Maureen Dowd, Hillary Clinton, and the Intern Factor

Why is it that Mitt Romney has been criticized for putting Hillary Clinton in the league of an intern when it comes to her experience?

This "loaded" word was considered by some to be an insult to Hillary. It's supposed to be a cheap shot to even utter the word "intern" around her, dredging up images of thongs and cigars and stained blue dresses.

"She's never had the occasion of being in the private sector, running a business, or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn't run anything, and the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern," Romney said.

The Boston Herald says that's a "loaded" word when talking about the senator or her husband because of the former president's well-documented relationship with then-intern Monica Lewinsky in the mid-'90s.

A Clinton campaign spokeswoman had this to say about Romney's remark: "Hillary Clinton is a two-term United States senator who has represented the United States in 82 countries around the world, and has been one of the nation’s leading advocates for children and families for 35 years," Ann Lewis said in a statement, according to the Herald. "Trying to diminish her service isn't going to help Mr. Romney's weak and rudderless campaign."

As for the Romney campaign, spokesman Kevin Madden sent this response when we asked if Romney had intentionally alluded to the Lewinsky affair when he used the word intern:

"Governor Romney offered a substantive contrast between his record of experience as a chief executive in both elected office, at the Olympics and in the private sector compared to that of Senator Clinton.

"Senator Clinton doesn't have any comparable experience, and the governor's point is that, at this place in time, he is a better choice in that capacity than someone who needs on-the-job training as a chief executive.

"I'd disagree with any hyperactive analysis that a reference to needing on-the-job training has anything to do with the past Clinton administration."

So Romney is slammed for playing dirty just because he questioned the level of Hillary's experience.

Will Maureen Dowd be attacked by the Clinton camp because of her column today, directly confronting the significance of Hillary and the intern factor?

From the no longer "Select" columnist of the New York Times:

It’s an odd cultural inversion.

The French first lady, the one in a role where wives traditionally ignored and overlooked their husbands’ peccadilloes for the greater gain of keeping their marriages intact and running the Élysée Palace, has fled her gilded perch, acting all-American and brimming over with feelings and feminist impulses.

The former American first lady, the one who’s supposed to be brimming over with feminist impulses, has ignored and overlooked her husband’s peccadilloes for the greater gain of keeping her marriage intact, as she tries to return to the gilded perch and run the White House.

Cécilia Sarkozy acts so American, while Hillary Clinton acts so French.

...In Essence magazine, Hillary sounded très French, très laissez-faire, talking about her marriage. “Now obviously we’ve had challenges as everybody in the world knows,” she said. “But I never doubted that it was a marriage worth investing in even in the midst of those challenges. And I’m really happy that I made that decision. Again, not a decision for everybody. And I think it’s so important for women to stand up for the right of women to make a decision that is best for them.”

In addition to the warrior strategy, the one that led Hillary to back President Bush on the Iraq war and the Iran drumbeat, the senator has a girlfriend strategy.

Hillary recently told an interviewer that they should talk like “two girlfriends,” and last week her campaign theme was: “Women Changing America.” She returns to Wellesley tomorrow to launch Hillblazers, a bid to attract young Hillarys to the campaign. She will be back in the setting of her 1969 feminist triumph as the commencement speaker who described her class’s desire for a “more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living” and who spoke truth to power, chastising Edward Brooke for being out of touch.

Hillary doesn’t speak truth to power any more. Now that Mark Penn believes women can carry her to victory, Hillary speaks girlfriend to girlfriend.

That tack, Caitlin Flanagan writes in The Atlantic, would only work if she were “willing to let us women in on the big, underlying struggle of her life that is front and center in our understanding of who she is as a woman. Her husband’s sexual behavior, quite apart from the private pain that it has caused her, has also sullied her deepest — and most womanly — ideals and convictions, for the Clintons’ political partnership has demanded that she defend actions she knows to be indefensible. To call her husband a philanderer is almost to whitewash him, for he’s used women far less sophisticated, educated and powerful than he — women particularly susceptible to the rake’s characteristic blend of cajolery and deceit — for his sexual gratification.

“In glossing over her husband’s actions and abetting his efforts to squirm away from the scrutiny and judgment they provoke, Hillary has too often lapsed into her customary hauteur and self-righteousness and added to the pain delivered upon these women.”

Dowd is not cutting Hillary any slack.

If a Republican dared to write or say anything remotely like this, that individual would be crucifed by the Left.

I guess it's OK for Dowd to seemingly attack because by the end of her column, Dowd points out that Hillary's handling of her philandering husband serves to prove that she's the superior candidate.

...But maybe the qualities that many find off-putting in Hillary — her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness — are the same ones that make people willing to vote for a woman.

Few are concerned that Hillary is strong enough for the job. She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity. Yet, the characteristics that are somewhat troubling are the same ones that convincingly show she will do what it takes to beat Obama and Rudy. She will not be soft or vulnerable. She will not melt in a crisis.

And, unlike Obama, she doesn’t need to talk herself into manning up. Obama whiffed in the debate last night when Brian Williams and Tim Russert teed up the first question for him to take on Hillary — something the debate dominatrix never would have done.

Bottom line: Dowd is calling Hillary a man.

Dowd is saying that Hillary is more of a man than Barack Obama. (Have you noticed she loves to poke at Obama's manhood?)

Will Dowd be criticized for using the term "dominatrix" to describe Hillary?

Is that a "loaded" word?

There's so much in this one column over which Hillary and her people would cry foul if they chose. They certainly would if it came from Republicans.

---She has abandoned the women that Bill dumped at the side of the road when he was finished with them.

---She has whitewashed his abusive pattern of preying on "women far less sophisticated, educated and powerful" for his sexual gratification.

(Sounds very "intern" to me.)

---She has off-putting qualities, including: "her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness."

---"She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity."

---She's manly.

---She's a dominatrix.

---She acts so French.

Dowd gets to say it all. She gets to tackle the intern factor head on.

That's because Dowd is arguing that Hillary's marriage to hound dog Bill makes her uniquely qualified to be President of the United States.

In Dowd's world, a woman strong enough to accept a lifetime of betrayal and humiliation from her husband -- tempered by adultery, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace -- is fit to be leader of the Free World.

Playing with Matches and Global Warming

Global warming proponents seized on the California wildfires to advance their agenda.

I didn't realize that global warming compelled people to start fires.

SANTA CLARITA, Calif. -- Officials blamed a wildfire that consumed more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes last week on a boy playing with matches, and said they would ask a prosecutor to consider the case.

The boy, whose name and age were not released, admitted to sparking the fire on Oct. 21, Los Angeles County sheriff's Sgt. Diane Hecht said Tuesday. Ferocious winds helped it quickly spread.

"He admitted to playing with matches and accidentally starting the fire," Hecht said in a statement.

The boy was released to his parents, and the case will be presented to the district attorney's office, Hecht said. It was not clear if he had been arrested or cited by detectives.

The fire began in an area near Agua Dulce and quickly spread. It was among 15 or so major wildfires that killed 14 people, destroyed some 2,100 homes and blackened 809 square miles from Los Angeles to the Mexican border last week.

Authorities arrested five people for arson during that period, but none have been linked to any of the major blazes.

The wildfires were supposed to be an indication of nature run amok because of years of abuse by gluttonous human beings and their irresponsible, environmentally unfriendly lifestyles.

Global warming alarmists don't want to hear about people starting the fires, whether intentionally or accidentally.

I don't think a boy playing with matches counts as an example of fires resulting because the planet has a fever.

Do excessive carbon emissions CAUSE kids to be careless with matches?

Do incandescent light bulbs have something to do with a kid sparking a fire?

Ryan Mullarney on TV

Twelve-year-old Ryan Mullarney's face was all over the news on Tuesday.

He's the victim of an alleged assault by one of his football coaches, Michael Crawley.

The 85 pound Mullarney described his ordeal. He said that Crawley slammed him to the ground and called him a "mother f***er" and was "dropping the f-bomb."

Crawley's outburst is shocking. It's frightening that a coach, a role model for these middle school kids, would physically attack and verbally threaten one of his players.

620 WTMJ has the police report.

Names are redacted but there's no doubt that Ryan Mullarney is the victim of the allleged assault. He wasn't hiding his identity. He talked about the incident to reporters. His mother, Lynn Brellenthin, participated in multiple interviews, too.

If my son had been attacked by his coach, I wouldn't want him to speak to reporters and certainly not on camera. I wouldn't agree to go on camera either. I would want to maintain my privacy and protect my child as much as possible.

It's really amazing that Crawley could snap so completely and with such ferociousness.

Besides the physical abuse, the language Crawley used was incredibly abusive. How does a coach and father become so angry at a child that he yells that he's going to kill him?

The police report states:

Crawley stated that [redacted] has hit his son in a "cheap shot way" before. He believes [redacted] is a dirty player and thought it was an intentional hit.

That may be.

So what? It's irrelevant.

There are dirty players. Middle school kids can be brutal to others, physically and verbally.

It's possible that Mullarney did intentionally hit Crawley's son.

But that is no excuse for Crawley to attack Mullarney.

The police report says:

Ms. [redacted] was displeased that Crawley was not in custody and she expressed fear of him. She said that up until this incident she and Crawley were friends. She requested information regarding a restraining order....

If they were friends, it appears that Brellenthin didn't have problems with Crawley in the past. She apparently trusted him with her son.

Now she wants a restraining order. She'd prefer that he be jailed.

If she needs that to be more at ease, I can understand how that might help. However, it does seem a little weird that she would agree to do all the interviews if she's so fearful of Crawley and possible retaliation.

I want to be clear. Crawley was 100% in the wrong to attack one of his players. No matter what Mullarney did or didn't do, Crawley responded terribly inappropriately. Coaches do not assault the players. Period.

I wonder why Crawley so totally lost it. Why did he snap like that?

Something set him off.

Mullarney may not be the angel the media are making him out to be; but again, that's no excuse for Crawley's behavior.

I don't see why Mullarney and his mother would participate in the media blitz. What's the point? There's something sort of unseemly about that.

The police are investigating. Crawley's not coaching right now. It's not as if the mother and son are using the media to uncover the story or build support for their cause. Mullarney is already the sympathetic figure and rightly so.

There's a fifteen minutes of fame aspect to this.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN

Ron Paul and Jay Leno

The Tonight Show had an eclectic lineup of guests on Tuesday -- Tom Cruise, Ron Paul, and the Sex Pistols.

Tom Cruise is not a great talk show guest. He always seems uncomfortable to me.

With Ron Paul, it's a different story. I'm uncomfortable with him.

When he was introduced, the audience cheered. The band of Paul supporters were out in force.

Leno began the interview talking about Paul's past jobs.

As a doctor, he delivered 4000 babies.

Paul said he spent five years in the Air Force as a flight surgeon.

Leno said he was in two noble professions. He asked how Paul got in the "sleazy one."

Paul babbled about being fascinated by economics and that led to his political career.

Paul said he's always been a Republican. He just took "a break" for a year when he ran for president as a libertarian.

Explaining his popularity in spite of being way out of the top tier of candidates, Paul said, "My views are very popular."

"Young people love it."

On the subject of taxes, Paul said he wants a flat tax.

"I wanna make it real flat, like zero."

On Iraq, Paul said he wants to get out now and bring the troops home.

"I mean it was a mistake to go in. We shouldn't have gone in. We didn't go in properly."

"Our national defense is in shambles."

"Our troops are disenchanted. The troops are complaining."

"I actually think we're more vulnerable for another attack under the conditions today than we were even before 9/11."

With the War on Terrorism, "our greatest threat is the threat to our civil liberties here at home."

He doesn't sound like a Republican on that issue, not even remotely.

Paul talked about his supporters and the Internet's impact on his campaign.

He said, "The message is powerful."

Paul said, "I have shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings."

Speaking of his chances for success in the '08 election, he added, "I would say, yes, there's probably a risk I could win."

The audience, packed with the Ron Paul groupies, went nuts.

Leno asked if he'd accept the VP spot.

He said to laughs from the audience that he probably wouldn't be offered.

No kidding. That's one of the most intelligent things I've heard Paul say.

On the subject of the VP spot on the ticket, he said, "It would be real hard for me to accept a vice presidency in an adminstration that endorsed everything I didn't believe in. I wouldn't be able to that."

Question: What is Paul doing running as a Republican?

Leno said he was impressed with the 72-year-old Paul and how he relates to young people.

Leno was a gracious host. He treated him with respect, which was nice.

It would have been nicer if Leno had asked Paul some tougher questions, challenging him on some of his loonier positions; but this is an entertainment show, not Meet the Press. I won't fault Leno for being kind to a senior citizen.

Speaking of senior citizens, the Sex Pistols were awful. "Anarchy in the UK" doesn't have the same edge when it's performed by such old guys. Their music doesn't work as a nostalgia act. It was sad.

Some legends lose their luster when they try to comeback.

"It's better to burn out than to fade away."

I guess the Sex Pistols have opted for fade away. Too bad.

Kucinich and the UFO

Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, speaks during a debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2007. The debate aired on MSNBC. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

At tonight's debate, Tim Russert asked Dennis Kucinich the UFO question.

In Shirley McLaine's new book, Sage-Ing While Age-Ing, she writes about Kucinich's close encounter.

Kucinich, she writes on page 143-144 of the book, "had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there. Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him. It hovered, soundless, for ten minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."

After reading a brief passage from the book by Kucinich's daughter's godmother McLaine, detailing Kucinich's experience, Russert wanted to know if Kucinich did indeed see a UFO.

Kucinich said he did.

He wanted to remind the voters that Jimmy Carter has also seen a UFO.

When these Dems are in a hole, they don't seem to know that it's time to stop digging.

The Hillary Obsession

Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is seen before a Democratic candidates' debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania October 30, 2007. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)

So I tune in to the Dem presidential debate tonight, and Hillary Clinton is talking.

She says that in a perverse way the Republicans are obsessed with her.

Good grief.

She's talking about how experienced she is.

She's rolling her eyes. She looks pissed, like she wants to throw a lamp.

Now Barack Obama is talking.

He said Republicans are obsessed with Hillary because it's the fight they want to have. He said the last thing we need is to revisit the 90s and have eight more years of bickering.

Now John Edwards is yapping. He says Hillary is the status quo candidate. He says he believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy but he doesn't believe that Hillary can deliver change.

Tim Russert gave Hillary a chance to respond. She said that she she thinks we were making progress in the 1990s and then, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush.

Bill Richardson is now sucking up to Hillary. He's chastising Obama and Edwards for personally attacking her. He wants to be her VP.

Joe Biden sounded drunk and he looked drunk. He blasted Rudy Giuliani. He said that he's the least qualified person running for president since George W. Bush. Biden said that Giuliani has three things in every sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11.

Dennis Kucinich said it's time to act on his bill and move to impeachment. Kucinich is not a top tier candidate by any stretch but he's on stage as a Dem presidential candidate and he's talking about impeaching Bush. What a loon!

Brian Williams is trying to act like this debate is serious, serious business. By the way, he's hosting Saturday Night Live this weekend.
_____________________

From MSNBC:

Sen. Hillary Clinton came under a gang assault Tuesday night from the rest of the Democratic presidential field, led by her closest rival, who was closely studying the playbook of the master — Clinton’s husband, the former president.

"A gang assault" -- very dramatic.
______________________

During the "lightning round," with a 30 second clock ticking down game show-style, the candidates kept going over their allotted time. Williams tried to get them to stop but they wouldn't.

I recommend that an orchestra, like at awards shows, be used to play over the candidates to get them to shut up.

Coach Michael Crawley

If you have kids and they've participated in sports, you might know that coaching can be a thankless job, especially when its on a volunteer basis.

Parents whine about everything -- playing time for their kids, coaching techniques, game strategy.

Of course, these same know-it-all moms and dads aren't willing to volunteer their time to serve as coaches. They just have time to bitch and moan.

But I digress.

Parents of kids playing in the Bulldog Football Program have reason to be concerned about an assistant coach, Michael Crawley.

From CudahyNow:

A Cudahy Middle School assistant football coach was suspended from attending games or practices for allegedly assaulting a 12-year-old player Oct. 24. Police are investigating the incident.

According to a police report, Michael Crawley, 39, grabbed the boy by his facemask and threw him to the ground, yelling profanities and threatening to kill him, after the boy performed a two-person block during practice, knocking over Crawley's son, who plays on the team. Crawley told police, he "lost his cool," and that the boy performed an illegal chop block, which injured his son.

"I'll (expletive) kill you, you son of a (expletive)," Crawley said, according to the report.

Brain Molar, a CMS assistant coach, witnessed the incident, and told authorities it was the most frightening experience he has encountered, the report said.

Molar then described the assault as a "WWF body slam," and that he heard Crawley swear numerous times to the boy.

Jack Littman, director of the Bulldog Football Program, also witnessed the assault, and said Crawley should be charged with a crime, the report said.

"Our coach went nuts, he picked up the kid and threw him to the ground and said 'I'll (expletive) kill you, you son of a (expletive),'" he said to police.

Crawley's son was taken to St. Luke's South Shore Hospital and was treated for a deep thigh bruise, and was scheduled for a magnetic resonance imaging exam at a later date.

The other boy's shoulder was bruised and was put in a sling.

No, it's not good for a coach to grab a kid by his facemask, body slam him, and threaten to kill him.

That's definitely not good. That's more than losing one's cool.

I understand that Crawley would be upset about a player doing an illegal chop block on his son.

That boy should have been reprimanded, or suspended, or even thrown off the team, depending on what the team's rules are.

It goes without saying that physical violence and death threats by the coach are an appropriate reprimand.

Crawley will no doubt apologize for the incident at some point, at least he should.

In this case, however, I don't think that he should be welcomed back as a coach anywhere.

(NOTE: Although the team practices at the Cudahy Middle School field, it is not connected with the Cudahy School District.)

There's more to a sport than just the activity itself. Participation teaches lessons in discipline, integrity, and respect.

Clearly, Crawley fails on all counts.

His behavior was so out of line that this should be a "ONE strike and you're out" matter.

I've seen middle school coaches lose control, but I've never witnessed anything like this.

I agree that Crawley should be charged for the assault.

And to all those whiny parents with kids in sports--

Thank the coach.

For all your complaining, you should be thankful that your child wasn't coached by Crawley.

Democrats Bring Middle Class to Brink of Extinction

The Democrat Congress is not doing the Democrat presidential candidates any favors.

With historic disapproval ratings, there seems to be no end in sight to the Dems' misstep after misstep, idiot remark after idiot remark.

I think among the worst moves by the Dems are their proposed legislation and plans that literally wipe out the middle class in America.

As an analogy, think of the extinction of the dinosaurs and the impact theory. The Democrats are the asteroids to the middle class.

The Dems' failed SCHIP bill would have defined millions of additional Americans as in need of government assistance. The program would have expanded coverage to children already covered by private insurance.

A family with an income of $80,000 would be entitled to free insurance under SCHIP.

Then you have Charlie Rangel's monstrous tax plan. He lovingly refers to it as the "Mother of All Tax Bills."

American families are feeling the crunch of spiking energy costs, runaway college tuition, ever-burdensome home mortgages and steadily rising prices for consumer goods.

These and other cost-of-living increases are eating away at the family budget — making every dollar earned and saved even more valuable. The very last thing families need is to see more of their paycheck confiscated by Congress.

Unfortunately, the U.S. House that already has passed $100 billion in tax increases this year to pay for bigger government and wasteful pork thinks otherwise. Last week, led by the Ways and Means Committee chairman, Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., congressional Democrats unveiled a breathtaking proposal: the single largest tax increase in American history.

In addition to the tax hikes due to the expiration of Bush's tax cuts, Rangel's plan includes a 4% surtax on Americans earning incomes above $150,000, and on married couples earning over $200,000.

Using the Dems' standards, the line between the rich and the poor is very, very fine.

The Dem effort is underway to create a larger dependent class and a larger class to fund the dependents, leaving a sliver of a middle class.

President Bush shouldn't be so hard on the Democrat Congress for its lack of accomplishments.

President Bush on Tuesday slammed Congress for not getting its work done and focusing too much on investigating his administration and repeatedly attempting to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq.

“We’re near the end of the year, and there really isn’t much to show for it,” Bush told reporters following a meeting with House GOP leaders.

“The House of Representatives has wasted valuable time on a constant stream of investigations, and the Senate has wasted valuable time on an endless series of failed votes to pull our troops out of Iraq,” the president said.

Thank God Nancy "I certainly support his (Rangel's) plan" Pelosi and Harry Reid and their minions have been ineffective.

Their vision of an America without a middle class isn't pretty.

MPS and Milwaukee's Tax Mess

Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent William Andrekopoulos has got to be kidding.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent William Andrekopoulos will ask the School Board tonight for an over 16.4% increase in how much Milwaukeeans will pay in property taxes for this school year.

Combined with the effects of an error in taxpayers' favor a year ago, the total property tax bill for schools in the city will increase over 21% from a year ago if the board approves the proposal, which history indicates it will.

Andrekopoulos is also proposing funding of new programs aimed at improving high school achievement - especially in math, restoration of some extracurricular activities and expansion of other offerings, adding about 100 jobs to the MPS payroll.

Why should taxpayers dump even more money into a failed system?

And why add 100 new jobs to the MPS payroll when enrollment is declining?

MPS budget-makers said the increase in the tax levy would translate into an increase of $178.15 in the school property tax bill for a home assessed at $132,950, the city average. Property tax bills for other units of government are expected to increase by smaller percentages. The tax rate this year would be $9.48 per $1,000 of assessed value, up from $8.14 last year.

..."It's unfortunate that there's been a shift from the state to the local property-tax payers," Andrekopoulos said. "I feel bad about that."

BS.

If he feels bad about sticking it to the taxpayers, then he should come up with ways to lessen the tax burden instead of picking the people's pockets.

It's like saying, "I'm sorry I have to rob you. I feel really bad about it. Now, give me your money."

Mayor Tom Barrett surfaced to issue a statement about Andrekopoulos' plan.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said in a statement, "No one in their right mind is going to say a 16.4 percent increase is acceptable."

He pointed to the way the state funds the private school voucher program for Milwaukee as a major culprit. He said "funding flaws" that result in Milwaukeeans paying more property taxes to support voucher students than MPS students - even though vouchers are less expensive - account for 18% of the money MPS is seeking in property taxes.

"I will continue to fight for an equitable school choice funding formula for Milwaukee," Barrett said.

Barrett blames the flawed state funding of school choice for Milwaukee's property tax hell. Of course he does.

But never fear. Barrett will fight for an equitable funding formula.

What a relief!

...Included in Andrekopoulos' proposals were increases including:

• $7.9 million that high schools could use to reduce class sizes, increase music and art programs, offer more foreign language courses and expand sports programs.

What's Andrekopoulos shooting for in terms of smaller class sizes? One on one?

I think the arts are an important part of education, but the priority should be turning out students proficient in fundamentals like, oh, I don't know... READING.

• $5 million for 53 additional math teachers for the second semester. After this year, the costs of the program will be covered by state funding, but Andrekopoulos wants to launch the initiative this year using local funding.

All the math teachers in the world won't help if students don't show up for class and apply themselves.

• $1 million to offer summer school-style programs during vacations at year-round schools.

Good grief.

Year-round schools aren't "year-round" enough already?

• $300,000 to restore ninth-grade basketball teams, cut last year, or to offer comparable programs at schools that don't want basketball.

• $300,000 to increase other extracurricular programs for middle school students.

Again, priorities are screwed up. Focus should be on academic success. I guess it's too much to expect students to succeed. Maybe they could improve just a little.

...Overall, the budget proposal calls for collecting $268.2 million in property taxes for this year, up from an official amount of $230.3 million a year ago. That's over a 16.4% increase.

However, botched handling of property tax bills a year ago resulted in only $221.2 million collected for schools. That means the actual increase in tax bills for this year is 21.2%.

If we've learned anything from the past, we should know that this whopping tax increase won't do a damn bit of good to improve students' performance.

Money isn't the answer.

Skanky Halloween Costumes for Preteen Girls

What's popular in Halloween costumes for preteen girls?

Anything racy, skimpy, revealing, and suggestive.

From the Washington Post:

Bawdy Halloween costumes...have become the season's hottest sellers in recent years. Not just for women, but for girls, too. And parents such as Cirenza don't like it.

...Now, Halloween is big business. Americans are expected to spend upwards of $5 billion this year on candy, ghoulish decorations and costumes. And the hottest trend in costumes, retailers say, is sexy. And young.

Fishnet tights, once associated with smoky cabarets or strip joints, now come in girls' sizes and cost $3.99.

Joe Thaler, head of TransWorld Exhibits Inc., runs the annual Halloween Expo for big-box retailers. He said suggestive costumes for girls burst onto the scene about three years ago and the phenomenon is so big that he's had to create a separate fashion show. The costumes have since moved to the plus-size market for adult women and now come in teen and preteen versions. Even little girl costumes show more leg and tummy than they used to. "They're just good sellers," Thaler said.

When it comes to Halloween costumes, boys can still be ninjas, doctors and mad scientists. A box of popcorn, even. Men can still be bananas or beer cans. About the most risque it got for men at Party City was the Big Daddy self-adhesive hairy chest kit for $6.99.

Kathy Grannis of the National Retail Federation blames Halloween's loss of innocence on baby boomers who can't let the holiday go, with their adult parties and costume contests at bars. "Halloween is no longer a child's holiday," she said. "It's no longer about handing out candy and putting on a witch's hat and walking down the street hand in hand with your kid."

That makes no sense to me.

Baby boomers celebrating Halloween has nothing to do with little girls dressing up in risque costumes.

So what if there are adult parties?

There are adult Christmas parties and those don't translate into kids giving up on Santa and toys.

For Cheryl Cirenza, that's what Halloween is still all about. But for her daughter, she's not so sure. "I really don't know why these kinds of costumes appeal so much to her," she said. Cirenza knows that prepubescent sex appeal is rampant. But the family doesn't have cable, and she limits Gabby's TV time. There are no trashy teen or celebrity magazines in her home. And they keep an eye on her Web surfing. "I don't know if it's just in the air."

There's nothing in the air.

It's the legacy of the Baby Boomers and their choice to relate to their children as friends and peers rather than fulfilling their roles as authority figures.

The lines between childhood and adulthood, innocence and experience, blurred.

It's sad that preteen girls want to dress like whores for Halloween.

Even sadder is that so many parents allow their young daughters to go skanky.

...No one does scary costumes anymore, Megan [Smith, 16,] said. Blame that on the teen movie "Mean Girls," she said, quoting a line verbatim: "Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it."

Her father laughed nervously. "They're all a little risque, and I don't like that," he said. "She'll be wearing shorts underneath."

Megan rolled her eyes.

A movie is not to blame.

Weak-kneed parents are at fault.

If all these parents truly disapproved of their preteen daughters' inappropriate Halloween get-ups, the phenomenon of skyrocketing sales of slutty costumes for preteens wouldn't so huge.

Packers' OT Win

Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre celebrates after throwing an 82-yard touchdown pass to Greg Jennings against the Denver Broncos on the first play of overtime. (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/David Zalubowski)


Green Bay Packers wide receiver Greg Jennings (85) celebrates his 82-yard, game-winning touchdown reception against the Denver Broncos during overtime in a football game Monday, Oct. 29, 2007, in Denver. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey)


What a way to win!

It was another signature moment in a career that is full of them. On the first play following the kickoff in overtime, Brett Favre connected on an 82-yard touchdown pass with Greg Jennings and the Green Bay Packers defeated the Denver Broncos 19-13 on Monday night.

Denver had tied the score at 13 on Jason Elam's 21-yard field goal as time ran out in regulation, setting the stage for another Favre comeback.

Green Bay (6-1) won the coin toss and on the first play, Jennings was matched up in man-to-man coverage on the left side. Favre, who threw a 79-yard touchdown pass to James Jones in the first half, hit Jennings in stride at the Denver 40. Cornerback Dre' Bly had no shot at catching the speedy wide receiver who trotted into the end zone as Favre rushed to celebrate Green Bay's first 6-1 start in five years.

6-1!

Packers 19
Broncos 13

BEAUTIFUL!

Scary Dems

UPDATE: Voting is closed. The results are in.

Hillary Clinton is the scariest Democrat, receiving 91% of the votes.

This was an unscientific online survey. I think Bill may have voted hundreds of times.

_____________________

What do Halloween and politics have in common? Scary Democrats!

Every year the Republican National Committee has a hard time determining who is the scariest Democrat of the bunch. Just like the fall harvest, there's an abundance from which to choose. That's where you come in. We need your help in determining who the RNC should announce as the "Scariest Democrat" in 2007.

Vote here.

Gerald Ford and Sex Addict Bill Clinton

Remember this?

Only two days after President Gerald Ford died on December 26, 2006, Bob Woodward and the Washington Post splashed that Ford disagreed with President George W. Bush about invading Iraq.

Former President Gerald Ford was considered the wise sage by the libs and the lib media.

Now, there's more from President Ford.

Gerald Ford was disturbed by Bill Clinton's skirt-chasing ways - and thought he should check into a sex addiction clinic.

A new book on the late 38th President reveals he had strong views about the Clintons: He thought Hillary wore the pants and that Bill couldn't keep his zipped.

"He's sick - he's got an addiction. He needs treatment," Ford told Daily News Washington Bureau Chief Thomas M. DeFrank, author of "Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations with Gerald R. Ford."

Ford's wife, Betty, who founded a pioneering treatment center after her battle with alcoholism and drugs, agreed.

"You know, there's treatment for that kind of addiction," she told DeFrank during the same conversation in 1999. "A lot of men have gone through the treatment with a lot of success. But he won't do it, because he's in denial."

... He believed Clinton was charismatic, articulate, a "helluva salesman" and the best politician he'd ever seen - even better than John F. Kennedy.

But he considered Clinton a foreign-policy wimp, and sensed that he hadn't learned from mistakes in his personal life - allegations of womanizing that dogged him during the campaign for the White House.

That opinion was based on behavior Ford witnessed the weekend he hosted the Clintons in Colorado.

"I'll tell you one thing: He didn't miss one good-looking skirt at any of the social occasions," Ford said later.



"He's got a wandering eye, I'll tell you that. Betty had the same impression; he isn't very subtle about his interest."

In addition to discussing Bill's sex addict issues, Ford talked about Hillary's future.

"Hillary is gonna be on the ticket in '04 or '08, one or the other, you can write that down," he said in 2002.

Yet he didn't think she would win - "I don't think the country is ready for a lady President,"

Some questions--

Is Ford still the wise man he was deemed to be by the Left when he expressed some disagreement with Bush's Iraq policy?

Are these latest proclamations from Ford as newsworthy as the Iraq stuff?

No doubt Ford's statements will be dismissed by the libs as the ramblings of an old man.

All the news that's fit to print advance the liberal agenda.

I think this is an interesting question:

Is having a sex addict for a spouse detrimental to a presidential candidate?

Trick or Treat!

(The Right is Right)

Reagan and the '08 Republicans: Point/Counterpoint

In his analysis of the Republican presidential candidates, Charles Krauthammer takes some shots at Ronald Reagan.

Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent.

What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century.

The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent.

Krauthammer goes on to say that the current field of candidates is adequate.

He concludes:

So no more gnashing of teeth. Republicans have 4 1/2 good presidential candidates. All five would make fine Cabinet members: Romney at Treasury, Thompson at Justice, McCain at Defense, Giuliani at Homeland Security, Huckabee at Interior. All the team needs now is to pick a captain who can beat Hillary.

Mark Levin disagrees with Krauthammer's assessment of Reagan. He counters Krauthammer's shots, point by point.

He also suggests that now is the time to carefully examine the '08 candidates. That's what the primary process is about.

Levin's column is worth reading.

He concludes:

Krauthammer never worked for Reagan; I did. That's not a prerequisite for understanding Reagan, but when an opinion-maker is wrong about him, my personal experience of Reagan obliges me to defend him. Krauthammer suggests to me that he still doesn't understand why Reagan was a great leader or the public's love for him. The public had confidence that when Reagan spoke, he meant what he said; He left no room for question about what he believed in, and that he would try to implement policies consistent with his long-held positions.

It's not so much that we long for Reagan, as some dismissively contend (although I note that the candidates themselves invoke his name endlessly as a substitute for their own conservative shortcomings, perceived or otherwise). It is rather that we long for someone who can lead as he did. We don't seek perfection (even if we could define it), and we don't claim Reagan was perfect.

Krauthammer says he's not putting Reagan down. If that is the case, then he nonetheless has a funny way of describing him. But even if Reagan never existed, surely there is some standard by which we judge the candidates. For some of us, that standard is the same standard we used to judge prior candidates, including Reagan. To say all the candidates are fine is to say nothing. To say that major aspects of their records don't square with recent campaign statements is more than nitpicking. Now is the time to be inquisitive, engaged, and discerning. That's what primaries are all about. That's not to say that there aren't worthy candidates in the field. But simply saying they’re worthy is unpersuasive.

This isn't the first election in which a war hero is running for president. We've had war heroes who have made lousy presidents. This isn't the first election involving a successful governor. But they, too, have had mixed presidential records. I would encourage more scrutiny, not less.

Scarface Jacket Shootings

Milwaukee is going to hell.

Shootings on a city street on a Saturday afternoon.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Two teenage boys were shot Saturday after a gun-wielding man jumped out of a passing vehicle and demanded a leather jacket that one of the boys was wearing, Milwaukee police said today.

Milwaukee police Capt. James Shepard described the garment as a popular leather jacket bearing the likeness of the Al Pacino character in the movie "Scarface."

Shepard said the gunman escaped with the jacket after shooting both boys in their feet.

The 16-year-old wearing the jacket and a 14-year-old friend both were treated for their injuries and released from local hospitals, Shepard said.

The incident occurred about 1:25 p.m. Saturday in the 5200 block of N. 68th Street.

Do people care about this?

Teenagers get shot over a jacket.

Is this just business as usual in Milwaukee?

It's often said that violence and crime is a serious problem in the inner city, but much of Milwaukee is safe.

Is N. 68th the inner city?

Crime is spreading. Things are getting worse, not better.

Good luck to the new police chief.

To Buy or Not to Buy Miller

Charlie points out that Miller has issued an apology for the use of its logo on a promotional poster for the Folsom Street Fair.

Here is Miller's Press Release, October 26, 2007:

Miller Brewing Company today issued a formal apology for the offense caused by the use of Miller brand logos on a poster promoting the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. The company said it has taken action to ensure that such an incident will not happen again.

Miller has just completed an exhaustive audit of its marketing procedures for approving local marketing and sales sponsorships, and it is implementing plans to tighten its compliance procedures. The company has received assurances from its local distributor in San Francisco and from Folsom Street Events that future marketing materials and event activities will fully comply with Miller’s marketing policies and procedures.

“We deeply regret that we did not adhere to our own policies with regard to the Folsom Street Fair,” said Miller Senior Vice President Nehl Horton. “We apologize to everyone we offended as a result. We hope people will forgive us for this serious error and have confidence we will not repeat it.”

Miller did not have the opportunity to review or approve the Folsom Street Fair poster, but accepts full accountability for this serious mistake.

“Miller Brewing was never afforded the opportunity to review our Fair poster before it was printed and distributed,” said Andy Copper, Board President of Folsom Street Events. “The approval was made by a third party without Miller’s knowledge and consent.”

Copper also issued an apology on behalf of the organization which distributed the controversial poster.

“I would like to apologize to anyone who felt that the image was disrespectful to their religious beliefs,” said Copper. “No malicious intent was involved.”

In addition to issuing a formal public apology today, Miller sent letters of apology to Catholic Archbishops George H. Niederauer of San Francisco and Timothy M. Dolan of Milwaukee.

“Like all major brewers, Miller seeks to market respectfully to a wide and diverse array of consumers,” Horton concluded. “But when one group actively disrespects another, we cannot support its events and activities.”

It's clear that Miller has apologized for the poster incident.

What's not so black and white is whether Miller will sponsor the Folsom Street Fair again.

The final paragraph states that Miller won't support the events and activities of a group that actively disrespects another.

Does that mean that Miller has dropped sponsorship of the fair?

The press release doesn't directly address that.

I haven't purchased or consumed any Miller products for about a month.

Is it time to buy Miller again?

If I don't buy it, it won't be because of Miller's sponsorship of a group that smeared Catholics.

It will be because there are better beers.

John Jazwiec Resigns

I wondered what would happen next in the John "I've never called 911 in my life" Jazwiec saga.

It's been about a week since Jazwiec withdrew his complaint about the home invasion.

I was waiting for something to come of that. I thought the next chapter related to his bizarre allegations about being held hostage might have to do with charges of giving a false report to police.

That still hasn't happened, but there is another twist in this odd story.

Jazwiec resigned as CEO of RedPrairie, effective October 26, 2007.

“I have enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to serve as CEO of RedPrairie”, said Jazwiec, who is resigning to re-locate his family back to Chicago. “I would like especially to thank RedPrairie’s employees and customers for the opportunity to work closely together in building value for the past six years.”

RedPrairie announces that Jazwiec is resigning to re-locate his family back to Chicago.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Businessman John Jazwiec resigned Friday as CEO of RedPrairie Corp., saying he will return to the Chicago area.

Jazwiec, who has been in the middle of a controversy over his report of a home invasion that some have questioned, said in an interview he wasn't forced to leave the software development firm.

"This had been in the works for quite some time," he said. "My parents are getting up there in age. Matter of fact, my father broke his hip two weeks ago, and I've been with the company six years, which for me is a long time."

So it's back to Chicago for Jazwiec.

Skipping town?

That issue aside, I think it's best for Jazwiec to return to the Chicago area. He never adapted to Milwaukee.

That was clear when he first talked about the alleged home invasion, when a 300-pound man broke into his home and Jazwiec reacted by giving the guy "2 or 3 beers" and NOT calling 911.

At the time he said, "I'm a suburban kid from Chicago, I have no experience with this at all."

I guess you can take the kid out of suburban Chicago, but you can't take suburban Chicago out of the kid.

The resignation closely follows an unusual series of events that began four weeks ago when, according to Jazwiec's account, he and his family were held hostage and robbed in their million-dollar east side home by a man armed with a sawed-off shotgun.

The story touched off fear in Jazwiec's well-to-do neighborhood near Lake Park, but also raised red flags. Chief among them was that Jazwiec didn't call police.

Instead, the outspoken executive - who previously had generated heat with blunt criticisms of Milwaukee and Wisconsin as places to run a growing technology business - called the office of Mayor Tom Barrett the next day to complain about crime. Jazwiec also had an assistant call a reporter to set up an interview.

Police and - more pointedly - Ald. Michael D'Amato have raised questions about Jazwiec's account. D'Amato called the businessman's story "spurious" and said he had "unnecessarily besmirched the reputation of one of Milwaukee's finest and safest neighborhoods."

It wasn't until a week after the incident at Jazwiec's home that he said he wanted police to investigate, and that happened only when a detective called him as he was leaving town on a business trip.

Then, when he returned from the trip, Jazwiec told police through an attorney that he no longer wanted to pursue the investigation. A police spokeswoman, however, said the department would continue to investigate the matter.

Jazwiec said Friday that controversy over the home invasion report had nothing to do with his resignation.

"No," he said. "I mean, it was a traumatic event for my family, and we dealt with it and we felt that the right thing to do, emotionally, for the family was to drop the case, and from my point of view, the matter's closed."

Jazwiec, 48, doesn't have a new job.

That's a bit strange.

He resigned but doesn't have anything else lined up.

It's very difficult to believe that the home invasion episode has nothing to do with his resignation.

"I want to think about what I want to do when I grow up," he said. "I've been in the venture world. . . and I'm going to take some time to decide whether I want to start a brand new company or do kind of similar work to what I did at RedPrairie."

Jazwiec, who grew up in Elgin, Ill., said he plans to leave Milwaukee before the end of the year.

"We're going down to Chicago to make an offer on a home" today, he said.

Jazwiec wants to think about what he wants to do when he grows up.

Good grief.

He should put some real effort into growing up.

It's time he leaves the world of make-believe and accepts the responsibilities of being a grownup.

At RedPrairie, Jazwiec brought in a buzz-saw style that ripped through the company, a developer of warehouse-management and other software.

"He's got no mute," a former colleague said in an interview last fall. "Basically, he is a brilliant guy with no mute. . . . What he thinks, he tells you."

He's a brilliant guy with no mute and no idea how to call 911.

...Jazwiec's "no mute" style got a public airing last year, when he blasted Milwaukee as a parochial, crime-ridden city in a high-tax "welfare state" - neither of them, Jazwiec said, attractive to the sort of executives and tech workers a company such as RedPrairie needed.

He hinted strongly that the firm and the 200 jobs at its Town of Brookfield headquarters would be leaving Wisconsin.

Jazwiec's critique resonated with some and drew retorts from others, including those who suspected he was trying to extract government aid by threatening to move. He denied that.

Although his "no mute" style may have irked some, Mayor Tom Barrett's office, Jazwiec's version of 911, was very accommodating to Jazwiec.

In an e-mail exchange about the incident, Barrett's office challenged Jazwiec a bit, but sucked up overall.

Tom will be calling you directly. In addition, I think you and your neighbors could earn a lot from other well organized community groups. Washington Heights has an extensive email tree and that includes the 3rd district captain. Issues are responded to very quickly. Given that my wife is on the board, I can offer assistance in hooking you up there.

Let me also say that I am concerned and confused by your reluctance to report the incident at your home and your unwillingness to discuss your concerns about "an inside job". Serious stuff that should be investigated by the proper authorities. How can we address people's concerns about the department without people coming forward?

Again, be assured that we will do everything we can to address the concerns about crime you and your neighbors have - That will require some face to face time with a number of individuals. I hope your conversation with Tom is a start to that process.

How many Milwaukee residents receive that sort of treatment?

How many victims of crime get a call from Tom directly and face to face time?

My gut feeling is Jazwiec made up the story about his family being held hostage, losing their debit cards.

His e-mail assertion, "Because we were not sure it was not an inside job we did not dare go to police headquarters," is absolutely bizarro.

Is this story over, what with Jazwiec going back to his sweet home Chicago?

I hope not.

I'd like to know what really happened or didn't happen.

IMPEACH BUSH DAY

It's a big day for ImpeachBush.org.

They'll be taking to the streets all over the country today, united in their lunacy -- IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY.

I found this message in my inbox yesterday. I don't know how I got on this group's e-mail list.

Tomorrow, October 27
March for impeachment and to end the war!
Your help is needed.

Tomorrow, Saturday, October 27, tens of thousands of people nationwide will take to the streets demanding impeachment and an end to the war. ImpeachBush members are mobilizing nationwide to take part in these actions. The call for impeachment is being heard coast to coast. Congress is unable to hide from this constitutional requirement being demanded by their constituencies.

We are hitting the streets again on October 27 as mass actions sweep this country in mass regional demonstrations in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale, Fl., Chattanooga, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, Jonesboro, and others. To see the exact locations and times for the various demonstrations, go to the ImpeachBush homepage.

ImpeachBush is mobilizing buses, printing posters, placards, banners and leaflets for October 27. Please join us on Saturday and let the message of impeachment appear in the streets from one end of the country to the other. If you cannot come, but would like to make a donation to help others participate in the demonstrations demanding an end to the war and the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, you can do so by clicking this link.

The impeachment movement is growing now more than ever. It is needed not only to stop Bush and the war criminals that surround him, but fundamentally to make the political system accountable to the people. Our fight is a fight that has ramifications far beyond 2007. Bush must be impeached for war crimes - and he must be removed from office before he plunges yet another country, Iran, into war, massive death and devastation. Impeachment is the constitutional mechanism to stop despotism, to make the political system that reflects the will of the vast majority rather than a tiny few. It is our democratic right and one that must be enforced. We need your help now in this fight. Please make as generous a donation as you can by clicking here.

Right.

Bush must be stopped before he plunges that peace-loving nation Iran into war. Bush is Hitler and Ahmadinejad is Gandhi.

The people can make the difference. The politicians provide cover for Bush’s criminal war in Iraq, his illegal spying on the people, his creation of secret torture facilities and his other illegal and impeachable offenses.. But the people are organizing to demand that Bush and every elected official be held accountable for illegal activity. Impeachment can never be “off the table," and the impeachment movement is making it clear that we won't let it be. The pressure on Congress to act is building.

Sounds like something Springsteen would say.

For this Saturday's actions to succeed, however, we need to raise tens of thousands of dollars in just the next few days to cover the costs of literature, posters, stickers, signs, and banners and turn out around the country. Click this link to make a generous donation right now.

Go to ImpeachBush.org to see a list of the cities holding Oct. 27 demonstration.

The group is even having a sale on ImpeachBush sweatshirts!



Only $11.50! That's a bargain.

It's too late to get one for the march today, but Lefties might want to get a jump on their Christmas shopping.

Sorry. I mean holiday shopping, or winter solstice shopping, or whatever it is that Lefties celebrate in December.

Judy Robson Plays the Gender Card

Posted by Greg at WisPolitics:

Former Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson said today following the budget signing that her gender likely was a reason she was deposed by now-majority leader Sen. Russ Decker.

Robson defended her record and discussed why Democrats gave her the boot.

ROBSON: Well, they wanted more muscular direction. They want more rough and tumble. And that's not my style. My style is one of consensus, harmony, bringing people together to get the job done. Not to fight.

___________

I was told I was 'too nice' to be a leader. I think that's a gender issue. I think it's sexist, and I told the person who said that it's a sexist comment.

___________

All women leaders in the Legislature have had coups against them. It's the nature of being a woman leader - or I should say the fallout of being a woman leader.

___________

We need more women to be elected so this doesn't happen. Right?

What is Robson saying?

Is she saying that people consider all women to be "nicer" than men?

She says that "nice" is a gender issue.

Women can't be successful leaders because they're seen as "too nice"?

Robson thinks she was a victim of a coup because of her womanly niceness.

She's resigned to the fact that it's the "fallout of being a woman leader."

Right.

That Margaret Thatcher was a real sweetheart, too nice for the job.

Robson's comments are ridiculous. Saying that her ouster is gender-related does a disservice to women.

She shouldn't be blaming her failure to hang on to her position as Senate Majority Leader on any sexist stereotypes.

Robson should grow a pair, figuratively speaking of course.

90

Mayor Tom Barrett can no longer say that Milwaukee's homicide rate is lower than last year.

Murder #90 shot past last year's homicide figure for today.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Milwaukee's homicide number surpassed the year-to-date figure for last year when a man was fatally shot near a northwest side bar last night.

The 29-year-old victim was shot multiple times about 12:30 a.m. near N. 76th St. and W. Hampton Ave. He died at the scene, according to police.

The death marked the city's 90th homicide for 2007, compared to 89 at this time last year.

I'm uncomfortable referring to someone's death as a statistic.

It marginalizes the loss.

When citing the numbers, it shouldn't be forgotten that 90 INDIVIDUALS have been murdered in Milwaukee so far this year.

Budget: NOT Right for Wisconsin

It's a done deal.

Jim Doyle signed the new budget.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle signed the new state budget into law this morning, after loosening a 2% property tax levy limit on local governments that Republicans added to control property taxes.

Doyle said his veto took the levy limit to 3.86% for cities, towns, villages and counties in 2008; for 2009, the levy limit will stay at the 2% passed by the Legislature this week.

Explaining why he raised the amount of property taxes local governments can levy this fall, Doyle said they needed "a little more leeway" to protect police, fire and other emergency services. Many local governments - including Milwaukee - had already prepared their 2008 operating budgets that exceeded a 2% increase, the governor added.

The new limit of 3.86% will raise the December tax bill on the median-valued Wisconsin home by $93 - or about 3.4%, said state Budget Director David Schmiedicke. That is $13 more than under the budget bill passed by the Legislature on Tuesday.

Under that scenario, the owner of a home assessed for tax purposes at $170,305 will get a property tax bill for $2,827 in December. Schmiedicke said that bill would go up $14 more - or less than 1% - in December 2008.

With another veto, Doyle also killed a 4% levy limit Republican legislators had placed on vocational colleges.

In his veto message, Doyle said a 4% limit would have threatened the ability of vocational colleges to train and retrain the state's workers. "If technical colleges do not have the ability to respond to the rapidly changing needs of businesses in Wisconsin, economic growth will suffer," he added.

Also vetoed was a surprise provision - which no legislator has admitted sponsoring - the ability for retailers to offer free samples of liquor, and an accelerated construction schedule for State Highway 23 in Fond du Lac and Sheboygan counties.

..."It was certainly a difficult road to get to this point, but in the end Democrats and Republicans came together to do what's right for Wisconsin," Doyle said. "With this budget we create real opportunity for every Wisconsin citizen - the opportunity to go as far as their hard work and talent will take them."

I disagree.

I don't think this budget is "what's right for Wisconsin."

How could Doyle say that after vetoing the provision to give retailers the ability to offer free shots of liquor?

True, Doyle never made this promise to the people of Wisconsin:

"Going forward, my mind will be closed to every free sample suggestion -- except one. We should not -- we must not -- and I will not -- prevent retailers from giving customers shots of hard liquor."

Even though Doyle didn't lie about the free shots, the whole thing still ticks me off.

Oh, and the part about raising taxes...

That ticks me off, too.

Wisconsin Blogosphere Ugly

I've just been catching up on the Left-Right drama taking place among some Wisconsin bloggers, specifically the vile attacks on Jessica McBride by Illusory Tenant and Jim Bouman.

There's debate about which side is uglier.

Are the liberal bloggers more offensive? Do conservatives go over the line more often?

Each side can cite examples of foul cyber-behavior. Others have done that already so I won't bother to add to the list.

Naturally, I'm biased about which side stoops lower. I've been the target of some horrible attacks. I've experienced really hateful stuff, some from anonymous sources and some from sources that I could hold accountable.

If I feel myself becoming desensitized to the vitriol that too often passes for discourse on the Internet, I will leave and not return.

I refuse to accept terribly degrading names, particularly demeaning insults, extremely vulgar language, cyberstalking, and physical threats as typical, everyday Internet behavior.

I see that stuff as a really disturbing social trend, the coarsening of the culture.

It's as if some people find it acceptable to check their consciences at the door when they enter cyberspace.

The comfort of supposed anonymity brings out the worst in some people. There's nothing about the Internet in itself that creates their detestable behavior. But I think it provides some really sick people with an opportunity to express a side of their true selves that might otherwise remain hidden.

Illusory Tenant's use of the C-word to refer to Jessica McBride is an example.

After Illusory Tenant issued an apology of sorts, JIM BOUMAN goes beyond using vulgarities and strikes at McBrides's family, her children. That speaks volumes about Jim Bouman the person, not Jim Bouman as an Internet personality.

(Note: Bouman has also apologized to McBride.)

I can empathize with her. One's family, especially one's children, should be strictly off limits. Debates can become heated. There can be bad feelings; but the feuding should stop with the parties involved and not ensnare innocents.

What troubles me most is the complete absence of shame, the "I can say what I want and no one will ever find out" attitude.

I don't care whether one's real identity is a secret to most. Only a bad person would spew insults and mercilessly harass another human being rather than dealing with disagreements in a civil fashion.

When ADULTS act like junior high school bullies, there's a problem, a serious lack of maturity and character and decency.

Just because one is tapping away at a keyboard and staring at a monitor rather than speaking while looking into someone's eyes does NOT permit one to chuck one's values.

Things are said and done online that probably wouldn't happen in face to face interaction. Hate seems to come too easily.

I think the ugliness flows because of a sense of detachment. There's a type of dehumanization that occurs in the absence of flesh and blood.

Never forget you're interacting with real people.

Joe Biden Gets Another Pass

You can tell that Joe Biden isn't a top tier conservative candidate.

If he had a spot there, the comments he made yesterday would be big news.

In an interview with the Washington Post's Editorial Board, Biden stumbled, badly.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In what the Washington Post is describing as a "stumble," Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in an interview with the paper Wednesday that Washington's high minority population is one of the reasons for the city's education problems.

Explaining why schools in Iowa are performing better than those in Washington, D.C., Biden told the Post, "There's less than one percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than four of five percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with."

"When you have children coming from dysfunctional homes, when you have children coming from homes where there's no books, where the mother from the time they're born doesn't talk to them — as opposed to the mother in Iowa who's sitting out there and talks to them, the kid starts out with a 300 word larger vocabulary at age three. Half this education gap exists before the kid steps foot in the classroom," the Delaware Democrat added.

The paper reports Biden's campaign quickly sought to clarify the remarks, saying in a statement that the senator was not making a "race-based distinction" but rather a "socio-economic" one.

I don't believe that Biden thinks African-Americans in Washington are less intelligent than Iowa's overwhelmingly non-minority population.

I buy the explanation that Biden was making a socio-economic distinction.

However, for a politician with his experience, you'd think the guy would stop stepping in it.

He's made a number of awkward, racially-charged remarks.

For example, Biden said about Barack Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

On FOX News Sunday, when discussing his "Northeast liberal" label:

"You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state."

At an appearance, shaking hands with a man and boasting about his support among Indian-Americans:

"You cannot go into a Dunkin Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

Biden gets to explain away his comments and the lib media move on.

If a conservative said this stuff, he or she would be toast.

The libs are untouchable.

Sexist Pig Kenyan Monkeys

Monkey pigs

A group of monkeys in Kenya have no respect for women.

They engage in harassment that is so extreme that animal-control teams are being sent in to confront the boorish monkeys.

Kenyan monkeys make 'lewd signs' at women

A troop of monkeys has been making "lewd signs" at women and children trying to harvest crops south of Nairobi, and the farmers feel so harassed that Kenya’s Wildlife Service is sending in animal-control teams to confront the animals.

The monkeys in the Kabete area even earned a mention in parliament last month when the local MP Paul Muite said his constituents feared the monkeys would sexually harass them.

"Can the minister deploy game rangers in Karai location in Kabete to deal with the monkey menace?" he asked the tourism and wildlife minister, Morris Dzoro, to laughs in the chamber.

"These creatures have clearly shown that they have no respect for women."

Gichuki Kabukuru, a spokesman for Kenya Wildlife Service, said it was well known that monkeys and baboons have a penchant for harassing women rather than men, and even gesturing at them and touching their own private parts.

"That is quite true. I will not be able to give you a scientific explanation but it has been observed in the past," he said. "Even in our camps, when men are out on patrol and the monkeys see women and children, they will become very naughty and make lewd signs at them."

The monkeys reportedly appear at dawn. They are attracted to crops that are much easier to find than the berries and fruits they must scavenge for in the forest.

According to locals, the animals have become so aggressive that women have taken to dressing up like men, wearing trousers and long-sleeve shirts.

The animals steal so much food that there has even been a food shortage.

These monkeys are a disgrace. They are sexist pigs.

Why?

Spokesman for Kenya Wildlife Service Gichuki Kabukuru says he can't give a scientific explanation for the monkeys' behavior.

I think he wants to avoid controversy by giving that "no comment" comment.

I can think of a number of possible reasons for the behavior of these sexual harassing primates, as well as some knee jerk reactions from politicians to the monkeys' demeaning displays.

---Global warming probably has something to do with it. The monkeys are stressed and irritable, making them act out. They may be worried about stranded polar bears, condemned to drown.

---I suppose Russ Feingold would say that if not for the war in Iraq, if the Bush administration hadn't taken its eye off Afghanistan, this wouldn't be happening.

---And Barbara Boxer has blamed the California wildfires on the Iraq war, saying that "the ability of the state's National Guard has been compromised because too much of their equipment and personnel is in Iraq."

Of course, that's absolutely preposterous, but I'm sure she thinks that National Guard personnel and equipment would be better utilized in Kenya to put end to the monkey menace and their despicable degradation of women rather than being employed in Iraq. Anywhere but Iraq.

---I assume Harry Reid is drafting a letter to condemn the monkeys, and he's rounding up his colleagues to sign it.

---Pete Stark should blast the monkeys for making lewd gestures at women rather than helping to fund SCHIP, because he no doubt believes that these monkeys are doing it all for President Bush's amusement.

---We know Bill Clinton was in Africa, gathering romantic gifts for Hillary. Did Clinton influence the monkeys? Monkey see, monkey do.

---The UN should get involved, pass a resolution or something. Maybe even send in peace-keeping forces to control the monkeys. Watch for a Monkeys-for-Food scandal.

---Jimmy Carter should write a book about the crisis, analyzing why Israel's abuse of the Palestinian people has compelled the monkeys to harass women.

---There must be a racial component that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could exploit to feed their ego-driven agendas.

---Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett no doubt is outraged. Naturally, he would blame ILLEGAL guns for the situation.

---I bet Wisconsin Governor Jim "We should not -- we must not -- and I will not -- raise taxes" Doyle would do what he always does: Propose to solve the problem with a tax increase.

---In the end, is there any doubt that the sexist pig monkeys in Kenya are Bush's fault?

I think not.

Doubt Among the Obama Faithful

David Broder paints a somewhat dreary picture of Barack Obama's current position in the Democrat presidential race.

Broder writes:

These are difficult days for supporters of Barack Obama. This city is filled with people who have voted for, worked for, contributed to and, in many cases, prayed for the success of the young senator from Illinois. The struggle he has had in trying to overtake Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination is wearing on their morale.

Last weekend, I heard them tell each other that while the race started months ago, it is still the early going; that the crucial days in Iowa and New Hampshire are still ahead; and that there is time for Obama to close with a rush, as he did when he came from behind to capture the nomination for his Senate seat in 2004.

But the steady drumbeat of polls showing Clinton with more support than all the other Democrats combined -- and twice as much as Obama -- is taking a toll. In their private moments, they wonder whether even Obama, gifted as he is, can pull off this feat.

Such doubts can afflict any trailing candidate's campaign, but they are particularly pronounced -- and poignant -- in this case.

Poignant?

Broder seems to be emotionally caught up with the supporters of Obama's quest.

He feels their pain and he's moved by their faith in candidate Obama.

...They see Obama as someone uniquely positioned to heal a divided nation -- and to change the image of America in the world -- simply by virtue of his history and personality. They can visualize the headlines and television coverage around the globe if he were elected to the White House.

Among the Obama faithful, Hillary Clinton is not reviled. Indeed, there is a good deal of admiration for the way she has conducted herself in the campaign.

But at every turn, Obama's people feel that he has been outmaneuvered and outsmarted by Clinton's timing and tactics. Nothing is more painful to them -- or more typical -- than what happened Oct. 2.

That date was the fifth anniversary of the speech that Obama gave to a rally outside Chicago City Hall, called to mobilize opposition to the looming war with Iraq. In the speech, which has been quoted many times, Obama, then eyeing a Senate campaign, defied public opinion and decried what he called a "dumb" war.

He has often cited his prescience on that issue as the best evidence that, despite his short tenure in Washington, he has the judgment to make the right calls on crucial questions of national security.

The Obama campaign, therefore, announced that the fifth anniversary would be a special day for them, the date of a major foreign policy address. After some debate, the campaign decided not to stage a repetition of the outdoor rally but rather to have him speak in a college auditorium, a better setting for a thoughtful address.

The speech that he delivered at DePaul University here was as serious a discussion of the lessons of Iraq and the future of American foreign policy as anyone could wish. And, as I was repeatedly reminded by the Obama people, it got next to no national press coverage. It was briefly summarized on Page A8 of The Post, Page 11 of the Boston Globe and Page 20 of the New York Times.

Why? Because the Clinton campaign, with exquisite timing, that same morning released its latest-quarter fundraising totals, which put her ahead of Obama for the first time in the money race. The Page 1 stories in the next day's Times and Post were simple: Clinton, leading all the polls, now leads in campaign finances as well.

Boo hoo.

Running for President of the United States is tough.

Hillary has time and money and a lot of people on her side. She's sucking the air out of the room, leaving Obama gasping and struggling to breathe.

I think it's interesting that Broder notes the Obama camp doesn't revile Hillary. To the contrary, they admire her.

Broder seems to be suggesting that Obama's true believers don't want to burn any bridges.

Though they desperately want Obama to be president, I think they could adjust to having their man on the ticket in the number two spot.

More importantly, I think Obama could adjust, eventually. Michelle Obama -- I'm not so sure about.

The pessimists in the Obama camp worry that never again will they have such an opportunity to highlight his early opposition to the war -- in contrast to Clinton's vote for the resolution that President Bush used when he ordered the attack on Baghdad.

That is probably an exaggeration. Future debates, especially those coming in Iowa and New Hampshire, may provide more openings. It is also the case that the voters in those states are far less firmly attached to their current candidate preferences than polling numbers would suggest. There is, in fact, time for Obama to rally. It's just hard for his people to believe it right now.

I think Broder doesn't want Hillary to have a coronation.

It seems that he genuinely wants Obama to rally and at least make it a race rather than a blow out.

He acknowledges their doubt, but gives Obama's supporters reassurance and reason to believe.

Can Obama win the nomination?

True, it's not over, 'til it's over.

Nonetheless, I think Broder may be engaging in wishful thinking. Obama's supporters have a better grasp on reality.

Milwaukee's Black Fathers

In his column "Paging black fathers: Your kids need you," Eugene Kane makes some good points; unfortunately, not enough.

He strays from his message about how important it is for children to have responsible fathers in their lives.

Rather than putting blame squarely on the shoulders of the absentee, irresponsible dads for failing their children, he places most of the blame on "institutional obstructions" for their absence.

Kane writes:

Black fathers get a bad rap these days. Deservedly so, in many cases.

Sometimes the buzz on African-American fathers gets so negative it's hard to imagine any black men in town trying to do well by their children.

Turns out, Terence Ray doesn't believe that.

As head of the non-profit group Milwaukee Fatherhood Initiative, Ray is reaching out to black fathers with a variety of programs and services designed to improve their relationships with their children.

As a black father himself, Ray understands the difficulty of being a strong role model for his kids at a time when many place blame for much of the dysfunction in the African-American community squarely on the backs of black fathers missing in action from their children's lives.

That's why Ray was excited by the success of a gathering for black fathers a few weeks ago. The turnout for the Milwaukee Fatherhood Summit was more than 2,600 people, twice the number at the original event last year.

It's wonderful that the Milwaukee Fatherhood Summit was a success. With thousands attending, that's a hopeful sign.

The full-day event featured speakers, workshops, a job fair with more than 60 employers and even sessions on parenting. But in Ray's mind, the biggest success was the amount of information given to men who wanted to remove institutional obstructions to becoming better fathers.

Things like advice on invalid driver's licenses and getting a reduction on interest for back child support payments were a paramount concern to many of the men. Ray said it is impossible to overestimate the impact of such issues on family life.

"There are guys who literally walked away with more than thousands of dollars wiped off their debt," said Ray, in reference to agreements his organization had with the state to waive some money if men voluntarily participated in the parenting sessions.

"That's a real relief for some guys who had it hanging over their heads before they could be better fathers," he said.

So, in effect, all that these deadbeat fathers had to do was show up for a day of some workshops at the Milwaukee Fatherhood Summit and they were freed from thousands of dollars of debt.

That's a sweet deal, isn't it?

Certainly in some cases, taxpayers have been picking up the slack for years because these irresponsible men wouldn't be fathers to their children.

Once more, the state (meaning taxpayers) lets them off the hook, forgiving them, their debt wiped away because they went to some workshops and a job fair.

Yippee! Now that these "institutional obstructions" have been removed, they can be "better fathers."

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Have these men really changed? Is there any reason to believe that they've been reborn and will make child support payments?

These fathers walked out on their children. Now, they're supposedly walking back into their children's lives and ready to be good fathers.

That would be nice if that were true. I doubt that it is.

I wonder. How many of the fathers were married to the mothers of the children, at least at some point?

Were these ever intact families?

Ray also noted counseling paid off for some men who had never checked into repairing their "bad" driver's licenses.

"One guy thought he owed thousands, but it ended up all he had to do was pay $75 and he could get his license back," Ray said.

It's hard for some to comprehend how difficult it is for some fathers who are dealing with back child support and driver's license issues daily. These problems complicate the lives of the men regularly accused of being bad fathers, often to the point they just give up.

Huh? Repair "bad" driver's licenses?

A man couldn't be a father to his kids because he thought he owed thousands when all he needed to do was pay $75 to get his license back.

I don't get it.

Why would a man ABANDON HIS CHILDREN just because he lost his license?

I'm sorry. I don't buy this.

"Institutional obstructions" aren't keeping men from being fathers to their children.

Bad choices, irresponsibility, and simply not caring keep them from their kids.

All people have struggles of some sort. They have debt. They lose their licenses. Whatever.

That's no excuse to run out.

Perhaps these fathers didn't leave. Perhaps they were never there, never playing a role in their kids' lives.

Ray, 46, said his own father was "not the nurturing type. He was a provider."

That lack of interaction with his father created problems for Ray as a young man. His involvement in a robbery landed Ray behind bars for four years. He was released in 1990. Since then, Ray has tried to give back to the community with his involvement with black youth.

He also continues to be the best father he can to his own children by creating stability in their lives.

Although he wasn't a nurturer, Ray was lucky that his father was a provider. Too many kids in Milwaukee's black community aren't so lucky.

It's true that I'm being critical of the notion that "institutional obstructions" -- big, bad society's big, bad rules -- caused men to stay away from their children.

I have a real problem with that excuse.

However, I think Ray deserves a great deal of credit for working to better the community. More men need to be like him. He cares.

That's possibly the most important thing of all. First, you have to care.

Today's missing black men underestimate the impact they could have simply by showing up for their children. Many stay away because of problems with the legal system, which is why it's important for society to eliminate as many of those barriers as possible.

But the men need to show up, too. Instead of being missing in action, we need to get black fathers back on the front lines where they are so desperately needed.

Kane rightly stresses the importance of fathers being involved with their children.

But it's wrong for him to whine about problems with the legal system standing in the way of a man being a father.

That's BS.

A man chooses not to be a father to his children. How he behaves is his choice. Problems with the legal system are avoidable by not breaking the law.

Society hasn't created barriers that prevent black men from fulfilling their responsibilities as parents.

The fathers choose not to be parents.

It's possible that has something to do with the fact that some of these fathers were still children themselves when their offspring needed them to assume the responsibilities of adulthood. The impact of a child having a child for a parent cannot be underestimated.

Hopefully, Ray's work will help these fathers realize that their children need them to be parents.

They also must realize that blaming society for their own shortcomings is a mistake.

We need black men to be involved and teach their children to work hard, be responsible, and aspire to achieve their dreams rather than to claim victim status.

The culture of victimhood may be the greatest barrier they face.