Now this wouldn't be much of a blog if I didn't weigh-in on the state of the union address from this past Tuesday would it?  

From the desk of Winks.


From the "bet you didn't know this" file:  Late last year Washington passed "The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010", better known as the big fight over the expiring Bush tax cuts and the re-instatement of UI for another year.  What they didn't tell us is that the law also includes a sunset provision on the death tax that is especially harsh on the heirs of families who inherit an estate, which is very often a family business.  This was part of the trade-off brokered by the big spenders in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Seems that the ever-greedy tax and spend liberals, who have always hated the estate tax exemption, managed to all but kill it in two years from now.  Currently, the exemption is $5 million with a $5 million portability provision that exempts assets inherited by a spouse, effectively shielding $10 million of assets from the death tax.  After the exemptions, the top rate is 35% on the balance.  With the new law, the exemption is reduced to $1 million and the top rate explodes to 55%!  In addition, the portability provision disappears altogether. 

So here's the scenario:  A man starts his business in his 30's and retires after 30 years, but makes the assets part of his estate instead of transferring them to his kids at retirement.  When he dies, after paying income taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, personal property taxes, and real estate taxes, now the government takes up to 55% of value of the business assets, as if all the taxes paid over a lifetime just wasn't quite enough.  I mean, really.  Is that not the ultimate poke at an entrepreneur, who built a business that provided for his family and created wealth for a community?  Oh, but it gets worse.  If managed well, business assets include minimal cash because good business managers make sure any excess cash gets invested.  So the heirs inherit assets comprised of buildings, land, equipment, inventory, etc., but have to come up with the cash to pay the taxes.  Does that not sound like a huge disincentive for the new business owners?  Might they be money ahead to simply cash out the business, pay the taxes, and take whatever is left for other pursuits?  (Keep in mind that this course of action may very well include layoffs.)  And for the final kicker:  The law's provisions take effect on (drumroll here):  January 1, 2013.  How conveeeenient.

Now, tomorrow night, Obama is going to prattle on about what he's going to do to gun the economy and create jobs.  Listen close for how many times the words "entrepreneur" and "small business" are used in his speech.  He's also going to talk about even more spending for infrastructure, education, and research, while at the same time tackling the deficit and the debt.  Well where is that money going to come from?  If not more debt, it will have to come from taxes since he is not going to propose any meaningful cuts.  Reason being a diehard liberal like Obama knows only one thing:  grow the government by higher taxes and more spending, the very anti-thesis of organic economic growth.  

Don't listen to what he says.  Watch what he does.  Then vote him out.  

Apparently not everyone got the Obama call for civility memo from his Tucson speech...

nationally there's this...


Gopzilla.  Nice.  Actually, I kind of like the imagery.
Of all leftish mags I've always found the New Republic the least offensive.  Status in doubt.  Judis after all was one of the original Jornolistas , that cabal of liberal influence peddlers who compared notes to formulate a cohesive anti-right narrative.  Collectivist in spirit and in practice I guess. I am not sure why anyone on that list, BTW, should ever be given the benefit of the doubt on anything they write without a disclaimer divulging their participation.  You can bet your butt they will identified as the coordinated propagandists they are when referenced here.

We also have a Democrat Congresscritter with old tried and true GOP are Nazis slur, right from the house floor no less.  Democrats; we put the uh, er, "um" in decorum. Rep Cohen Slanders GOP

What a frikken tool. 

Closer to home back in Wisconsin we have progressive talk jock Sly in Madison broadcasting the repulsive and, decidedly sexist BTW, notion that our female Lieutenant Governor blew her way into office   This was not a weather reference.  You can count on Wisconsin lefties for a lot, but not class.

Then there's this lovely cartoon from a public union newsletter, again with the Nazi reference.  Obviously they are as short on creativity as they are on civility.



Still pissy about the half-fast rail thing I see.

And this complete and total fabrication from a Rice Lake based Teacher Union affiliate.  The union teacher  
Mrs. Murmur is rightfully embarrassed by this whole affair.  To his credit a fellow teacher, my shop teacher in fact, fact-checked and routed a debunking reply to the original circulation at their school. 

This from an organization who lives or dies mostly on the concept of good faith.  Abundant questions; who could think this was a good idea?  who is dumb enough to believe it?  who would be dumber still to circulate it? what superior OK'd it?  If this is how they start out in the 3rd week of a 4 year term what can expect from here on?  

Meanwhile libs are putting Wisconsin's new top ranking as most tolerant state   at risk.  But then again, since the Daily Beast formulated the ranking criteria, these things might just strengthen our position.   

.   
   

Something positive insights from "Winks"
-F

At $14 trillion and counting, the danger of the mounting U.S. debt is very real.  However, we've been misled (or maybe lied to?) over the size of China's holdings.  The truth is China holds about 7.5% (U.S. Treasury September 2010 financial report), or just over a $1 trillion.  Alot of money, yes, but not enough to hold sway over our economic future.  The bigger problem is the lopsided trade deficit we have with the Chinese.  Because they have artificially deflated their currency, they have been able to flood the U.S. (and the world) with goods that are cheaper than those produced domestically while simultaneously making our exports to them more expensive. 

So, how have we responded?  By loudly protesting (whining?) that they should inflate their currency to "re-balance" the trade gap.  And they should do this...why?  Well, it would help tamp the inflation that de-valuation has created, but with so much cash rolling in from around the globe and living standards rising so fast, it's hard to imagine that inflation is much of a concern, especially for a government that's never cared much about the well-being of its citizens in the first place.  On the contrary, inflating the currency would brake the growth that has propelled China to the second largest economy in the world and enabled a military expansion that should be cause for concern for the free world.  Who can blame them for telling Timmy Geitner to go pound sand? 

But how have the Chinese responded, other than blowing off Washington (something they've made into an art)?   By making suggestions that the U.S. dollar as the dominant currency is "a product of the past" and that the yuan should supplant the dollar as the global benchmark currency, effectively bumping us from our perch as the world's leading economic power and significantly reducing our influence in the global economy.  President Hu Jintao speaks of collaboration with the U.S. in one sentence and then follows with comments that clearly indicate China's intentions of knocking the U.S. from the top of the global economic food chain.

It doesn't help that they perceive the U.S. as a weakened adversary, thanks in part to Obama's ineffective foreign policies and appeasement strategies and the damage of the recession.  Make no mistake, China may be a top trading partner, but they remain formidable opponents politically and militarily.

So, while they aren't going to "own" us anytime soon because the debt, they are going to play their hand in a way that serves their economic interests before ours and by their own rules whenever they can get away with it.  We just need to remember who we are playing with and use Obama’s lack of economic leadership and weak foreign policies as leverage to force change in the WH in 2012, as it is clear that this administration is not up to the challenge.

Alright, if the Chinese only own 7.5% of the debt, who owns the rest?  Well, American individuals and institutions actually own 42% of it, the Social Security Trust and other government retirement funds own 21%, and a large contingent of countries own the rest.  It breaks down to about $9 trillion for us and $5 trillion for everybody else.

For further reading see:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703551604576085803801776090.html?mod=WSJASIA_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews

and

http://blogs.wsj.com/exchange/2011/01/17/chinas-reservations-about-the-dollar/?mod=WSJ_article_related

Ugh.  Am I some kind of sicko?  The very first thought that went through my mind when I heard a Congresswoman was shot was I hope it was a Republican.  I knew, just knew, that if it was a Democrat the nasty left would sure as hell try to make some political hay out of it.  Sure enough.

Almost before ambulances arrived on the scene prominent lefties blamed the right wing climate of hate in general, and Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh in particular, for the actions of a lunatic.  These wild accusations were based on absolutely nothing but their fevered imaginations worst opinions about the evil right wing.

If nothing else the left sure is predictable and the rhetorical bile that ensued followed is an exclamation point on the rule.  An exception would have been so much more welcome, giving us more time to digest and grieve, but no such luxury was afforded once the opportunity to score political points presented itself.  As we saw, truth had no bearing on the matter.  Their respect for truth was as present as their respect for decorum at the memorial service.  (Great Speech, terrible audience, shades of the Wellstone service a few years back)

So as the week wore on the charges appeared flakier by the day, finally to the point where President Obama himself had to disavow the nonsense personally at the pep rally memorial service.  What are the motivations of people who fling groundless accusations around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade?   I'm not sure, and hold out hope they do not represent the majority.  Or do they? 

I recall Ann Coulter answering a question about why her campus appearances bring out the worst of the left.  Tongue only partly in cheek she opined that perhaps it's because they get so frustrated at their inability to articulate a coherent argument they resort to throwing food, a reference to a pie-throwing incident at one of her events.  She may have been on to something, since throwing food has all the maturity displayed by Krugman et al. 

To some people, Paul Krugman and the New York Times for example, the mere existence of conservatives is ample and sufficient explanation for all things evil and wrong in the world.  Some of Krugman's deep wisdom on the subject: 

"Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment."

and this
"So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe."

and, since is such a rich vein to tap... 

"Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.

Oh wait a minute, those quotes weren't from this week, they were lifted from a June  2009 column called The Big Hate .  Why, it's almost as though the Pulitzer prize winner is working from a predetermined narrative.
 
YA THINK???

What Loughner did was give aid and comfort to Krugman.  Unfortunately for Krugman the only thing less abundant than Loughners sanity was any hint of political motivation for his actions. 

The more I observe the public debate the more it becomes apparent that the basis for much of what I hear from that end of the spectrum is nothing more than pure animus toward the the other end.  They are so entirely convinced on the evil of conservatism that not only can they do no right, but everything wrong is somehow their fault.   

The word prejudice is derived from prejudgement, the arrival at a conclusion before any facts are determined.  Another is, per Webster c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.  

A bigot, is a practitioner of prejudice or as Webster would say:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. 

I have always been curious about the drive behind the animus the left holds for the right.  I mean I think the left is wrong, but I don't think they are evil.  Prejudice and bigotry are two of the most incendiary and volatile words you could come up with but I'm afraid you couldn't find any more accurate terms to describe how they responded to a genuine national tragedy.  If it happened to a Democrat a Republican was at fault, true or not, they were compelled to barf their bigotry as though it was well considered and should be taken seriously.

The irony was the political watching bigot bemoan the lack of civility - - apparently clueless to the idea that accusing a group of being an accessory to murder is about as uncivil as it gets.  Are they so comfortable with their double standard that this wouldn't even occur to them? How does THAT work exactly? 

Looks like Orwell's adage that only a liberal can hold 2 opposing thoughts at the same time while believing both to be true was at play here.  In watching the reaction I was also reminded of the phrases putting out fire with gasoline, and the old standby boy who cried wolf.

The speed, ferocity, and volume of the response to the bogus charges was quite impressive. 

The silver lining is the alternative media makes fast work of denouncing and calling the media out on its bullshit.  Note the rights response was not an effort to shut anyone up or chill speech.  It was simply giving notice to the left that their double standard franchise has expired along with their monopoly on the public narrative.

The days of the right passively accepting lectures on tolerance from intolerable hypocrites are over.  The alternative media brought them to heel in short order, and it's a good thing.  If we are to have an open dialogue, for a change, they had better get used to having their opinions challenged.  We are not going away, and we will not shut up.   

Blogger and columnist Don Surber  put it another way:

"The left wants us to be civil after being so uncivil for a decade.
Bite me.
 I have been screamed at for 10 years. Its my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say." 

John Hayward, a.k.a. Dr Zero, now writing at Human Events sees this as a sign of the ultimate demise of the left in his Jan.14 column .  From his keyboard to God's inbox...

The blood libel is a wail of desperation from a dying movement furiously trying to claw its way from the grave of history.  They’re screeching at Middle America to ignore the devastating arguments against them, because the people making those arguments are evil.

I am not sure who coined the phrase but think I saw it first in James Taranto's Best of the Web Wall Street Journal column years ago
" Save free speech, it makes it easier to spot the idiots"

Ron Radosh at Pajamas media offers a milder more thoughtful rebuke....
"So yes, civility and dialogue is necessary. But so is honesty. And that is something we can no longer expect from the liberal and left columnists at the New York Times."

Honesty is something I haven't credited on the New York Times since they decided it was to Democrat electoral advantage to publish state secrets despite the Bush White House admonishments to refrain. 

Yes, America had a really tough week.  Instead of letting her grieve and mend, the left were compelled, as always, to demonize, without hesitation, facts, or class.  In other words, they lived up to their stereotype.

UPDATE:  Maybe the topic isn't as stale as I had thought:
Hot Air explains time for defunding NPR/CPB ripe as ever.
 
Thoughts on the state of political bigotry later...

Wow a guy takes a couple of months off from blogging and the whole world turns to crap.  Anything happen since the election? 
 
I know the following is stale.  I've been distracted by Facebook, some health issues, the holidays, and what not but one of my resolutions is to reinvigorate this joint.  A fellow Heartlander has agreed to join in and keep the blog pace more steady.  We haven't discussed his moniker so I won't be introducing him just yet but you'll like the addition, if you like red meat that is.  Tim is a corporate MBA who can offer more technical insight on economic matters.  He hails from Michigan these days, where if I got it right, the only state besides Wisconsin to pull off a GOP hat trick in taking both houses and the Governorship on November 2nd.

There will also be some cosmetic changes as we will be moving to wordpress before the end of the month.  This should make the mechanical end of things easier, and also help facilitate some low scale monetization.  So if you like what you read, buy shit here to help keep the joint up.  My goal is to bump up against the magical 250K mark, just enough to stay not rich and confound the IRS.

I have also decided to launch a new series called Of Animal Farm and Stuck Pigs, riffing off my Liar Liar Poopyhead essay a while back.   Also thinking about taking nominations for Squealer of the week, that politician or public figure who best displays dramatic discomfort due to the paradigm shifts in the vastly expanded public square.  (That idiot Sheriff in Arizona, who with absolutely no evidence cited heated political dialogue as a motivator behind the massacre there, would be in the running this week for example) 

Anyway, about that botched lynching.... 

Don't think I miss the irony and appreciate the humor in the notion that government radio handed the right a clean, articulate, sincere, black guy, who, as harry Reid might put it, doesn't speak with a negro dialect, as the twenty first century icon to left wing "tolerance".  That's nothing short of hilarious.  Even so, just because Juan Williams landed on his feet in a better paying job is no reason to give NPR a pass on the state sanctioned violence visited on his right to free speech.  Apparently Mr Williams right had some type of stay left way left clause from which he inadvertently deviated. 

This is the highest profile example of government political correctness since affirmative action.  It's even more egregious when you look at the all-white talent roster he left behind at NPR. 

Here are some thoughts about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at it's inception; 

” At its best, public television would help make our Nation a replica of the old Greek marketplace, where public affairs took place in view of all the citizens. But in weak or even in irresponsible hands, it could generate controversy without understanding; it could mislead as well as teach; it could appeal to passions rather than to reason.
If public television is to fulfill our hopes, then the Corporation must be representative, it must be responsible--and it must be long on enlightened leadership.”
- President Lyndon B. Johnson in remarks signing bill establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio”

Well then.

While everyone seems to be in agreement about the need for the separation between church and state, apparently no one gave a second thought to the idea that separation between the press and state might be a good idea too.  

NPR’s firing of not-left-enough Williams, is as clear of an example of strong-arm censorship as you are likely to find in a supposedly open society.  It certainly provides pause to reconsider the original charter of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and it’s stepchild National Progressive Radio.

... from the by-laws:
"Except as provided in the second sentence of subsection (c)(1) of this section, no political test or qualification shall be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation."

Emphasis mine. 
Ahem. Just sayin, obviously this must be one of those "living" documents, you know, the kind that changes depending on who reads it and when. 

Apparently it never occurred to leadership in 1967 that the establishment of a state sponsored press would be any less tyrannical than a state sponsored church. But then again, at CPB's birth, the stepchild NPR was free of deformity, I mean who could foresee anything wrong with broadcasting classical music into the hinterlands?  Based on Johnson’s remarks the assumption of good faith prevailed. The idea that CPB/NPR might be used to forward an agenda rather than deliver education and arts programming to places previously unreachable must not have even crossed anyones mind. 

Times have changed.   

In reading some of the background, and the bill itself, it is made plain the primary intent behind the law was to further education, sighting television and radio broadcasting, then state of the art technology, as the best means of doing so most efficiently. All well and good, but,
 
Times have changed.

So has technology, to the point it has left television and radio in the dust, yes, we’re talking interwebs.  As an example of government programs that thrive in spite of outliving their original intent and usefulness CPB/NPR ranks right up there with the Departments of Agriculture, Education, and Energy.  You’d also be very hard pressed to cite a more exemplary comparison showing the vast superiority of a marginally regulated product, in the hands of innovative profit driven users, compared to a government created, heavily regulated non-profit entity driven by good intentions. 

All this notwithstanding, I have been a steady non-donating listener of NPR for years mainly because, in my opinion, the format and delivery makes up for the editorial slant.  That corresponds with my strong distaste for overly caffeinated talk jocks and screaming commercials, which to my mind is as far away from an ideal way to wake up as you can get.  My inner BS filter is adequate enough to listen through propagandized content abuse.  You get used to it after awhile, plus it saves me the trouble and embarrassment of subscribing to the New York Times.

“The Corporation may not contribute to or otherwise support any political party or candidate for elective public office.”
Section F, item 3 Subpart D — Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Sec. 396. [47 U.S.C. 396] Corporation for Public Broadcasting
 
That? I just threw that in for laughs.  Hey I know, let's suggest an amendment to this item stipulating excessive criticism of any political party, specific politician, or candidate is defacto support of the other. (I just kill myself sometimes)

Point is, they make me crazy, but I still believe NPR has the goods to be a viable private brand.  Every time the subsidy question arises they are exceptionally quick to point out that only 2 to 6 per cent of their funding actually comes from taxes.  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html

If that’s the case then, wouldn't’t the leap from public to private be virtually risk free?  I know a lot of people who would pony up for a commercial free radio station for that reason alone.  Isn't that the Sirius XM model?

So herein lies the rub, it’s not the tax funding that gives CPB/NPR it’s clout, it’s the prestige of the government brand. A name that includes “public” and "national" carries an air of authority not available to a private company, at any price.  Even if they could afford it, why should CPB/NPR compete when they can have a tax-funded monopoly?

If the GOP congress is serious abut cutting wasteful spending the CPB and NPR would be a great place to start.    

Not directly related but very interesting story about how LBJ and Mrs. Johnson made their millions.  http://www.slate.com/id/2170481/nav/tap3/

  

hat tip to Kevin at CHD photo for pic 

I remember growing up in Wisconsin fondly.  Living in the southwest corner, or driftless region , we were close to other states and it was a point of pride that when we crossed a state line on a highway, or even a back road, you could tell instantly, because our roads were so much better.  We had an awesome university system, fabulous state parks, and were bordered not only by the first and second largest fresh water lakes, but also the biggest river on the continent.  There could never be a most beautiful spot in Wisconsin because there are just too many to choose from. 

Back then politics was a bunch of folks who went to Madison for the session and returned home to their regular jobs.  One of the biggest scandals I remember was when a state employee got caught making long distance phone calls on a state phone.  Stop the presses!  After that I moved to Chicago for a dozen years, then Cleveland for a bit, and between those two saw what big city Democrat machine politics could do to a town.  I recall some of my Chicago friends making fun of that scandal, bunch of pikers. To Barrett's credit, Milwaukee hasn't sunk to those levels, although majorities at city hall and our County Board seem hell bent on getting us there. 

 

First of all, let's celebrate the pending departure of Diamond Jim Doyle, the guy who raised pay for play graft to an art form.  No matter who wins the Governors chair next week, it will be a huge upgrade.  The question now is how in do we want to go, all in for a complete departure, or partly in for Doyle light, except with charisma? 

This is the first election that I have actually met and talked with both gubernatorial candidates several times. My personal impression is that both men are hard-working, well-meaning, really nice guys. Big deal, they both managed to pass How to be a Politician 101. Mr. Walker and some of his staff were very supportive when I ran for County Board several years ago.  On the campaign trail I crossed paths with Mr. Barrett, literally, and was struck, again, by his fundamental good nature and sincerity. 

I pride myself on having a nose for authenticity. Even though I risk getting a boatload of crap from some of my conservative friends, I have to be honest and admit both candidates pass the smell test. In that regard though, I think Barrett's staff is failing him in their tough guy, grumpy old uncle, or whatever the hell image they concocted. The blatant lie about Walker wanting to stop stem cell research was particularly scummy.  That Barrett is unfamiliar to me. The dude poured me a beer at Irish Fest once, how can he be a jerk?   I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and blame his consultants. 

I lived under three mayors here in Milwaukee and Barrett is the best, faint praise perhaps, because his predecessors were such wankers . But that's part of the point, the depth of the talent pool for his potential replacement is frighteningly shallow, almost to the point of being dry.  To say it reminds one of the bar scene in Star Wars is to put it kindly. 

Fair or not, the greatness of a state depends a lot on the vibrancy of its largest metropolitan area.  I humbly submit Detroit Michigan and Twin Cities Minnesota as examples, and rest my case on this point.  I fear losing Barrett as Mayor would take us one giant leap toward Detroit.   

Walker has gotten endorsements from both the Wisconsin State Journal and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel so I understand my two cents is somewhat deflated.  The Sentinel Journal was particularly surprising after watching them carry Barrett's water and bludgeon Walker repeatedly for the last eight years.  What those dailies lack however is my outstate heritage and sensibilities.  To that end I can relate with outstaters weariness and skepticism about being controlled by Milwaukee and Madison. While it may be downplayed by the media and Barrett, outstaters don't brush off the idea that Eagle Scout Walker grew up in a small town. 

Walker meets all my fiscal conservative criteria and is the real deal.  He campaigned for County Executive on a promise not to raise taxes and proceeded to present zero tax increase budgets eight years in a row, no lies, no gimmicks.  When he learned that the county had arranged for the exec to be paid more than Governor he actually gave himself a pay cut, to the tune of over $374,000 over eight years, walking the talk.  I can't think of a better or more stark example of putting principle over politics. I don't suppose those who can't fathom how people could vote against their own self interest will be able to understand this. 

Just as impressively, he has managed to accomplish more with less.  The county parks system here was is sorry shape when he came on the job.  Over eight years they were improved to the point of winning a national gold medal - - all while decreasing staff and shrinking budgets!  The prospect of that governing philosophy being foisted onto the tax and spend mentality of Madison is enough to get my vote purely for entertainment reasons.

Doubters should take heart.  Wisconsin has always prided itself in being one of the leaders in the state experimental labs of democracy. (it got us Progressivism for example, but hey, not every experiment can be a success) From my knowledge of history, or certainly in my lifetime, this will be first time fiscal conservatism has ever been tried.  Consider this an opportunity to expand those famously open minds. And please, don't embarrass yourself with "what about Thompson?".   Good guy and all, but it takes a particularly supple imagination to accuse him of fiscal austerity.  Sorry Gov and fans, but I gotta call em like I see em.  Remember that was when the mainstream media had tighter control of the narrative and its attending definitions.  They routinely used the term "conservative" as a slur to bludgeon any Republican any time they did something they didn't like.     

Contrast the parks experience with Mr Barrett, who promised flat out and repeatedly, that he would put an end to the routine dumping of raw sewerage into the Milwaukee rivers that feed into Lake Michigan. Well, he didn't, and every time we get more than an inch of rain, the gates open up, and feces flows.  Is there a word beyond disgusting?  During Barrett's tenure an amount roughly equal to that of the entire gulf oil spill, 147 million gallons, has been dumped into Lake Michigan, and yet, Barrett prioritizes a high speed train to Madison instead of trying to secure federal funds to finally shut down this recurring cesspool.  There can be no more putrid example of a broken campaign promise, and to this voter no better proof Barrett has not earned the promotion he seeks.  It is more likely to be fixed if we promote the successful County Executive to State Executive in the hope pressure from the top will finally start to clean up this mess.

I have no delusions we will ever restore the idyllic Wisconsin of my youth.  But the prospect of a fresh start with bold new leadership really has inspired me to believe in Wisconsin again.  The possibility that we may once again be ridiculed by our neighbors to the south for having such clean government has some appeal as well.



Different stuff and place, but the color is about right.  You get the idea.

Can't let this go unpublished.  Lord knows my fellow cheeseheads readers will never hear about it from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or Wisconsin State Journal.  Cross posted from Facebook:

Wow, the sleaze and hypocrisy runs deeper than I knew. And that's difficult considering the subject in question ....

...."there is hard proof beyond doubt that Senator Feingold -- now behind in the polls -- has been dependent on the fruits of ... Secret Donor Money groups and lobbyists to perform his duties as a U.S. Senator."

So we have the Chamber of Commerce and Club for Growth behind Johnson, and George Soros behind the pseudomaverick. Just in case you want to make, you know, an informed decision Nov. 2

By all means, go read the whole thing The Senator From Soros  in exposing this Jeffery Lord does a great service to the people of Wisconsin.

The thing I am wondering if this guy is such a Rhodes Scholar genius why does he need to rely on others for his research?  Does he outsource his thinking?  And, how can someone so brilliant be so stupid as to plagiarize, word for word, into an open mike?  You'd think after a lifetime in the business he might be a little more careful than that.  Hubris, thy name is Feingold.

Observations on the public square in a time of transition....

My morning routine was more interesting than usual the other day.  It began during the commute when my seven year-old came up with an idea.
“Dad, you know what”?  Where this irrepressibility comes from I’ll never know.
"What honey”? Says I, still only partially caffeinated.
“You know all those water parks”? 
“Yeah, what about ‘em”? 
“I think if they didn’t charge so much, more people would come.”

Ah, from the mouths of babes.  Presented the opportunity to explain the economic theory of price elasticity as it relates to household discretionary entertainment budgets, in terms that seven year-old can understand, I just knew it was going to be a great day.  Feh, I don’t need no stinkin’ caffeine!  Thing is, when all was said and done she actually got it.  This one scares me.  Did I mention she was seven?  I woke her brother and sister up when we got to school, noting it odd in that they don’t normally fall asleep on the short drive. 

So I’m at the health club working the elliptical, listening to music on the mp3, and yet another political ad infects one of the flat screen televisions, no sound, just images.  The script for the hearing impaired was scrolling across the bottom of the screen and I catch this: “Russ Feingold will preserve jobs in Wisconsin” or somesuch.  Whatever.  But, I think about it a bit and, being the curious sort, I ask myself, being there alone in my little mp3 world I am my only company after all, and I say, “hey self, wouldn’t you think if Feingold could do that he actually might have in the last eighteen years?”  Self didn’t respond, recognizing this as more of a rhetorical question. Old self can be a taciturn cuss at times.    
 
My point here is not to beat up on Feingold (but if you like that sort of thing you will probably enjoy this). Fact is, I feel bad for Feingold because he was rendered a horrible disservice in the form of some lame-ass verbiage masquerading as a message.  It is strictly coincidence that the poster boy for political careerism happened across my visual landscape during the formulation of my thesis, which is this: the information explosion spawned by the internet is changing politics to a degree unprecedented in U.S. history, even more, way more, than when the introduction of TV catapulted JFK into the White House. 

But, to quote domestic goddess and felon Martha Stewart, it’s a good thing. We are still in the early stages of the transition. Considering the nominal growth in this young century so far, and how it has already precipitated a tectonic shift in the political debate, one can only imagine what it will look like when it reaches critical mass.  I recommend seat belts, and ear plugs may be a good idea too, because the screech of stuck pigs is sure to be deafening.   

Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, watching a 30 second or one minute TV ad to learn about a candidate is about as instructive as watching a Christmas tree to learn about religion, and not nearly as pretty.  So you have to ask, if a seven year old can grasp a basic economic concept in a couple of minutes, why do political media mavens insist on spewing such nonsensical drivel?  Though we try to ignore the obvious sometimes, it just might be that they really do think voters are dumber than a second grader. I am open to other possibilities, but bear me out.  

I sincerely hope this is not wishful thinking but I sense a growing flippancy toward political ads in general.  The written word has already eclipsd traditional media on the internet, and as video becomes more prevalent, the usefulness of broadcast television will continue to erode.  Some big dots in the larger political debate are becoming more apparent, and their connection inevitable.  The only people who find this frightening are the political consultants compensated by a percentage of airtime purchased. Oh well. If these are the same people responsible for ad copy like the Feingold ad, that’s a good thing too. Cue the pigsticker.   

Dots?  First, new media is unencumbered by prepackaged time segments, schedules, writing style constraints, and political correctness.  The flexibility of expression lends itself better to the presentation of complex ideas. The second is that news consumers have more control of their news consumption, due not only to the increase in supply, but also the previously unavailable control of when to consume.  The third is they are now equipped to be their own quality control monitors.  Now, when a consumer’s inner BS alarm goes off, they are only a few keystrokes away from verification.  The fourth, and probably the most debilitating, and fatal if we are lucky, to old media, is that traditional media offers none of these features.

Connection? The more the dots above are recognized the more folks will realize that the overly simplified political messages we’ve been force - fed for years represents a truly remarkable trifecta of inferiority; it contorts the issues, belies its purported seriousness, and insults its intended audience. No wonder media stocks are plummeting and media employment is at a 15 year low.  

Because it is the only way it fits the format, marketing and packaging candidates like breakfast cereal in 30 second or one-minute sound bites has to be oversimplified. Unfortunately, name-calling, negative innuendo, and character attacks is about as simple as it gets.  Subsequently we are deluged with attack ads made up of selectively dissected, dissembled, out of context, and rearranged message bits,mostly because the mix is more format friendly.  Both sides produce this garbage, so neither is innocent. I am sure my liberal friends have noticed the same thing from their angle.

With contents like that why should voters give any more thought to a candidate than they would their breakfast cereal, especially when they know the messenger could have provided much more intellectually nourishing contents, had they only chosen a better package?  As more news consumers become accustomed to the vastly superior alternative medium, more will cast a skeptical eye on campaigns that decides to use a medium that treats them like idiots. So, to a point, the media really is the message. Somewhere Marshall McLuhan nods .   

The growing and unstoppable avalanche of alternative information unleashed by the internet has enabled countless keyboard activists to be their own bullshit detectors and town criers.  This phenomena was cleverly coined an Army of Davids by the author of the same-named book, uber-blogger Glen Reynolds at Instapundit . Not subject to agenda driven editors this rabble is free to spout and shout whatever they want, the only editing being their own.  But, it is buttressed by the knowledge that their own bullshit can be just as easily detected and called out by their readers, and each other. The cleansing action of open competition comes into play.  The old, commercial driven, content-controlling news institution is getting it's ass kicked by a new, vibrant, organic, small d democratic, multi-tentacled upstart. It's a good thing. 

No one is claiming it’s pretty, or that it might become so.  Remember, at least part of the demise of the old school is a suspicion of its neat and tidy packaging.  To hell with the package, it’s the contents that matter. We should all welcome the expansion of free speech, brought about by the grass roots expansion of free press, brought about by the expansion of information delivery, brought about by the Internet. These are all good things. 

We are in an exciting, but in many ways unsettling, time.  As a tool for shining the light of transparency into the dark corners of our power structure, this one has a cajillion candlepower capacity.  Just imagine the possibilities when dialed up to full brightness.  The lack of precedence, to be sure, can be unnerving, scary even, but I submit a good portion of that discomfort is bourn of our conditioned reliance on a previously trustworthy media monolith.

The information explosion is prying the heretofore-monopolized narrative from the hands of that monolith, resulting in a commensurate decrease of its influence.  That is almost as gratifying as the increase in freedom itself.  But hey, what’s the fun in picking sides if you can't indulge in a little schadenfruede ? Seeing the light intensity scamper corrupt cockroaches in the process is just bonus.
     
I blame Gore, internet inventor.