150,000 visits, revisited

by folkbum


The lucky visitor popped in at a little after 7 PM yesterday. There's no prize, though, no balloons and confetti falling from the ceiling. But there it is, tangible evidence that anything is possible.

I'm Glad I'm Not Her

by capper

Poor County Supervisor Lynne De Bruin. She's got herself into a crossfire.

First, she starts catching grief from the left for inability to decide if she should let her constituents have a voice, as evidenced by Story Hill* and Mobile's Take.

Then, news breaks out about the continuing fiscal crisis at the Milwaukee County Public Museum, and Patrick at Badger Blogger, representing the right, points out that she is part of the "do-nothing Museum Board", that allowed the crisis to start. (Well, privatization did that, the Museum Board just made it worse.)

I may be mistaken, but I do believe that she is up for re-election next year. With that kind of leadership, I hope for the sake of the people in District 15, as well as the whole county, there is a viable opponent.

But Ms. De Bruin, even if she were to lose her seat, should be OK. Her educational and professional background is impressive, and she can always get a few bucks playing the puppet on Sunday Insight with Charlie Sykes.

*Story Hill has another great clip about the impact of the proposed transit cuts. Some of the clips can also be found at Milwaukee Rising.

Oh, Yes, He Did Say That

by capper

A lot of the right wing bloggers have been also posting about the upcoming election for Milwaukee County Executive. Doing my civic duty, I pointed out that Walker has yet to formally announce that he is running for re-election. I also pointed out that Walker promised he wouldn't be running for re-election in 2008.

Apparently, Pug J at Daily Takes took umbrage, and posted this comment:

Capper,
You have fallen behind on reading Milwaukee Mags. Bruce Murphy already apologized for saying Walker promised to not run for re election. Awaiting your mea culpa.

He also cited this article from Bruce Murphy, who wrote:

My last column’s contention that Scott Walker promised not to run for re-election as county executive in 2008 was a bit overstated: He said he had no plans to do so, helping to buttress his image as a nonpolitician, but made no outright promise. He certainly fooled this voter.

Not quite an apology, but more of a clarification. But I digress. To Pug J, and others who may disagree with my assertion, I would like to refer you to a post by xoff, in which he quotes from JSOnline:

Walker clarifies '02 re-election comments

County Executive Scott Walker said today that comments he made six years ago about not running for re-election in 2008 weren't serious promises.Walker last week touted his accomplishments in office and strongly suggested he plans to run for re-election next year."I certainly didn't make that as a pledge" in 2002, Walker said in an interview today. "I didn't put it anywhere in my literature."Any remarks he might have made in 2002 about not seeking re-election in 2008 might have been joking references, Walker said...

In a campaign forum on April 24, 2002, Walker was asked if he'd seek re-election as county executive and how long he would hold the office. According to a transcript of the forum, Walker replied:

"I will focus on cleaning up the waste and abuse during the next two years. To put in place reforms to insure these changes stay in place, I am open to a run for a full term in 2004, but will not run beyond that term."

... As pointed out here earlier, Walker also told the newspaper editorial board, in an interview possted on April 21, 2002:

Q: Just so everyone is clear, you do, if you win, plan to run again in 2004?
A: Yes. I don't have an interest in running beyond that.

Now a grammarian might point out that he did not specifically "promise" not to run again, but as they say, "It's good enough for government work."

Calling Osama bin Laden a Democrat is like calling an earthquake a terrorist

by folkbum

A new video by America's public enemy number one might well engender any number of feelings--anger, regret, frustration, maybe even a little fear, certainly concern for what may be afoot in the coming weeks and months from those who wish us harm.

Notably missing from that list is glee. I don't think any reasonable person ought to look at a new video from Osama bin Laden and decide that it is best used, even tailor-made for, partisan advantage.

Which, of course, didn't stop Jessica McBride:

[I]t's worth reading the actual transcript of Osama bin Laden's latest televised diatribe because of the things it clears up.

It's irrefutable: If bin Laden lived in America, he'd be most inclined to vote Democrat. After all, he's pretty much adopted the Democratic Party's rhetoric and platform. However, in fairness to the Democrats, bin Laden is also mightily ticked off at them. So maybe he'd be a frustrated Democratic voter. He could land a job as a propagandist at moveon.org. He'd post angry comments on Huffington Post and Daily Kos. Maybe he'd join Cindy Sheehan's campaign, write a column for the New York Times, or do research for Noam Chomsky. Who knows. But I can tell you one thing. He would never vote Republican.

I'm not really sure at what point the hypothetical voting habits of bin Laden became ripe for speculation (as opposed to, say, where he is and what he might be trying to get from his followers). But it seems to me an unlikely prospect that someone intent on bringing religious government to every land he touches would be likely to vote for a party that staunchly defends the separation of church and state against those who claim it doesn't exist. The Whallah finds the notion that bin Laden is a Democrat unlikely as well, and if you're willing to brave the Great Orange Satan, you can trace the connections one brand of fundamentalism (Islamic) has with another (Christian).

But calling bin Laden a Democrat--like calling him a Republican, for that matter--makes about as much sense as investing all your money in Countrywide Mortgages right now. I suppose that had the Soviets never invaded Afghanistan, and, subsequently, if the US had never trained and armed bin Laden and the Mujahadeen, a wealthy Saudi like Osama bin Laden may have ended up here, and who knows how he would vote. But those things all happened, and now bin Laden believes exactly one thing about the United States: He wants to kill us all. He's no more a Democrat or Republican than an earthquake is a terrorist--he no more discriminates in his destruction than the earth plans its upheavals.

I don't think that he'd bother to stop and ask the people he was about to blow up their political affiliation, their position on abortion or immigration, their plans for fixing Social Security. Osama bin Laden is the enemy of the United States. That means you, me, Jessica McBride, and the 300 million others of us together. All of us. That McBride's instinct upon seeing a bin Laden video is to use it to bash Democrats says a lot more about her than it does about him, the Democrats, or this country. Six years ago, this country was united and singular in its purpose--to track down and eliminate whoever was responsible for attacking us. And now she are using exactly that person to further the divide that has grown since. I feel dirty even having to respond to it.

Perhaps sensing that she was losing that particular battle, McBride later refined her attack:

Challenge for liberal readers
On the Iraq war and George Bush specifically, how does Osama bin Laden's rhetoric differ from your own?

That's kind of a follow-up to one line in that original post of hers, "[T]he left can stop arguing that if America changes its foreign policy, Al-Qaida and other terrorists will suddenly like us." But that whole line of thinking is just as tainted--and just as offensive. At least in part, because "the left" does not argue that changes to our foreign policy would suddenly ally al Qaeda with us. I'd like to know who on "the left" it is who says this, in particular since the line from the left about our fight in Iraq is that it was a mistake to abandon our search for bin Laden. It may be true that bin Laden thinks our adventure in Iraq is a mistake for us, but it is also exactly what he wanted us to do when he attacked us on 9/11/01. Democrats generally stood against the war with Iraq that bin Laden wanted, with the majority of Congressional Democrats voting against the Iraq War Resolution (something Jessica McBride still refuses to acknowledge as true).

If we had listened to people like, say, Russ Feingold back in 2002 (I assume he qualifies as "the left," right?), we would have intensified our efforts against al Qaeda, hardly a strategy to make them "suddenly like us." If we'd elected John Kerry (kind of "the left") or Howard Dean (certainly "the left" in minds like Jessica's), they would have pulled US troops out of Iraq to go after al Qaeda. Even Noam frickin' Chomsky can't believe Bush let bin Laden get away!

This is perhaps the last resort of the last dead-enders. They have no refuge left but to call the vast majority of Americans terrorist sympathizers, a supposition that is not only patently false on its face but is deeply, deeply offensive. It may be the lowest McBride has sunk yet.

(Update: Seems Plaisted beat me to it.)

More Accolades for Jay

Not only is folkbum's rambles and rants about to hit a new plateau, but this morning's MSJ has one of Jay's posts listed as the Best of the Blogs.

Congratulations, Jay.

150,000

by folkbum

Sometime this coming week--maybe even Monday--the SiteMeter will turn over 150,000 hits. That may not seem like a lot compared to many other Cheddarshpereans, but consider that it was just January when I hit 100,000--meaning I've had half as many hits in the last nine months as I had in the previous three years with SiteMeter. Something's going on, I guess.

Getting Thrown Under The Bus, Revisited

by capper

I have already commented on what Walker's draconian attitude towards public transportation would result in, especially for the disabled.

I would strongly suggest to the people who might not have faith in my words, that they actually listen to the voices and see the faces of those who would suffer the most, if Walker would get his way. This is as easy as going to Story Hill. (I think #6 and #7 are especially powerful.)

H/T to Milwaukee Rising.

Will Someone Tell Them That Summer Is Over?

by capper

First, we have Walker again being against providing services to people with disabilities and mental health issues, after he was for it, after he was against it.

Then, we have Sheriff David "Barney Fife" Clarke, being for concealed carry after he was against it.

Add to this, Senator Larry Craig (R-Bathroom Stalls) deciding to resign, after he wasn't, after he was, after he wasn't going to resign.

It is going into the second week of September, school has started, and the air is starting to get cooler. Shouldn't someone tell these guys that summer is over, and that they should put away their flip-flops?

With Presidents Like This, Who Needs Enemies?

by capper

In the comment thread of a recent post by Jay, faithful reader, Dan, tries valiantly, if somewhat ineffectively to defend Acting President Bush's intelligence. Bush does his defender no great favor though, by not knowing who he is addressing, what country he is in, or how to get off the stage without killing himself.

Is it January 20, 2009, yet?

Rick Esenberg Defends William Jefferson Against the Wild Flailings of Fred Dooley and Patrick McIlheran

by folkbum

Now that the Republican Party has turned so viciously and cold-heartedly on Larry Craig (R-Denial), the right-wingéd bloggity true believers have turned to measures so desperate I'm embarassed for them. (Usually, I'm just embarassed by them.)

This, for example, is a post, in its entirety, from Fred, one of our local luminaries:

Hey?
Is William Jefferson (D) still in Congress?

Because, you know, some version of "Democrats do it too!" is all that's left after their claiming of the moral high ground for so long. That very post added insult to the injury that was a recent blog entry by my bff Patrick McIlheran (which reminds me to direct you to this damned good post by Michael Mathias).

I believe, and have argued repeatedly before (here on the blog as well as elsewhere) that William Jefferson should not be in Congress. That he remains in Congress is not so much anything I can control--I will not offer a defense of his being there.

Noted conservative rationalizer (he's a professional, you know) Rick Esenberg, though, offers a surprisingly spirited defense:

[T]o remove or suspend a[n elected official] is to interfere with a choice that the voters have made.

So . . . I guess that's that. Maybe Fred needs to take the William Jefferson issue up with Rick, instead of liberals like me.

Walker Gets It Wrong, Again

by capper

There is another article in this morning's paper highlighting some of Walker's wish list on how to destroy Milwaukee County. It already has been covered on this site as well as numerous others, the poor decisions Walker has made about transportation, the parks, whether citizens should actually be allowed to express their opinions and other sundry topics.

Now, I'm not going to get into the zoo issue, because what he wants is not great, but at least shows a modicum of responsibility. Likewise, I am not going into the child support enforcement, even though he wants to shut down a third of the unit, being a boon for deadbeat dads (or moms), and increasing taxpayers expenses when the cost of raising the child is put on them instead of the father (or mother). This move is stemming from Bush cutting federal funding for this program (I guess enforcing people to be at least financially responsible for their children is neither compassionate or conservative)

Among the topics in the article that I do want to mention, again, is the ongoing crisis regarding Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division (or Mental Health, if you prefer). MSJ has done a series of articles relating how many mentally ill people are living in squalor and sometimes dying from lack of care and support. Then they run an article about how assaults are increasing in frequency and intensity.

Walker responded, for once, decently, by wanting to increase funding to provide decent housing and adequate supervision for the mentally ill in the community. He also wanted to hire up to 25 new staff members to deal with the critical situation at the mental health complex. But today we find out he wants to eliminate 12 positions from there and cut $1.5 million from the contracted agencies that provide supervision and case management for the mentally ill in the community. One cannot help but see the schizophrenic thinking that must be taking place in the executive's office.

This means that the crisis at the mental health complex will continue. There is already a shortage of beds at the complex, and people in psychiatric crisis are being put on waiting lists to just get help. Meanwhile, they are in the community, trying to cope the best that they can, but now without any community support programming to help them make it. Many will resort to self-medication with street drugs and/or decompensate to the point that they are a danger to themselves and/or to others. For those of you on the right, this means that when crime rate continues to climb, don't blame Barrett or Doyle first, but look at who created the scenario for these people to be out in the community, untreated.

If this wasn't bad enough, we read this line:

"It's a matter of shifting budget resources to an area of greater crisis," Walker said.

.

Gee, that would mean that if Walker would start facing the reality of the situation he placed the county in, there may not be any crisis. Instead, he is only worried about the greater crisis. I could just imagine if a firefighter said something like that, "We'll let those two houses burn, while we try to fight these three house fires." People would be screaming about getting more help in there, immediately.

.

But for the humorous pick me up, Walker then goes crying to his ol' friend Chuckles and whines, "Why are they reporting on this now?" Betcha Chuckles didn't tell him "Life is not fair. Get used to it."

[BUMPED with the ANSWER] A Poll! (Class Size)

by folkbum

So, dear readers, what would you say is a good maximum size for a class of high school seniors? An English class, in particular, but if you think it can vary, go ahead and explain it.

After a while, I'll tell you what my class sizes actually are.

UPDATE, Thursday 9/6: Today I had 39 crammed into my 90° classroom, out of the 42 registered for my second-block class. Fourth block was lighter, with 36 of 39 in attendance. I will admit that we were warned that upperclass courses might be a little overstuffed this year because they were trying to keep the 9th-grade classes smaller.

By smaller, they apparently meant 35, because that's how many are in my 9th-grade class.

Just another day in the big city.

(And props to FreeFall for guessing MPS would go for 40.)

How Canadians View Their Health Insurance

by capper

With the ongoing debate about health insurance, there has been a lot of sniping and smug dismissals of other countries' insurance models, especially Canada's. But instead of listening to the fear mongerers, how about someone who has actually experienced it? The following is a letter to the editor of the Waupaca County Post, dated August 30, 2007 (sorry, small paper with no website), verbatim:

How Canadians view their health insurance

To the Editor:

I find it both sad and frustrating that so many good people buy the disinformation spread about universal health insurance by political and corporate interests, without questioning either the source or the logic. As a Canadian resident for 26 years, during the period when Canada's national health insurance program evolved, I have to respond to "Canadians prefer U.S. health care."

First, reputable scholarly (not political) surveys show repeatedly that the vast majority of Canadians are very happy with their health care. On a personal note, my Canadian son, his family and extended in-law family, my friends, former neighbors and former colleagues (a rather wide circle) all value their health care system and are extremely glad it is not like ours! Here people can lose their insurance when they lose a job, or when they develop a chronic illness. Here millions are without health insurance; here a person without insurance is turned away by physicians and clinics; and here good, hardworking people forego life-saving treatment or are bankrupted by medical costs.

Second and incidentally, when travel agents urge special health insurance policies for U.S. travelers abroad, it is because U.S. insurance policies normally do not cover out-of-country expenses. It has nothing to do with the level of care.

Third, Canadians purchase health insurance supplements to get private rooms and such perks. here, seniors purchase "medigap" policies, and insured workers purchase supplements-because the basic insurance is just that: basic.

Fourth, an e-mail testimonial is neither verifiable nor representative. We all know someone who has had a negative experience with Waupaca's hospital. Does that mean we are wrong to think we get excellent care here? Or that all U.S. hospital treatment is bad? We know better.

Fifth, the writer and politicians opposed to universal health insurance repeatedly refer to "the government" providing health care, or they refer to universal coverage as "socialized medicine." Neither is true and both are scare tactics. Neither in Canada nor in the any proposal for universal coverage here (that I know of) is the government the health care provider or the health care decision maker. Currently, however, U.S. insurance company employees with no medical training at all are frequently making health care decisions. Not so in Canada.

We do have excellent medical providers here, and so does Canada. Like here, Canadians have their own physicians, by their own choice, or they can use clinics or groups. They have the whole gamut of excellent specialists, like here. They have excellent nursing staff, physical therapists, occupational therapists, social workers, home care visiting nurses, emergency room sand urgent care physicians. Canadians have regular check-ups, they see their physicians by appointment and they get preventive care. You would find their care just like ours-except that it's available to everyone, bills get paid and no one goes bankrupt because of it.

It's the insurance that is different, not the medical care. We Americans pay more, but fewer of us get it.

Georgia Calvo
Dayton.

Keep the fingers crossed

for Steve Fossett, eh?

Does the job come with a cool hat?

by folkbum

From an emailer who no doubt wishes to remain anonymous:

You have built a zoo full of bark at the moon wackos Jay, and you are the chief moonbatting zoo keeper.

VA Counsel Unilaterally Declares Law Protecting Vets ‘Obsolete’ in Wisconsin Case

Can an attorney from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) declare a federal regulation obsolete because it interferes with the VA denying benefits to a veteran? No.

Yet this is what attorney Carolyn F. Washington, VA deputy assistant general counsel, proposes in the VA response brief opposing U.S. Navy veteran Airman Keith Roberts (1969-71). [Case is presently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) (docket 05-2425)].

VA Attacks Veteran

The VA will go to any length, spend 1,000s of hours, and whatever money it takes to deny Keith Roberts the PTSD disability benefits that he deserves.

In Roberts’ extraordinary case, this veteran has been forced to fight his legal battles simultaneously against the VA and DoJ in two different courts on the same dispute (including fight the gallant US Atty Biskupic).

As stated in his CAVC brief, Roberts notes: “The (VA) Secretary has caused a criminal prosecution in Federal District Court to be initiated against (Roberts) while he was still before (CAVC) litigating the same facts, transactions and occurrences. The VA regulation for initiating criminal charges against a veteran was not followed, 38 C.F.R. § 14.561."

This VA regulation, Title 38 § 14.561 reads: “Before a submission is made to the U.S, Attorney in cases involving personnel or claims, the … Regional Counsel at the regional office, hospital or center, if the file is in the regional office or other field facility, will first ascertain that necessary administrative or adjudicatory … action has been taken.”

In Roberts’ case, the VA regional counsel made no such determination of adjudicatory action; and in fact, top VA officials plotted to prevent such an analysis from taking place by engineering a prosecution by U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic in the middle of the VA claim process, using the denial of VA benefits as evidence in the Grand Jury hearing and criminal trial.

Echoing the former attorney general Alberto Gonzales who decided that the Geneva Convention (which like federal regulations have the force of U.S. law on the land) is “obsolete” and “quaint,” the VA’s attorney (a political hack from a bottom-tier law school) argues in response to Roberts’ CAVC brief that the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) personnel and the VA police, are “responsible for notifying the DOJ or the USA (US Atty) of possible criminal matters. … The authority and duty to refer criminal cases is vested in the VA police and the OIG. … it could be argued that, as it relates to criminal prosecutions, section 14.561 is obsolete.”

The VA police authority and role has been to tend to often-disturbed and violent veterans seeking medical and psychological assistance on VA property after coming home from service.

The VA police have never been charged with investigating benefit claims, much less referring claim cases in the middle of VA adjudication to the US Atty’s office.It should be noted that the US Atty’s office never put forth this argument made by the VA that would undoubtedly be shredded to pieces by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s panel, slated to hear oral arguments in the Roberts’ criminal trial—plotted and pushed on the US Atty’s office by top VA bureaucrats.

But these top VA bureaucrats did not include the regional counsel, and Roberts never received a written statement and a statement of the evidence supporting the charges, as required by Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (b) Fraud.

Maybe the VA’s attorney will declare that this federal above regulation is also obsolete and quaint.

Legal questions and legal comments can be e-mailed to Robert Walsh at rpwalsh@sbcglobal.net.

Media on Keith Roberts

- Wisconsin Public Radio News (May 10)
- The Lee Rayburn show (June 29)
- Keith Roberts' Atty. on the Lee Rayburn show (June 6)
- WORT Radio - A Public Affair (May 25; begins at one minute, nine seconds)

Update: PTSD Resources

###

More Tax Freeze Silliness

by capper

In The Appleton Post Crescent, it was reported that the Neenah School District have opted out of providing buses for 500 of its students, to save $100,000. Now the parents have to privately contract individually with the bus company at a cost of $306 per student, thus increasing the actual cost by 50%. It boggles the mind to think that spending more money on the same service is cheaper, and that people buy into that nonsense

People who can't read shouldn't be allowed to do math, either.

by folkbum

Looks like I got some wingnut stupidity for my birthday this year! Two of the usual suspects--although there are probably more if I bothered to look--Owen Robinson and Fred Dooley are all a-flutter about John Edwards's health care plan. Here's Owen's version ('cause Fred's just a copycat):

Yikes! Edwards wants a plan to force people to see a doctor on his schedule. [. . .] So much for freedom. This is what I mean when I say that when the government controls your health care, they control everything about you.

But I also found this interesting…

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year,

Really? Healthy Wisconsin, the government-run health care program proposed by the Democrats, is projected to cost $15.2 billion per year.

Wisconsin’s population is about 5.5 million people. At $15.2 billion, Healthy Wisconsin comes out to $2763.64 per person.

The U.S. has a population of about 300 million people. At $120 billion, Edwards’ plan comes out to about $400 per person.

John Edwards proposed his health care plan (.pdf) in February, and Owen's just now getting around to whining about it. The thing that has him most upset--the required preventive care--has been in the news since at least June, according to the clippings on Edwards's website.

Here's Owen's problem: he hasn't freaking read John Edwards's plan. It's obvious, because if he had, he wouldn't have made the stupid mistakes he does. There are at least two: Well, the preventive care thing is not necessarily a mistake, but I think Owen's got it wrong. Edwards would provide incentives to get that care, and, long-run, that's exactly the kind of thing that will bring down health care costs. My employer, for example, has just started mandating some level of preventive care, and it's being hailed as a great innovation! The Edwards plan, as I read it, also does not provide for punishment for not receiving preventive care:

Health Care Markets will offer primary and preventive services at little or no cost. Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free physicals and enroll in healthy living programs. [. . .] Health Care Markets will encourage plans to monitor patients’ health to keep them out of the emergency room. For example, plans can pay for nutritional counseling for diabetic patients to help them make healthy choices and control their blood sugar levels.

It sounds to me, just like the newly-instituted innovative plan from my employer, that I won't get fired or arrested for not getting preventive care; rather, I just won't get the incentives. (And, you know, die sooner.)

Owen's second mistake is perhaps the most laughable. This is where Owen insists that the Edwards plan will provide health care to every man, woman, and child in the country for $400 a pop. This is the kind of mistake only someone who didn't bother to get his facts right would make. Here's Ezra Klein writing about the Edwards plan (back in, you know, February):

[The plan] puts the onus of the responsibility for funding health coverage on employers, a decision I don't quite understand. The employers can satisfy that responsibility by either providing comprehensive care, or helping employees purchase from a menu of insurance options provided by newly formed, state-run "Health Markets." [. . .]

Where the Edwards' plan takes a big step forward is in mandating, along with the private options, that HMs offer "at least one plan [that] would be a public program based upon Medicare." And the intent is explicit: "Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."

In other words, the public sector will finally be allowed to compete with the private sector, and consumers will be able to decide which style they prefer.

The easy answer is that the Edwards plan will not take tax money to pay for everyone in the country. It is universal only in the sense that it requires everyone to be covered, not that we all pay for it. This is fundamental, and easily gathered from even a superficial reading of the plan or even the most cursory googling.

From Fred, it wouldn't be surprising, but from Owen, I expect better.

(Aside: The comments sections at both of those posts linked above degenerated into "YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!" - "YOU'RE A HEARTLESS PIG!" flame wars, and no one really bothered to point out the fundamental error. However, one of the most ardent in there of the "YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!" camp is frequent commenter here Dan. One of Dan's favorite questions is, "why not let the government go into the free market by offering health insurance?" Here is one recent iteration, from the comments to Keith's cancer post. Given the way the Edwards plan explicitly calls for exactly that, you'd think Dan would love it. But it seems Dan didn't bother to read the plan, either. Sigh.)

Tax Freeze, Brain Freeze

by capper

I don't like paying taxes. I don't get all excited on tax day and act like it's Christmas. I also don't like paying more in taxes each year. I also don't like paying more for gas, for groceries, for insurance, for electricity, or anything else. I don't know anyone that does.

But, as an adult, I realize that sometimes I just have to face it and pay the price. If I want to drive my car, I have to buy gas. If I want to eat, I have to buy groceries. I also realize a lot of good things come from my taxes. My taxes paid for the cops who helped my wife when she had a car accident. It was my taxes that paid for the EMTs who helped my father when he fell on the ice and cracked his head open. It's my taxes that pay for roads to be plowed (and hopefully maintained). It's my taxes that help pay for the services that are needed by the disabled, the mentally ill, and the elderly that cannot take care of themselves.

I also realize that, just like my gasoline, my groceries, my electricity and everything else goes up every year, it goes up for everyone, including the government. Now, the government can cut corners, like I do, and do without some of the frivolities and unnecessary items. But the cuts in certain areas can only go so far. While I may not dine on lobster and steak, I still need to eat and feed my family. While I may not be able to go on driving tours of the country, I still need my car for my job. Likewise, the government can only cut some things so far. It goes to far when people are getting hurt and killed for the sake of saving someone a few bucks on their property tax.

When you cut or freeze taxes too much, you end up underfunding things, like services to the mentally ill. Then you get stories like the one in MSJ, chronicling the atrocities that have occurred at the state mental health hospital in Winnebago. Just how much in tax savings is a person's life worth, anyway?

But when one makes a career statement out of tax freezes, while ignoring the realities around you, all that is is a brain freeze.

Commander in Cheat

Or, "The Quarterback of Notre Dumb"

by folkbum

So I'm listening to NPR on my way home (I know! Shocking!), and they were interviewing the guy who wrote the new book on George W. Bush, Robert Draper (listen to the interview there, and read an excerpt from the book).

Draper explained, among other things, Bush's relationship with Karl Rove. He said (I'm paraphrasing here), "Bush and Rove are like the high school quarterback and the nerd who does all the quarterback's term papers."

And this from an author who likes Bush!

Is it 2009 yet?