is clarified, I am placing any action on hold."

This was odd, because the vice president's spokeswoman had already announced that Cheney had merely gone to a doctor's office to check on a blood clot in his leg, which is improving. Cheney himself, far from suffering a medical crisis, joined Senate Republicans for lunch at the Capitol. "The leg's doing good," Cheney announced after lunch, his lips in his trademark snarl. Indeed, he was feeling so well that he chose to start a new fight with congressional Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was not only "uninformed and misleading," but also practicing "defeatism," Cheney said. Democrats are guilty of "political calculation" and "blind opposition."

Reid visited the same microphones minutes later to return the playground taunts: "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating." And: "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog."

How weird!

Kucinich is certainly out of the loop.

"News reports this morning indicate the Vice President was experiencing a medical crisis. Until the vice president's condition is clarified, I am placing any action on hold."

What was that about?

Did Kucinich think he could use the "medical crisis" excuse to postpone his impeachment announcement because the odds are good that the Vice Presient would be experiencing health crisis?

Why would he say something so easily shown to be utterly false?

Regarding the Cheney-Reid feud, I wouldn't call it an exchange of "playground taunts."

I think Reid is actually doing far more to harm Cheney, and thereby the nation, than Kucinich's impeachment dance.

Reid is the majority leader of the Senate, not one of hundreds of U.S. representatives.

Cheney didn't engage in name-calling. He was merely responding to Reid's disgraceful declaration that the war in Iraq is lost. Cheney was criticizing Reid's comments and rightfully so.

Reid, on the other hand, acted in a bullying, childish manner. Taunting the Vice President and calling him an "attack dog" is highly inappropriate. Reid continues to reveal himself as severely lacking in terms of civility and principles and just common decency.

Kucinich evidently realized there was no reason for him to get cold feet just because of Cheney's leg. A few minutes after the Cheney-Reid showdown, the congressman arrived in the Speaker's Lobby off the House floor, handing out news releases to any reporter he could find: "Kucinich to Move Forward with Impeachment News Conference."

Washingtonpost.com's Paul Kane showed the news release to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who declined to endorse the Kucinich crusade. "He was busily engaged in handing that out," Hoyer observed. "Beyond that, I don't have any thought about it."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, was equally dismissive -- "Dennis can do what he wants; I'm not going to support it" -- but used the occasion to try out some Cheney material: "This is the biggest setback for the vice president since oil went under 65 bucks a barrel."

Kucinich's relationship with his fellow Dems reminds me of the way a family grudgingly tolerates that strange bachelor uncle at holiday gatherings and other family functions. He's kind of an embarrassment, but he belongs to them.

Kucinich, however, did not find humor in the matter. Standing perhaps 5 feet 6 inches tall in shoes, he wore a solemn face as he approached the microphones, which nearly reached his eye level. He beckoned to aides, who handed out thick binders detailing the case.

Kucinich read at length from his articles of impeachment, undeterred by rush-hour traffic noise on Independence Avenue ("I'll wait till the truck goes by here," he said at one point) and wind that ruffled his text and the few strands of his hair that were insufficiently weighted by Brylcreem. Tom Ferraro of Reuters asked Kucinich if any other lawmakers supported impeachment.

"Because this resolution is so weighty in its import, it's going to be important for members of Congress to have sufficient time to study the articles," Kucinich answered.

Milbank gets rather personal.

Was it really necessary to "taunt" Kucinich about his height and his hair?

We'll take that as a no. "So at this point you stand alone?" Ferraro pressed.

"I believe I stand with millions of Americans," Kucinich parried.

I don't know about millions, but there definitely are Americans that are so rabid in their hatred for President Bush and his administration that they've lost their ability to reason.

Someone else asked why Kucinich targeted Cheney but not Cheney's boss. "There's a practical reason," the congressman explained. "If we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president. . . . You would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."

I wondered why Kucinich was going after Cheney before Bush.

Yes, it would be "constitutional agony" to impeach two presidents consectutively.

I guess he thinks it's a lesser agony to impeach a vice president and then a president.

That's much less painful.

Bill Maher, Jay Leno, Free Speech, and Guns

Bill Maher was as greasy as ever, literally and figuratively, when he was Jay Leno's guest on Tuesday night.

Maher's gray hair was oily and slicked back and his remarks were equally slimy.

The segment began with a discussion of free speech.

Maher spoke of people getting upset over silly things.

For example, "Bill Clinton spilled some Arkansauce." He thought people blew that out of proportion.

He defended Don Imus, not agreeing with what he said, but his right to say it.

He brought up Janet Jackson and her "milkshake" Super Bowl incident.

Leno said he understands why people were upset about that. Families weren't expecting to see any "porn" during half time.

Maher said, “Spoken like a man with a flag in his lapel.”

Maher went on to say that he and Rosie O'Donnell were being targeted by the Right. Conservatives are arguing that if Imus had to go, so should Maher and O'Donnell.

Maher said that O'Donnell was really wacko. He talked about her 9/11 conspiracy theories, that the attacks were an inside job.

He said that was crazy. How could any one believe that Bush could knock down a building when he couldn't get a helicopter into the Superdome?

Big laugh.

Leno then put his flag pin on Maher’s lapel, as Maher backed away in disgust.

Maher said that he's "a real patriot" and he didn't need that.

Yeah, right. When I think "patriot," I think Bill Maher.

On Harry "the war is lost" Reid, Maher said, "Harry Reid isn't the bad guy for pointing out what the reality is."

Maher said that rather than slamming Reid, people should be slamming Bush for getting us into the war.

Cut to commercial.

After the break, Maher talked about when he was fired and compared it to the Imus controversy. The difference was that Maher said things he believed in. Imus was just an old white guy making a stupid joke.

Then, Leno and Maher turned to the shootings at Virginia Tech.

Maher said it was ridiculous that we had to have a dialogue about Imus saying "nappy headed hos." He complained that after all "these people get shot, there's absolutely no debate about gun control."

WHAT???

I guess Maher wasn't watching TV last week or reading newspapers or listening to radio.

Regarding the supposed lack of dialogue, Leno didn't point out the ridiculousness of Maher's statement. Instead he asked, "Why is that?"

"Because gun owners are selfish," Maher replied.

Maher said he's a gun owner himself.

He said the problem isn't that there are guns, but that there are too many guns.

After tastelessly joking about Virginia's gun laws, Maher gave his profile of gun owners.

"I would just like gun owners to admit they're selfish, and that it's a vice, like booze or drugs or cigarettes. Stop the nonsense about 'it's my right.' You just like it because you have a small penis."

Leno asked, "Did you say you had a gun?"

Leno quipped, "I myself don"t have a gun, but I know you have a gun."

Wow. What an entertaining exchange!

Maher went on to talk about the profile of killers.

He talked about the common denominator. He dismissed the bullying excuse, one applied to Seung-Hui Cho and the Columbine killers.

"What's the common thing for all of them? They can't get laid. It's true. Instead of sending them to shrinks, send them to hookers."

"Everybody who does something like that can't get laid."

How crass!

Leno talked about Cho sending his manifesto to NBC. He said that we were bombarded with images of Cho, but not the victims.

Maher explained, "The media has no sense of responsibility." (I can't argue with that sentence.)

Maher countered that the media did show the faces of the victims. He then segued into Iraq.

"We never see the faces of the people killed in Iraq. We never see our soldiers."

Not true. I've seen their faces. Local stories on the fallen are common.

He talked about the difference between a victim and a hero. Maher said that victims find themselves in a bad situation, but heroes knowingly put themselves at risk.

He said our war dead, heroes, deserve at least what the Virginia Tech victims got.

(Question: Is Liviu Librescu a hero?)

(Another question: Is Bill Maher clueless?)

Maher says he sees no way out of Iraq.

He said, "George Bush is the only person who thinks that going more is better… He thinks if we can surge now, then we can pull out. But as anyone who's ever done porn will tell you, that's backwards. You pull out, then you surge. I think we all know that."

Maher really delivered for Leno again, didn't he? What a classless act!

So much for the Right being responsible for coarsening the culture.