My Prius Envy is Getting Worse

Sigh:

The UK’s AutoExpress reports that Toyota’s fuel economy target for the upcoming next-generation Prius is 40 kilometers/liter (2.5 l/100km, or 94 mpg US [!!!!!]), and that the automaker is striving to have the new Prius on the road as early as 2008.

Quick Question:

Who's blogging the Wisconsin 8th CD race?

Somebody up there has to be on it. Can you point me that way?

And we have a new president!

It'll be hard to get used to. For five years now, I've been saying "My President is Jed Bartlet."

Say the new one with me: My President is Matt Santos!

Yeah, yeah, I know the show's been canceled. But I have to have something to hold on to, since the current non-fictional president is so absurd he could never get his own show. Unless maybe it's on Comedy Central. And even then, they'd probably cancel it for low ratings.

Warner Woos Wisconsin: Founder's Day Dinner Wrap-Up

All photos, unless as noted, by my friend and fellow blogger Scott Feldstein, who has them at much better resolution at his place.

It is no secret that former Virginia governor Mark Warner is running for president. So he's doing what candidates do--particularly candidates who are "unemployed," as he kept reminding us during his speech--he's talking to any assemblage of Democrats he can get his hands on. And trying to drum up all the buzz he can.

The buzz is where I come in: A couple of weeks ago I got an email from Warner's Forward Together PAC--and, yes, in introducing Warner, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle did joke about Warner's use of Wisconsin's motto ("Forward!") in the name of his PAC. Nate invited me to attend the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's Founder's Day (née Jefferson-Jackson) Dinner as a guest of the PAC and to blog the event. So here we go . . .

Events like this are always a who's who of the state Dem party, so it was a lot of fun to get to meet or get re-accquanted with some of the big names in the party from around the state. And then it was also good to see my state representative and a few of the candidates for the open Congressional seat in Wisconsin's 8th CD, including Dr. Steve Kagen and Nancy Nusbaum (I also saw but didn't talk to Jamie Wall). There were tables full of goodies, too, including some great merchandise from Russ Feingold's PAC, like a t-shirt with a snake-like phone cord and the tagline "Don't Spy on Me!" (I can't find those online.) I got hit with so many stickers I felt like a race car.

And the place was packed, too, sold out. It shouldn't be that big of a surprise in an election year, but everyone seemed quite overjoyed that that many tickets were sold. It was a good night for the DPW's coffers, I guess.

How much of those full coffers were due to Warner, I don't know. I joined up with him and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (that's them on the left, in a photo I took) as they left the extra-special VIP reception before the main event. Warner was mobbed even then, as Doyle tried to get him introduced to some more of the movers and shakers in the party. The speaking part of the night started almost half an hour late, in part because Doyle and Warner couldn't get into the room.



As I ate my buffet meatballs, veggie sticks, and cheese (it is Wisconsin, you know), the speakers for the night got up and did their thing: In order, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (not pictured), Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and Governor Doyle.

The speakers all made a big deal both about the high attendance at the event (Barrett credited Wisconsin's dissatisfaction with Bush and Republicans, though I doubt any real swing voters were in the room) and the great successes Democrats have had in the state. In particular, they highlighted two results from last week's spring municipal elections: 24 of 32 communities voting to start bring troops home from Iraq now passed, some overwhelmingly (see my take on that) and the election of Democrat (in a non-partisan election against a Republican state representative) Larry Nelson as mayor of Waukesha. That's Larry smiling there in the right in a picture I took; I've known him for a few years, and he's a teacher, a labor leader, and a strong progressive. What makes this important is that the city of Waukesha is the red center of one of the reddest counties in the country, and Larry was able to win with a strong populist message. I do think that bodes well for this fall, and in particular, the campaign of Bryan Kennedy, running for the congressional seat that includes Waukesha, currently held by Jim Sensenbrenner.

But you didn't click on this diary to hear about all of that: You want to hear about Mark Warner. Yes, well, first I want to tell you what Russ Feingold said, since the two were the two presidential candidates in the room. You're probably pretty familiar with Feingold's message, which started and ended with the notion that Democrats need to "stand up" to Bush. He called again for censure (something Herb Kohl conveniently forgot to mention), and for a timetable to bring our troops home from Iraq by the end of this year. And, of course, he talked about the NSA spying scandals and administration stonewalling, although, I will tell you, the best line of the night on that actually came from Tammy Baldwin, who said, "It cannot be a government of the people if the people are kept in the dark."

Warner, as the keynote speaker, was able to do a lot more in his speech, including the biography bits necessary to introduce himself to an audience that didn't know him. In contrast with Russ, he spoke with less fire and passion, but with an equal desire, it seemed, to rid the country of its current leadership and put us back on track. In that way, I think he hit a strong message several times. He kept talking about "seeing further down the road," while Republicans, he said, "put posturing and posing ahead of foresight and follow-through." Part of that biography that Warner stressed is that he was able to look forward in business, starting up the company that went on to become Nextel. He also stressed that as governor of Virginia, he looked toward the future, including strong investments in education and bringing technological development in to replace fading manufacturing ("If they can build it in Bangalore, they can build it in Lebanon, Virginia"). "Politics," he said, "should not be about Left versus Right, but about the future versus the past."

Warner also struck some familiar Democratic foreign-policy themes, saying that "no one thinks it is more important than Democrats to keep America safe," and reminding us that a sound energy policy is a key element of national security. He lamented what has happened in Iraq.

He also said a few things that, I think, shows the influence that Howard Dean's run in 2004 will be having all over the 2008 race. I can't tell you how many times I heard Dean's stump speech in that cycle, so I know it well enough, and in Warner's stump here I heard the familiar themes: "Being called a 'red-state governor' makes me cringe," Warner said, "because the Democratic Party needs to be competitive in 50 states." Even in the foreign policy section, Warner talked about how we need an attitude that will "unite our friends and scare our enemies, not the other way around." Mostly, I was very surprised to hear Warner end with a call to "take our country back."

As it was the DPW's dinner, Warner made sure to reinforce several things. One, of course, is how important it is to re-elect Jim Doyle this fall. He helped to frame some things that will be very important to that race, including Mark Green's identity as a member of a very do-nothing Congress and the importance that the issue of stem cells will play in the election (at least, if Doyle's smart, they will be the campaign issue). He also took the time to remind of why he is a Democrat, even if some might be tempted to call him a "centrist" or "moderate." "I'm a Democrat because," he told us, "the Democratic Party has never stood for the status quo, but for hope and optimism." And he's right, you know; the Republicans have monopolized fear and distrust, and we must get that message of hope and optimism across in all races, at all levels, in all fifty states.

Warner left the stage to a standing ovation (about equivalent to Feingold's standing O earlier), and was immediately mobbed afterwards, by every elected official in the crowd, and a whole lot of everyone else (including civil rights pioneer Vel Phillips). I asked Warner's people how much of this sort of thing--traveling around the country talking to roomsful of Democrats--he was doing. "A lot," I was told. I tried a little bit to gauge the sentiments of the crowd afterwards as well, and everyone seemed to like Warner's message. It's hard, of course, for Wisconsin Democrats to talk about anyone but Russ as a favorite for 2008, but I didn't find anyone who said they hated Warner.

I know that Mark Warner has a strong following on the internet, and now, having met him and heard what is clearly a compelling story, it is easy to see why. Certainly, with a field including the likes of Feingold and Warner, 2008 will be a great year for Democrats.

***

Two last things: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a fair take on the event here. I should also point out that the dinner was live-blogged by Zach Corey at CampusTavern.com. All that time taking notes in class must have paid off, because he's got a pretty accurate rendition of all the speeches: Mark Warner, Jim Doyle, Herb Kohl, Russ Feingold, Gwen Moore, and Tammy Baldwin.

Founder's Day Wrap-Up Preview

As I promised a couple of days ago, I went to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's Founder's Day (née Jefferson-Jackson) Dinner tonight. The thing was sold out, as you can see by the full house there on the right. I got a chance to meet a bunch of people and, of course, to hear a variety of speakers, starting with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, then Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, Senators Feingold and Kohl, Governor Jim Doyle, and the keynote speaker, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner.

I attended on the dime of Warner's Forward Together PAC, and, in short, I like him; he had a lot of good things to say. As I get my full write-up finished (which is whenever I finish deciphering my notes), I'll talk more specifically about what all he said. But there are couple things I want to point out now.

First of all, the good kids over at Campus Tavern live-blogged the event, taking careful notes on what all the speakers said. The top is the end of the night, so scroll down a ways and read up. They did a really nice job and I certainly will use their notes to supplement my own.

Second, while it was great to meet a whole lot of our state's elected Democratic officials, it was too bad that most of them got no mention at all--as is, apparently, tradition--from the podium. DPW chair Joe Wineke mentioned a few elected Dems in the leadership (and both candidates in the Attorney General primary) but not any of the others. That's really too bad. The DPW had knew who RSVP'd and paid their money (yes, even our elected Ds have to pay to get in); the least Wineke could have done was acknowledge all the hard work they did, particularly those in the Assembly and Senate.

Anyway, that's what you get tonight. More in the morning, I promise.

Three Friday Must-Reads

They are all long posts, but, you know, who am I to talk?

1. Start with Dennis York's masterful anti-TP amendment post. The nut:

   Essentially, whether you get Medical Assistance will depend on how many people went fishing that year or how many miles were driven by Wisconsin motorists. Whether we can build another prison will hinge on how many driver's licenses or parking tickets are issued. Different funds are raised by the state in different ways and used for different purposes. The TPA would put them all under the same tent and force them to all even out.

   Read the whole thing.
   
   
2. Then, there's this essay by Jim McGuigan. It should be required reading for anyone in Milwaukee County or in the employ of the press. Highlight:

   I had once been the Chairman of the (Milwaukee County) Northshore / Eastside unit of the Democratic Party and I chose not to run for re-election to that post so I could pursue a seat on the County Board back in 1996. I made no effort to hide my Democratic loyalties. My wife and I had been involved in Democratic politics for years and she was even listed on every Clinton yard sign in the State of Wisconsin since she was the Treasurer of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. (Yes I’m proud of her—she’s a helluva woman.)
   
   Another Supervisor who faced recall, LeAnn Launstein, was my first campaign manager and it was at a party event that I met Launstein. Linda Ryan, Kathy Arcizewski, Penny Podell, Karen Ordinans and Dave Jasenski—all Democrats and all forced to go through the Journal Communications inspired recalls. County Executive Tom Ament—a self-described tight-fisted liberal Democrat also fell to the Republican media machine. [. . . T]his was all about partisanship. [. . .]
   
   But the question that should be on people’s minds now is whether they want to continue to follow their mistake of electing Republican Scott Walker into office as they did in 2002 and again in 2004 knowing that he was elected based on a lie. Walker rode the Democrat-bashing wave, promoted hate for Democratic ideas and blamed them for the problems the county faced. Despite inflation, rising energy costs and health care costs, Walker has intentionally instituted policies of aggressive borrowing for operating expenses to achieve his goal of freezing taxes in the four years he has been in office.

   The rest is just as testy--and just as challenging to the pro-Walker media conventional wisdom.
   
   
3. Finally, more on Scott Walker, who got a big kiss from the daily paper this morning, from Seth at In Effect:

   I also understand the difficulties the county faces in terms of its pension liability—but I question Walker’s actions on this point after he decreased funding for the liability in the 2006 budget by nearly $8 million. Rather than simply maintain the 2005 budgeting level of $35 million—which would’ve covered the costs of the 2006 liability and the costs of the unfunded liability from previous years—Walker dropped the funding to $27 million. This was enough to cover the 2006 liability, but not the annual amortization on the system's unfunded liability from past years, causing it to grow even more.
   
   According to the text of the budget, Walker made this decision because he wanted “to facilitate a debate within the County over the future of the [Employee Retirement System].”
   
   So if we’re to get this straight, he purposely underfunded the liability further in order to start a debate?

   It's all that good.

Friday Random Ten

The End of the List Edition

3115. "I Don't Feel Like a Train" John Gorka from Temporary Road
3116. "Lukey" Great Big Sea from Rant and Roar
3117. "Downtown Train" Tom Waits from Rain Dogs
3118. "Glass House" Ani DiFranco from Little Plastic Castle
3119. "Lullaby" James from Laid
3120. "Heart" Patty Larkin from Perishable Fruit
3121. "Go" The Innocence Mission from Glow
3122. "Grace" Peter Mulvey from Deep Blue
3123. "Jayme Lynn" Béla Fleck from Tales from the Acoustic Planet
3124. "The Moon Over Tuscon" Carrie Newcomer from My True Name

Founder's Day

Question: Who all is going to be at the big Founder's Day shindig Saturday? I want to know who to say "hey" to.

No Wizard of Oz: Straw Men in United 93

There is very little more frustrating to me as a reader of blogs and news than the straw man, the phony opponent cooked up to provide a blogger or politician with a ready-made--if fictional--foil. The AP made quite a splash last month in outing President Bush for his use of the device.

I saw it yesterday, several times. Here's one example:

See this trailer. It is so powerful liberals are demanding it be withdrawn from theaters because of the shock value.

Here's a second, similar one:

There are a lot of people that say this movie should not be shown [. . .].

And three examples make a trend:

The Coward AntiAmerican left in this country, the Party of Russ Feingold doesn't want the people to see movies like this [. . .].

The movie, of course, is the upcoming release, United 93, about the fourth plane on September 11, 2001. From what I've read, it is apparently tastefully done; the writer-director had full support from the victims' families to make the film. I saw the trailer for it recently attached to the movie Inside Man. You can see the trailer for yourself at Apple's Quicktime depot.

What all three of these examples, gleaned from the shining halls of the right cheddarsphere, lack entirely is evidence that there really are "some" or "liberals" or identifiable members of the "coward anti-American left" demanding that the film not be released, or that the trailer be pulled for political reasons. Instead, the bloggers in question, in classic straw-man fashion, throw the false bad example out there to do battle against, leaving them the high road of moral outrage and righteous indignation. I mean, I certainly would understand their positions if the accusation were true, but it is not.

As far as I can tell, with my minor Googling prowess, the source for this idea that liberals don't want Americans to see United 93 is an incident in Manhattan (a place where they are understandably a might touchy about 9/11 issues). Here's a Newsweek piece:

If movie trailers are supposed to cause a reaction, the preview for "United 93" more than succeeds. Featuring no voice-over and no famous actors, it begins with images of a beautiful morning and passengers boarding an airplane. It takes you a minute to realize what the movie's even about. That's when a plane hits the World Trade Center. The effect is visceral. When the trailer played before "Inside Man" last week at the famed Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, audience members began calling out, "Too soon!" In New York City, where 9/11 remains an open wound, the response was even more dramatic. The AMC Loews theater on Manhattan's Upper West Side took the rare step of pulling the trailer from its screens after several complaints. "One lady was crying," says one of the theater's managers, Kevin Adjodha. "She was saying we shouldn't have [played the trailer]. That this was wrong ... I don't think people are ready for this."

No protesting, America-hating liberals there. Even other actual news reports do not turn up mention of "liberals" or "the left" trying to block the film. It simply was patrons objecting to content--something that happens, I would imagine, everytime they release a new Saw movie, for example. The Newsweek column goes on to wonder if the national zietgiest is really ready for a 9/11 movie yet, and offers the proof-pudding non-answer that we'll find out when we see the box office.

Further Googling turned up a pretty-widely distributed column by a freelancer named Justin Darr:

No matter what the subject or the person involved, people who react this way are just trying to avoid the facts showing they made a mistake, and are now unwilling to admit it.

Well, sorry to tell you, but, if you have been fortunate enough to avoid dealing with people like this, your time in blissful paradise is over because the liberals are yet once again gearing up with another “How can you be so insensitive to tell the truth” campaign.

Darr also points fingers without so much as a single popcorn kernel of proof. In fact, when I challenged the bloggers quoted above to provide evidence, links, or anything, I mostly got bupkis. There was one "Then why did the people In NYC ask to have the trailer pulled?," as if that provides evidence of either a conspiracy to shut the film down or that liberals are behind it. The studio's statement makes it clear that the problem was images, not ideology:

Universal Pictures is standing by its trailer for United 93, Paul Greengrass's film about the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11 2001, despite viewer complaints that led to the trailer being pulled from one New York City cinema. "We expect that some moviegoers will have a strong response to its images and narrative," Universal Studios said in a statement, but said that it had no plans to pull the trailer or produce a substitute.

One of the challenged bloggers offered up "comments made on the official website of the movie." The site offers no statement on the incidents, such as the one quoted just above from the studio, but it does include free public message boards. A half hour of reading--and some time with the forum's search function--didn't turn up any evidence of actual liberals trying to shut down the film, although there were calls to boycott the film because liberal Hollywood was exploiting the victims.

It's all straw, all imagination; there is no man behind the curtain. The right's Liberal Derangement Syndrome is so strong, they have to blame us even when we do nothing--nothing at all on the scale of what the right can do when it wants to shut a movie down.

The right follows the script on anti-war votes

As I noted last week, right-wing water-carrier Patrick McIlheran laid out the battle-plan for their response once Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly favored bringing American soldiers home from the civil-war-to-be that is Iraq. His plan had several elements (paraphrasing):

1. The referenda don't mattter, since they're advisory
   
2. The only voters in a low-turnout election are fringe activists
   
3. The real people behind the referenda are commies (who also seem to have elected themselves a mayor, according to Wigderson) and people who want failure in Iraq
   
4. The questions are worded badly
   
5. The places voting also voted for Kerry, so, you know, they hate America or something
   
6. (In a follow-up post to his blog) Those towns don't represent much of Wisconsin's population, anyway

So I was quite interested to look around today to see whether or not the response actually went by the numbers. I'm sure you're not surprised, either, that it did.

To start, P-Mac himself gets in on the action at his blog, linking approvingly to bloggers who followed his plan. He starts with fellow Journal Corp. employee Jessica McBride, who in one post manages to hit three out of the six:

The referendum results are only symbolic of public sentiment against the war if you buy that Madison, La Crosse, and Shorewood are symbolic of the public overall in this state or region. They are not. [. . . O]verall, only 66,465 voted--about the size of the City of Waukesha. [. . .] I believe that the extremist "peace groups" that organized the referendum movement strategically targeted extremely low population rural townships in northern Wisconsin (and communities in Door County) because it would be easier to drive up the overall number of "passing" referendums (and drive the leads and headlines). This is especially true because they knew it would be a low turnout election. [. . . T]here really wasn't much turnout. Hardly indicative of "public sentiment against the war," is it?

This is after, of course, she re-wrote history by proposing this alternative lede for today's news stories:

More voters in 30 Wisconsin communities voted Tuesday to stay the course in Iraq than wanted the troops to withdraw. It was purely a symbolic message, but a heartfelt one.

Massaging the data--by pretending three cities didn't vote--makes it turn out the way she wants to! Plus, throwing in the "symbolic" adds a fourth line from the script.

McIlheran then links to Marquette Professor John McAdams, who plays with numbers:

A genuine groundswell of anti-war sentiment should move people who voted for Bush to defect and express their disapproval of the Iraq War. This doesn’t appear to have happened.

It is true that Draper voted for Bush in 2004, and has now voted anti-war. Likewise, Edgewater, which went for Bush by 212 votes to 153 votes for Kerry, has endorsed the anti-war measure. But on the other hand, Egg Harbor leaned toward Kerry in 2004, and has rejected the referendum. [More examples and percentages glossed over for the sake of time.]

Turning to conservative and Republican Watertown, which favored Bush by a 62.3% to 37.7% margin, we find the town rejected the anti-war referendum by an even more lopsided 74.8% to 25.2% margin. For from eating into Bush’s conservative base, the referendum seems to have firmed it up.

McAdams is ad-libbing here; but judging by how extensively P-Mac quotes him, he likes the revisions to his script. McAdams's main point seems to be that because a referendum didn't win by as much as a candidate, the right can dance a jig in victory. A win, he says, isn't a win.

Others all over have linked to McBride and McAdams as approvingly as McIlheran does. Dane101 has a brief round-up that points out a few of those bloggers (and many responses on the left, as well). Some others on the right hit the script on their own. Owen, for example, uses number six; Rick Esenberg goes for number two, with a touch of number four thrown in:

Of course, however the numbers came out, this was always a stunt. We know what the public large thinks of an immediate and orderly withdrawal from Iraq. We know because an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll just asked that very question. The public opposes such a withdrawal. 66%-30%. That a bunch of activists can cherry pick some towns in Wisconsin and get a different result doesn't change that.

Rick himself does some cherry picking of that poll he cites--as I point out in the comments to his post--since it also shows that 61% of Americans want an immediate reduction of our force in Iraq.

But my favorite repsonse so far must be that of a commenter at the Badger Blog Alliance who laments, "I can just imagine what is flying around the Islamofacist internet." Because, as you well know, the hottest topic of discussion around the IED factory is what the 22 voters in Couderay, Wisconsin, think of the idea to bring our troops home where those self-same IEDs can't kill them.

***

By far the best work on the referenda from side of goodness and light--though without all the flag-waving McBride engages in--has come from Seth at In Effect. He has both a pretty map and a much clearer analysis of the numbers.

Update: The Spice Boys are, as usual, late to the party.

Brief Election Wrap

Well, the folkbum endorsement continues to be the kiss of death, as JD Watts lost to Jane Carroll 54-46%. Future candidates should heed that warning. It's a good thing I didn't come out and endorse Larry Nelson (Xoff rubs that in).

The bigger election news, of course, is what happened on the various Iraq War referrenda. As you probably know by now, three-quarters of the communities voting on the idea of bringing the troops home now or on an accelerated timeline voted yes. In many communities, it was close, of course; but the wide sampling of places around the state where voters said it was time to end the president's folly and get our soldiers home before more die needlessly suggests that the sentiment is generally strong across the state. I wrote last last week (twice) about how the votes might get spun by the other side. We'll have to keep an eye on the commentary today to see how accurate those predictions were.

Rae Vogeler Ad

The ad from Green Party Senate candidate Rae Vogeler should not be taken as a sign of endorsement, just capitalism. While I will probably never get rich doing this blogging thing, I am perfectly happy to accept BlogAds money from any and everyone willing to give it to me. Particularly gazillionnaire Herb Kohl. As long as he warns me enough in advance to jack up my rates. A lot.

Also in the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I did give the maximum contribution--one dollar--to Kohl's Democratic challenger, Ben Masel.

UPDATE: This should not necessarily be taken as disagreement with Vogeler, the Green Party, or their stands on issues (you can check them out yourself). Just means I haven't lent my endorsement to anyone in the US Senate race just yet.

Mexican Flags

Lately, there's been quite the dust-up over the whole Mexican flag thing. For example, Patrick McIlheran complained about the flags coming out during protests last week. Peter DiGaudio, too, wonders "What's with waving the Mexican flag? You are giving the middle finger to Mexico by leaving and supposedly want to be Americans. Why not wave the American flag?"

I have to say I might be coming around on this issue. I think that anyone who walks around waving the Mexican flag should face consequences. If they work for the federal government, in particular, they should be fired.

I voted (and I have the sticker to prove it)

My wife and I were numbers 85 and 86 at our two-ward polling place.

Vote Today!

I'm leaving this post at the top for the day; scroll for new stuff.

If you live in Milwaukee, you can find your polling place here. Remember that your folkbum-endorsed candidate is JD Watts.

Republican priorities, revisited

In the grand scheme of things, I know that $300,000 is nothing:

State government may have a long-term deficit of $1.2 billion, but don't tell that to legislators who keep offering new election-year new tax credits and tax breaks. One of them is AB 1084, which would exempt so-called "right to purchase" season tickets to University of Wisconsin-Madison and Marquette University games from the 5% state sales tax. [. . .] Offering the tax break for the Madison and Milwaukee college teams are Republican Reps. Phil Montgomery of Ashwaubenon and Sheryl Albers of Reedsburg. It gets a late-session public hearing at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday before the Assembly Ways and Means Committee in Room 300 Northeast of the Capitol.

But if you happen to be in the Capitol this morning, and want to stop by the hearing, I'd appreciate it if you repeated this challenge to the bill's sponsors. About the "concealed carry" legislation, Governor Doyle said as he vetoed it,

The bill does not create a single job, help a single Wisconsin citizen afford health care or improve schools for a single Wisconsin child.

How does this tax break do that?

And do the UW and Marquette really need that much help selling season tickets that our legislature needs to get involved?

Mr. "I am the Federal Government" quits federal government

The big national political news overnight was, of course, Tom DeLay's resignation, weaseling out after winning his primary so that Republicans might have a shot at keeping that district.

I wonder how much more the resignation is going to taint members of Congress with ties to DeLay (like a certain candidate for governor in Wisconsin). "DeLay was so bad," the question will go, "he had to quit Congress! Why are you quitting Congress again, Rep. Green?"

At least the Spivak and Bice are consistent

Eugene Kane complains:

Back in the newsroom, the Spice Boys told me they were heckling me while I was on the TV screen. (Yeah, they need to get a life.)

Eugene, that's just the way they treat us bloggers all the time. Get used to it.

No Surprise

Should it really surprise anyone that the administration just keeps breaking laws? I wonder if Bush thinks that delaying the Social Security Trustees' Report is part of his inherent Article II authority?

(And mad props to Panera for the free WiFi, though my face hurts too much from the dentist to eat anything but soup.)

White Privilege: The Cheddarsphere catches up

As Xoff noted today, some parts of the Cheddarsphere are having a talk about white privilege, prompted by Jenna's encounter with Peggy McIntosh.

You know, some of us were blogging about white privilege two years before it was cool.