War on Christmas Update: Santarchy!

Those engaged in the GWOX (Global War on Christmas) have their own uniformed army, as it turns out. It's all about Santarchy, it seems:

Every December, for the last 12 years, Cacophonous Santas have been visiting cities around the world and generating a bit of naughty Christmas fun as part of the annual Santacon events. It all started back in 1994 when several dozen Cheap Suit Santas paid a visit to downtown San Francisco for a night of Kringle Kaos. Things have reached Critical Xmas and Santarchy is now a global phenomenon.

In fact, over the weekend, these merry soldiers launched a massive offensive in New Zealand:

A group of 40 people dressed in Santa Claus outfits, many of them drunk, went on a rampage through Auckland, New Zealand's largest city, robbing stores, assaulting security guards and urinating from highway overpasses, police said Sunday.

The rampage, dubbed "Santarchy," began early Saturday afternoon when the men, wearing ill-fitting Santa costumes, threw beer bottles and urinated on cars from an overpass, said Auckland Central Police spokesman Noreen Hegarty.

And there's more--but only read it if you think you can stomach the atrocities. (And read how it was probably overblown in the media.)

And that's not even considering that New Zealand can't even celebrate Christmas right; the forecast for Auckland today says that those Kiwis are expecting Thunderstorms and a high of 73 degrees. You can't celebrate Christmas in weather like that! Heathens!

One more question for Senator Fitzgerald

There is something I forgot to mention the other day when I debunked this essay from Wisconsin state senator Scott Fitzgerald about the Hate Amendment that would write a ban on gay marriage and civil unions of all sorts into our state constitution.

Fitzgerald wrote,

Marriage is one of the fundamental bedrocks of our society and deserves to be preserved as a union between one man and one woman. The people of Wisconsin have spoken through their state legislators that they want traditional marriage protected.

So, here's my question, Senator Fitzgerald: Given that Republicans in the legislature could easily have taken up the Hate Amendment in January of this year, after the new legislature was seated, and could really have had it passed and on the ballot for voters in April of this year; and give your insistence that "traditional marriage" needs protecting and how urgent the matter is given the perilously liberal state of our courts; what does it say about your committment to protecting marriage that you are delaying this until November 2006?

In other words, Senator Fitzgerald, what's more important to you, protecting marriage, or the political advantage to Republicans of having this amendment share the ballot with the governor's race? Because it sure looks like your urgency is phony, and I'm not sure that an honest answer--that Republicans are playing politics with this vital moral question--would sit well with your base.

Bush Breaks Law, Dog Bites Man

So Bush is spying on US citizens in clear violation of the fourth amendment and FISA statutes. I just can't pretend I'm surprised.

Ben in Madison can get the outrage up, though, with a couple of good posts to read: This One Goes to Eleven and The Bill of Particulars.

Debunking Arguments for the Hate Amendment, Part Three

This time it's Wisconsin state senator Scott Fitzgerald, the author of the Hate Amendment. He is one of a number of elected officials posting this week at Boots and Sabers while Owen is away. His essay is a defense of the amendment, a defense predicated on lies, misrepresentations, and a little bit of smoke and mirrors. It really shouldn't be this easy to take down an elected official.

He begins by explaining how burdensome the amendment process is--lest anyone think we're being capricious and hasty here. The he explains why he thinks that an amendment is necessary:

This is not a debate we’re having being we went looking for or wanted it.  It’s one we’re having because we have no choice.  Marriage is under attack by activist judges from out of state who want to impose their extreme liberal views on the people of Wisconsin, and we must defend our laws and our traditions.

Because of a 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court invalidating that state’s statutory prohibition against same sex marriage, any state that does not define marriage as a union between one man and one woman included in their state constitution could be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, regardless of whether or not those states already have laws on the books to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman.

Are the alarms going off in your head, too? In two short paragraphs, Fitzgerald has managed to squeeze in alarmist codewords, some name-calling, and a lot of fear mongering. Fitzgerald mentions the Massachusetts case that has the conservatives so exercised, and leads you to believe that Wisconsin is in danger of falling prey to the same kind of "activist judges" with "extreme liberal views" that brought down the fire and brimstone upon the Bay State. Here are the things Fitzgerald gets wrong:

• The Massachusetts judges were not liberal extremists. In fact, six of the seven judges on the court--and three of the four in the majority on the Goodridge decision--were appointed by Republican governors. Fitzgerald is distorting fact here.
  
• Wisconsin is not required to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts, and will not as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains the law of the land. Fitzgerald is trying to scare you.
  
• Wisconsin's "laws and traditions," I hate to tell the senator, are ones of acceptance, tolerance, and progressivism. We do not, in this state, have a history of bigotry and discrimination. Despite what the current Republican leadership is trying to do to us, Wisconsin has always been on the leading edge of liberal values.

Fitzgerald's misdirection doesn't stop there, though. He continues with a dodge that we've seen before:

The proposed constitutional amendment would not prohibit state or local governments or a private entity from setting up a legal construct to provide privileges or benefits such as health insurance benefits, pension benefits, joint tax return filing or hospital visitation to same-sex or unmarried couples.

As I pointed out the other day, there is absolutely no reason why gay and lesbian couple should have to wait for the legislature or anyone else to deign to grant them rights and privileges given to heterosexual couples by default. This is nothing but an attempt to create a set of second class citizens, something that does not fit in with Wisconsin's "laws and traditions." But, speaking of tradition, Fitzgerald returns to a theme from earlier:

Like Wisconsin, Massachusetts had a statutory ban on same-sex marriage, but a single court ruling wiped that law off the books and legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts.  A similar ruling by our state Supreme Court would do the same here.  An amendment to the Wisconsin constitution is the only sure-fire way to preserve marriage here and protect our traditions from attacks by activist judges and local officials in other states.

It's important for us to remember something: The Massachusetts ruling was based on a specific provision of that state's constitution--a provision not in Wisconsin's. Again, Fitzgerald is bending fact to try to scare Wisconsin voters: A Wisconsin court would have little justification for ruling our statute unconstitutional right now. And remember that our judges are elected, not appointed for life as Massachusetts judges are, so the justices would in fact be accountable should they rule in a way that violates the sensibilities of enough voters. Finally, the nut:

Marriage is one of the fundamental bedrocks of our society and deserves to be preserved as a union between one man and one woman.  The people of Wisconsin have spoken through their state legislators that they want traditional marriage protected.

At no point does Fitzgerald offer any reason for why marriage should remain as "between one man and one woman," or explain what advantage there is to preserving a system to confers rights on some but not all. If marriage is indeed a bedrock of society, should we not concern ourselves with ensuring that it is strong and available to as many members of society as possible? Or, at the very least, should we not be using our limited legislative resources to focus on ways to make existing marriages stronger? Defeating this constitutional amendment does nothing to weaken marriage, and passing it does nothing to make marriage stronger. If Fitzgerald really wanted to be doing the people's business, he'd stop wasting his time with scare tactics and lies.

Guest Posters Coming Soon

In less than a week, I will be taking a leave of absence, walking away from a lot of stress, bother, busywork, and even the internet. I've invited a number of people whom I respect and whose work and reputations I enjoy to step in while I step out. Over the next few days, each of these individuals will be popping in to introduce themselves, and gradually I will just disappear until 2006.

They are, in no particular order:

• My state representative, Josh Zepnick
  
• Milwaukee Public Schools teacher and friend of mine In Real Life Sarah Fadness
  
• Freelance writer and frequent commenter on this very blog Stephen Paske
  
• Political consultant, Bay Viewer, and fellow Beloit alum Zak Williams
  
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor and Wisconsin 5th Congressional candidate Bryan Kennedy
  
• Joshua and Ingrid of Action Wisconsin's No on the Amendment

I hope that you will treat them well, because I know that their work here over the next fortnight or so will be a treat for you.

RIP, Leo McGarry

John Spencer, who plays Leo McGarry on "The West Wing," has died--ironically, of a heart attack--today at age 58. When Jed Bartlet is your president, you come to count on his chief of staff being there. He will be missed.

Debunking Arguments for the Hate Amendment, Part Two

In my never-ending quest to convince people that Wisconsin's Hate Amendment is just wrong, wrong, wrong, I'm looking for arguments by supporters to debunk, since in almost all cases, they are basing their opposition to gay marriage on incorrect facts, faulty reasoning, unacknowledged prejudice, or simple ignorance. I have yet to meet an argument against gay marriage that stands up to the even the barest light.

Last week, I considered several arguments posited by Lucas at Wild Wisconsin. Today, two posts from Cooler by the Lake's Mike, It's the benefits, stupid and It's the benefits, stupid, II. Mike is making what some would call a libertarian argument against gay marriage:

My support of the ban is based upon the fact that marriage is a personal choice and my belief in limited government. Government screwed up when it extended benefits based upon that personal choice and government will only exacerbate the problem by extending the definition. [. . .]

When government gets involved, they have to allow for every future circumstance as best they can. However, government is made up of people who are no better at seeing the future than you and I. 

We can all play the "what if" game. What if this? What if that? The whackiest I have heard is allowing people to marry animals. The best decision is to opt out of the game, because once the decision is made to play, the game never ends. As opinion begins to push for government involvement, it is best to finalize the entry by constitutional amendment. Let the voters decide rather than the politicians. And when it comes time to vote, just remember, it is not about validation of a personal relationship, it's the benefits, stupid!

There are a couple of different ways to read that, including the unwarranted extrapolation-slippery slope argument: Since we can't know what will be required in the future by recognizing marriage now, we shouldn't bother. Well, we can't really unring that bell, can we? Marriage is real and recognized by the state and, unless we roll back the law for everyone, the problems will persist. And the amendment up for a vote next November (barring a miracle in the Assembly) is not the one rolling marriage back to zero. (An aside: In what situation can you imagine anyone seeking the benefits associated with marriage for a union with an animal? "Yeah, I want to be on my goat's insurance!" I just don't see it.)

A second way to read Mike's argument is that he's looking for something similar to what Lucas was looking for when he argued for special rights for heterosexual couples. Don't "extend the definition" any further, Mike seems to be saying, thereby keeping the benefits of marriage to a select group, and away from a second equally worthy group. I don't think that's quite what Mike's saying, but it is the ultimate effect of passing the amendment next fall.

Another worrisome argument shows up in the comments to that post, when Mike writes, "I wish I could truly believe that the issue was hospital visitation, living wills and the such. However, my experience [. . .] is that those issues can avoided with pre-emptive decisions and action." This is a sentiment echoed by the lead legislative wingnut on the issue, Scott Fitzgerald, and his supporters:

Julaine Appling, executive director of the pro-amendment Family Research Institute of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage, said there is no question the amendment would prohibit civil unions like those allowed under Vermont law. There, civil unions grant gay couples all of the more than 300 rights available under state law to married couples. [. . .]

"If the state Legislature wants to take up adoption and inheritance rights, it can do that" if the amendment becomes law, Appling said.

Of course, Fitzgerald denied that he was banning anything like civil unions during floor debate . . .

The problem is that gay and lesbian couples in committed, married-in-all-but-name relationships should not be forced to make "pre-emptive decisions" that are just the default for straight couples. They should not have to wait for the legislature to get around to granting them the rights that come without special legislative action to heterosexuals.

Mike follows up that first argument with a clarification in his second post. "Whenever any decision is made," he writes, "it boils to down to 'Do the benefits outweigh the costs?' " Then he describes three choices when it comes to gay marriage: "We ban it, we sanction it, or we do nothing."

Mike dismisses the idea of doing nothing, since the cost of continued debate is large with no benefit at all. Then he considers the other two options:

Sanctioning means that government is expanding. It is expanding in the sense that is has to define a new legal category. This new category will require reinterpretation of a vast number precedent setting interpretations of applicable and associated laws. Considered in this context, one sees that the cost is not inconsequential. Proponents of gay marriage have not provided much sense of the benefits from doing this, other than it will make a small portion of the human population 'feel better'. [. . .] Because of the tremendous cost with minimal benefit, my conclusion is that the government should not sanction gay marriage.

That leaves us with banning it. If you have only three options, two of which are irrational, then you must select the third. Can I say that the third option will make us better? No. But in selecting the third option, I know that I will not make the situation any worse than it is now.

There are a number things about this kind of argument that concern me, starting with the cost/ benefit analysis model of decision-making. While it is true that there is little sense in making it our government's policy to do a whole bunch of things that cost more than the reward, there are times when cost should not be our most important consideration. Sometimes we have to do what is right, even if it is more expensive. Is there any possible moral or ethical justification for continuing to grant special rights to the majority while excluding the minority from those rights? If not, does our moral and ethical obligation not outweigh any costs? In other words, isn't equality in and of itself a "benefit" that must be weighed on Mike's scale?

More importantly, though, I challenge the notion that sanctioning gay marriage would be all that costly. Mike argues that it would require defining a new legal category, but this is not true. It merely allows more committed couples to join a pre-existing category. There is a possibility that we may see lower tax revenues from the "marriage benefit" in the tax code, and there will probably be an uptick in licenses filed at county courthouses. Beyond that, it is hard to see how there would be great increases in costs to the State or society through our sanctioning of gay marriage. Considering that there will likely be more weddings--with more caterers, bands and DJs, wedding presents--we could see an infusion of activity into some sectors of our economy.

These faults--that Mike does not consider the moral and ethical benefit, and he asserts cost where there would be little or none--lead Mike to say we must ban gay marriage. Of course, that really is quite the same as doing nothing, since gay marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin. Even the passage of the Hate Amendment would not stifle the debate that he claims is so costly. (Failure of the amendment and repeal of the anti-gay marriage statute also would not stop the debate, either, since the other side will push back.)

A better libertarian argument, I think, is posited by Paul Noonan, in another response to Mike's posts on this subject. He writes,

If everyone has access to [a] resource, the government cannot coerce with that resource. When they limit its availability, they turn it into a club.

Both political parties love to claim that their opponents are in the hands of "special interests." It is legal ambiguity that allows this situation to occur.

If government is going to be in the marriage business, it is imperative that they be egalitarian in their administration of the marriage business, and that means allowing all comers to enjoy the benefits that they have created. The situation that currently exists has already put the government in the position of a tyrant.

And, as Paul notes, writing that tyranny into the Constitution is a horrible (and horrifying!) idea that sets a very frightening precedent. We must, therefore, vote No on the Amendment.

Friday Random Ten

The (Parenthetical) Edition

1. "Don't Think Twice (It's All Right)" Rambling Jack Elliot from House on Fire: An Urban Folk Collection
2. "Sad, Sad, Sad, Sad (And Far Away from Home)" Peter Mulvey from Kitchen Radio
3. "Fourth of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)" Richard Shindell from Courier
4. "(Don't Go Back to) Rockville" REM from Eponymous
5. "(It's Okay to) Feel Good" Susan Werner from New non-Fiction
6. "Stay (Wasting Time)" Dave Matthews Band from Before These Crowded Streets
7. "California (Rutherford Hayes in the Morning)" Darryl Purpose from A Crooked Line
8. "59th St. Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy)" Simon and Garfunkel from The Best Of
9. "Teen Angst (What the World Needs Now)" Cracker from Cracker
10. "(Looking for) The Heart of Saturday Night" Shawn Colvin from Cover Girl

Fili-Russ-ter

Ha ha, I made a punny!

More seriously, Everyone's Favorite Senator™, Russ Feingold, seems to have rounded up the 40 bi-partisan votes he needs for his filibuster of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act renewal. Boo-ya.

"Just a Job"

Sometimes I read things on right-leaning Wisconsin blogs that give me an ugly insight into the minds of some conservatives. The Poorman has famously noted this phenomenon, the idea that "even the tiniest example of wingnuttery is a near-perfect replica of the whole edifice, substantively consonant in every particular but scale." I got such a glimpse today.

Wisconsin GOPerative Brian Fraley has been subbing this week for Owen over to the Boots and Sabers blog. Tipped off by Xoff, Fraley was riffing on a story about how the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is getting ready to shaft its unionized workers. Towards the end of his misguided rant today, he wrote this about active union member Graeme Zielinski:

Could it be that as the cold winds of December wash across his once fresh face, he has come to the harsh reality that his labor of love is in fact, just a job?

There's an in-joke there about over-writing, but the part that jumped out at me was "just a job." Just a job.

While deriding the "socialist" tendencies of the union, Fraley manages, perhaps inadvertantly, to reveal the conservative view of work: Whatever it is that you're doing to earn a paycheck, you're just a cog in the capitalist machinery that dominates the economy. It's just a job. You're just a tool.

Some of us--like me, and like Graeme Zielinski, I bet--do what we do for some reason other than a paycheck. For me, teaching is not just a job. If I ever start thinking of it as just a way to pay the mortgage or put food on my family, I'll quit. That's why I'm so passionate in my blogging about teaching and education--I have a completely different perspective on work than others. For example, my school district's high schools are in flux, in a process that believe is neither fair nor particularly promising, and I have been outspoken against it. This is why, when I read criticisms of public schools or teachers, I respond, sometimes with too much passion.

There's an old saying, popularized, I believe, by conservatives, that goes, "America, love it or leave it." Sometimes I feel that people kind of say the same thing about me: If I don't like what's happening at my school, in my district, in public schools across the country, I should just quit and find something else to do. Thing is, there's a third option besides love it or leave it. There's change it.

But if it's just a job, there's no impetus to change it. You can change your just a job to some other just a job. When you think about labor from a capital perspective, those are the kind of workers you want--those with no impetus to change anything. And, who knows, maybe that's how Fraley approches his job--but I doubt it. And if Fraley doesn't think his job is just a job, why is he snarking on Zielinski for having some passion for his profession?

Oh, I forgot. Hypocrisy is also one of the conservative values you can see replicated in even the smallest examples of wingnuttery.

You didn't clap hard enough

It was an honor to have been a finalist, though, and congratulations to Matt even if they did spell his name wrong in the story.

Actually winning Blog of the Year would have been such a big hassle, anyway, with all that touring the state and talking to groups of young bloggers about staying in school and avoiding carpal tunnel problems. The parades. Doing the cooking segment on "Wake Up to Fun!" And have you seen the tiara?! I mean, really.

Stay tuned, though, for more of my unenlightened commentary and smug, self-centered ramblings. And check out this week's Carnival while you wait.

RIP, Senator Proxmire

Another great former senator has passed on, this time Wisconsin's own William Proxmire. Proxmire set a good example of fighting for the people's interests, in true populist form. His was the mold from which our own Russ Feingold was cast.

Condolences to the family.

If nominated, I will not run;

if elected, I will not serve. Besides, I don't think I'm even remotely qualified for McCann's job, so don't even ask. The Zielenski rumor is interesting, because I probably am qualified to be an alderman, though I absolutely do not want to be.

Communing with Satan

The War on Christmas has hit close to home. I hope none of my Madison friends get hurt in the fallout, and I hope none of that fallout wafts down here to Milwaukee.

Bill O'Reilly launched one square at the Mad City:

Now, this is a conservative city, Richmond. I mean, this is not Madison, Wisconsin, where you expect those people to be communing with Satan up there in the Madison, Wisconsin, media.

Remember, Bill O'Reilly started this war predicated on the idea that phony wars get higher ratings there is a conspiracy against people of a certain religious faith. In other words, Bill's war is based on the notion that demeaning others through or with religion is wrong. So, of course, that's what he does to Madison.

O'Reilly also said this, in the same clip: "That's a lie, and they know it's a lie." All in keeping with his larger theme of hypocrisy, I guess, the liar. See this morning's post for two solid examples.

Blog of the Year

Less than 16 hours left to vote! Please do so!

McIlheran Watch: Whaaa?

I missed Sunday's McIlheran Watch, but Xoff picked up the ball on it.

But it's Wednesday, so there must be another McIlheran column polluting the paper. Except . . . Whaaa? He's making sense today, and about the War on Christmas, no less:

If this bit of the culture has become a war, it's because legal defense funds and petitions and public outrage are the way grievances unfold these days. Larry Eskridge of Wheaton College's Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals says Christians are simply adapting the tools other groups have used to confront hostility.

Nor is the hostility imagined, says Eskridge. There really was a wave of secularization in the 1950s and 1960s, epitomized by the removal of prayer from public schools, and what we see now is the long, slow reaction: pushy secularists, skittish officials, simmering believers. [. . .]

The more that Christian references in public life are stifled in the cause of inoffensiveness, the more Christians will get the idea that others regard their beliefs as offensive. This undermines, in Christians' eyes, the legitimacy of the public realm, just as surely as making public life an exclusively Christian domain undermines it in the eyes of others. Want to fissure society? One way is to make it a forum in which Christian viewpoints don't meet the dress code.

But Christians must remember that their truths hold true whether the culture accepts them or not. Christmas is about the moment when God became a material fact on Earth as well as a spiritual one. That Caesar ignored it made no difference then or now.

In practical terms, cool down. Be careful and forgiving when discerning friend or foe. The aim for Christians, after all, is not to smash the latter but to change their hearts.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and, despite citing the Liberty Council (an arm of the oh-so-tolerant Jerry Falwell's empire), McIlheran here makes a reasonable and persuasive case on the side of tolerance, diversity, and Christian charity.

What I cannot, and never will understand, is why some Christians (not all, certainly, not even most) feel they need the explicit approval of the State for their religious beliefs. Religion and spirituality and faith are individual matters, not political ones, especially not when it comes to Christianity. Christ himself told his followers that their religious life should be private ("Pray not as this Publican," he warned) and that Christians would be known by their works, rather than professions of faith. (See? 18 years of going to church three times a week paid off in blogging dividends!) The State's seal of approval should be the last thing on the Christians' holiday wish list.

McIlheran needs to spread this message far and wide, particularly to his fellow conservative Bill O'Reilly, who can't stop lying about the war on Christmas. Media matters caught him lying twice just yesterday, illustrated.

And I hope this signals a broader change in McIlheran's general policy on reasonableness, in that maybe from now on, he will be.

Wisconsin Blog of the Year (Vote Now!)

I'm making this post stick at the top here. Scroll down for new content.

Remember last year when "Powerline" was dubbed "Blog of the Year" by Time Magazine and every blogger on the left cringed in pain? Well, now's your chance, loyal readers (both of you!) to right that wrong, and help make folkbum's rambles and rants Wisconsin's Blog of the Year! MKE Online is holding the final round of voting, following weekly contests and three sem-final rounds. You can vote for this blog here. Balloting is open through December 14, so vote now and then tell your friends, family, neighbors, everyone--vote for folkbum's rambles and rants as Blog of the Year!

Teaching Tuesday: Freshman Parking Lot

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the Milwaukee Public Schools' 2004-2005 report card (.pdf), which I printed out and promptly forgot to bring home with me. What's making news from the report, though, is the "freshman parking lot":

The report shows that in 2004-'05:

• There were 9,857 students in ninth grade, with no other grade coming close to that total. Seventh grade with 7,159 was next.
  
• Enrollment falls off quickly after ninth grade, with 4,551 students in 12th grade last year, 46% of the ninth grade total.
  
• Almost one in four freshmen - 22% - was in at least the second year of ninth grade. The report says 21.3% of freshmen had been held back because of inadequate academic performance. The good news: that was down from 22.3% a year earlier.
  
• The faltering students have generally poor prospects of long-term success in school. "Over 40% of all district dropouts are in grade 9," the report says.
  
• About 48% of ninth-graders in MPS were suspended at least once during 2004-'05, up from 44.4% in 2003-'04. The ninth-grade rate was the highest for any grade; in second place was eighth grade at 43.1%.
  
• Ninth grade also is the low point in MPS for coming to school, with average attendance for students of 77% in 2004-'05. Next lowest was the 11th-grade average at 80%.

Deb Lindsey, director of assessment and accountability for MPS, said the figures underscored why MPS was making numerous changes in the way high schools are structured, particularly by creating small high schools. Administrators hope the smaller settings will lead to better behavior by students and more engagement with school life.

As one of the valet guys on this parking lot, I have a pretty good perspective here, and I can tell you that ninth is almost certainly everybody's least favorite grade, both for the adults and the kids. Nobody wants to teach freshmen, and no one sure as hell wants to be one.

The armchair psychology of the teacher's lounge diagnoses many different causes: hormones, inadequate middle schools, inattentive parents, cell phones, pot, poverty, a lack of promising post-secondary options for all but a handful of students, bad teachers, and more. Last Sunday, the paper editorialized about the nasty combination of Milwaukee's endemic poverty and the inherent difficulties of schooling in an urban district, and they're right to a great extent. My experience is that, for whatever reason, too many ninth-graders aren't looking forward far enough to see that there is a real and achievable goal: High school graduation in Milwaukee is not something our freshmen see as worthwhile. Looking around the community, how many high school graduates still don't have jobs? How many people do have jobs who lack the diploma?

At this point of transition, between middle schools where social promotion is very common (judging by how many of the freshman I teach are not reading or writing at grade level) and high school where students are lost without a four-year plan, students have to make a choice. The wrong one is much more fun, a lot less work, and, in their eyes, no less honorable with no less potential for success. There are things schools can be doing better--the idea of 9th-grade only schools, for example, might be worth studying--but, as usual, I see this as a community problem. You can't expect teachers and schools to undo the overwhelming message that a community sends. We can help, but Milwaukee itself needs to turn around. A community's schools are a reflection of the community. (Confidential to the editorial board: Hope is not a plan.) There is only so much that talk of standards and shuffling kids around and re-imagining what schools look like will get you.

I do my job, and I think I do it well. But I need support; I'm not going to move the cars off of this parking lot by myself.

LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

Today will be another great day in Wisconsin, with the public excluded from a public hearing. The cheddar shines brighter every day, ain'a?

Lazy Education Post

What with being in the middle of voting for Wisconsin Blog of the Year (*cough cough*), I feel a lot of pressure to write long, eloquent posts about the important issues of the day. But I'm tired, and I have work to do. So instead I'll point you to what I consider to be the important part of Alan Borsuk's story (part two of three) today:

What to do about the troubled voucher schools and what, if anything, to require that they disclose about their performance, is a controversial and central question for the schools along North Ave. and throughout the city.

Many supporters of vouchers say the purpose of the program is to make private school options available to low-income families in the city and that the force of parental choice is a good form of accountability. Making voucher school students take state tests would crimp the schools' programs and force them to be like public schools, the argument goes.

Critics argue that it is unfair to require a school such as Metcalfe to be so open to public view while effectively closing to public scrutiny nearby voucher schools. This argument goes: If you don't want to be part of the state accountability system, don't take state money. [. . .] To voucher supporters, such as former MPS superintendent Howard Fuller, the answer is to tighten regulations to deal with bad performing schools and conduct a large-scale, long-term study to see how voucher students are doing compared with similar public school students. [. . .]

Enforcement efforts by state officials this school year against three school operators followed a new strategy of trying to cut off public money for schools. But it appears at least two of the schools will remain in the program. A state hearing examiner recently ruled against the state in those cases, according to DPI spokesman Joe Donovan. The state has not indicated whether it will appeal.

And some of the schools where the quality of education is questionable - where teachers have little background in education, where curriculum is unclear or dubious, where the school philosophy cannot be explained clearly - continue to operate because the administrators are able to meet the state's administrative rules. The new rules do not give the state substantial oversight over the schools' educational programs.

Of course, this part of the story was buried at the bottom when it should be front and center in any discussion of Milwaukee's ecuational landscape.

Music Monday: Christmas in the Trenches

No, this is not about the "war on Christmas." It's about one war, on Christmas day. I was reminded over the weekend about an obituary I'd seen recently; Alfred Anderson, who lived to the ripe age of 109, was the last surviving soldier who'd been a part of World War One's Christmas Truce, and he died Monday, November 21 this year. I was also reminded of this beautiful ballad by John McCutcheon commemorating the event. It's not the same without the music, but the words are still powerful by themselves.

Christmas in the Trenches
by John McCutcheon

My name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here
I fought for King and country I love dear.
'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung,
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung
Our families back in England were toasting us that day
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I, "Now listen up, me boys!" each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear.
"He's singing bloody well, you know!" my partner says to me
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in harmony
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war
As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
"God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" struck up some lads from Kent
The next they sang was "Stille Nacht." "Tis 'Silent Night'," says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky
"There's someone coming toward us!" the front line sentry cried
All sights were fixed on one long figure trudging from their side
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shown on that plain so bright
As he, bravely, strode unarmed into the night
Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man's Land
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare-lit soccer game we gave 'em hell
We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own
Young Sanders played his squeezebox and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men

Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each prepared to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wonderous night
"Whose family have I fixed within my sights?"
'Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost, so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung
For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone forevermore

My name is Francis Tolliver, in Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas come since World War I, I've learned its lessons well
That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we're the same

If I wasn't half asleep,

I would write the conversation Richard Pryor and Gene McCarthy are having in the line to get into heaven. Condolences to the families on the loss of two American treasures.

I Want a Shield Law

Yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (question: we've been having papers delivered to us on Fridays for the last several weeks, even though we're Sunday-only subscribers, and last week, we didn't even get a Sunday paper . . . what's up with that?) had yet another article about pharmacists refusing to do their jobs:

Walgreen Co. engaged in religious discrimination by "effectively firing" three Illinois pharmacists who refused to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, a public-interest group alleged Wednesday.

The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, said it had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [. . .] The Illinois rule, imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April, requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule.

Even though this was an Illinois case, the Milwaukee paper ran the story because the Wisconsin state legislature is still considering a bill that would allow pharmacists here to refuse to fill prescriptions based on their personal beliefs:

In April, Wisconsin's Pharmacy Examining Board reprimanded and limited the license of a pharmacist who in July 2002 refused to fill a birth control prescription. The pharmacist [. . .] was working a Saturday at the Menomonie Kmart pharmacy when he refused to fill the prescription for a college student or transfer it to another pharmacy.

Just before [the pharmacist] was reprimanded, Republican legislators introduced a bill that would allow pharmacists to opt out of certain practices if they oppose them. The bill says that if pharmacists refuse to dispense products on moral grounds, they would be shielded from disciplinary action by the board or the Department of Regulation and Licensing.

Every time I hear about this pharmacist stuff now, I start thinking how nice it would be if I had a shield law for myself, if there were protections for me to do or not do things in my high school English classroom based on my own personal beliefs. Let's say I didn't feel I should have to teach verbs anymore. Or poetry, or mythology, or how to write essays. How long would I last as a teacher? (Say what you will about "tenure"--Milwaukee Public Schools doesn't really have it, so it can't save me.)

Remember the furor from a few weeks ago when some overzealous Madison teachers gave an assignment that followed their own personal beliefs? If you don't remember the fury, you can pretty much take your pick of people crying foul. I actually try carefully to keep my own personal beliefs out of my classroom, because I actually try to be a professional. And believe me, there are times when I would like to be unprofessional. It burns me up when I hear people defending unprofessinalism in others.

Of course, now Pat Robertson's law flunkies are literally defending this unprofessionalism in court, although it's clear in the Illinois case that Walgreen's was just following the law. All of these cases bear watching though; as in the war on Christmas baloney, the radical right's persecution complex is running out of control.

The horrors of war

The war on Christmas, anyway.

Another "No" Voice

My old Dean buddy Renee Crawford writes eloquently in her new blog Crawford's Take about why Wisconsin should vote no on the hate amendment. Welcome to the Cheddarsphere, Renee.

Debunking Arguments for the Hate Amendment, Part One

I'm calling it part one, since I figure the pro-hate side will keep trying to offer up arguments. Today's contestant is Wisconsin blogger Lucas of Wild Wisconsin, in a post from Monday. He posits four arguments:

1. God said that homosexuality is wrong.
   
2. Homosexual marriage will destroy traditional marriage.
   
3. It's all about the Children.
   
4. It reduces marriage to attraction.

Now, there's lots of good discussion in the comments to Lucas's post, some of which I might poach here or not, I haven't decided yet. But Lucas's arguments don't hold water. For example, number one: God also said we should honor our fathers and mothers; if we made this state law, every teenager in the state would be in prison. And there is no drive to ban any other sin--fornication, adultery, covetousness, lying--in the Wisconsin state constitution. We won't even get into all the pastors currently performing religious committment cermonies right now.

As for the kids, Lucas writes,

Children deserve a stable family. They don't always get one, but they still deserve it. Today we recognize that many children live in broken families that only have one parent, or many other arrangements that are less than ideal. That doesn't mean the state, the society, should work to endorse and encourage more of this type of situation. It should be apparent by the inability of procreation in a homosexual marriage that it does not raise kids well. To think that a child will not have a mom or dad if homosexual marriage is allowed should confirm our rejection.

Ah, the old "gays can't have kids so they can't get married" canard. This past spring, my widower grandfather married a nice widow from church. They will not have kids, but no one stopped the wedding. My wife and I have no kids, and no one seems to care except my mother, but even she is coming around. This argument is further insulting to anyone facing infertility problems; Lucas is suggesting that their "inability to procreate" would mean that, after tens of thousands of dollars and years of pain and struggle, they would "not raise kids well" if they were finally blessed with them. Perhaps Lucas also needs to learn how to Google, instead of relying on his bias, so he could learn some facts about children of gay and lesbian parents.

And Lucas's number four is just silly: Marriage--whether for gay or straight couples--happens for dozens of reasons, from love to lust to economics to children to trying to get a green card. Not every marriage happens for all of those reasons. But Lucas goes further, using this as his entré into the unwarranted extrapolation bit: "If I'm attracted to my cousin can I marry her?" he asks. "My sister? My mother? My dog? Two wives?" I won't go into it here, but, please. Where's the evidence from Scandanavia, Canada, Spain, or even Massachusetts that boys are lining up with their mothers or Fido for a marriage license?

But it's Lucas's number two--that "traditional" marriage needs protecting--that is the argument I have the hardest time believing, mostly because I have never seen any clear explanation of what would happen to marriage that would require protection. Here's Lucas's attempt:

If everyone could have the benefits of marriage there would be no benefit at all. By changing that meaning of marriage to include homosexuals, we take away from the meaning of traditional marriage and endanger its very existence. [. . .] If I could say "I'm married" in Texas (and in Wisconsin so long as no judges come along to make things up) everyone knows that means I've got one wife with whom I've made a special commitment be joined together 'till death do us part. Now if I said "I'm married" in Massachusetts people would only know that I love some other person whether it be man or women. Hence by allowing other relationships to be included under the relationship of man and wife we have struck a fatal blow at the original relationship between man and wife.

I see two things going on here. One, Lucas seems to want to protect a definition, which is something more suited to the Académie française than to the Wisconsin state legislature.

Second, he wants special rights for heterosexuals. Now, I know that sounds crazy, since for decades we've been told that there is this "homosexual agenda" that was out to earn "special rights" for the gays. Lucas is turning the issue upside-down by demanding special rights for himself, not gays. I suppose that being in the majority, we whites straights can keep the black man down the privileges and rights of marriage to ourselves. In addition, it seems a might bit self-centered to demand that marriage be only what we say it is, when over time and across cultures (even in these United States) marriage means many different things. Part of what constitutions in this counrty are meant to do is protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority; it is the gist of the fourteenth amendment--everyone, regardless of who they are, deserves equal protection and equal treatment. I will never understand the desire of some (borne out of insecurity, perhaps? fear?) to wall off access to basic rights to the minority.

Yet and still, Lucas does not address the fundamental question of what damage might be done to his marriage or mine by allowing gay marriage, besides any perceived damage to the definition. Lucas also doesn't explain why writing this into the constitution is necessary or desirable. Perhaps later he will get to it, or someone else will, and we'll see part two of this seiries of mine.

Friday Random Ten

The Here we go now, 1 2 3 Edition

1. "3 Good Reasons" Sons of the Never Wrong from 3 Good Reasons
2. "16 Days" Whiskeytown from Strangers Almanac
3. "29 Cent Head" Peter Mulvey*** from Kitchen Radio
4. "32 Flavors" Ani DiFranco from Not a Pretty Girl
5. "41 Thunderer" Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer from Drum Hat Buddha
6. "88 Keys" Cosy Sheridan from Waterbug Anthology 2
7. "100 Years" Blues Traveler from Blues Traveler
8. "3000 Miles" Ellis Paul from Stories
9. "10,000,000 Miles" Patty Griffin from A Kiss in Time
10. "An Infinite Number of Occasional Tables" Les Barker from Waterbug Anthology 2

*** If anyone wants to join me at my internet friend Paul's house tonight to see Peter Mulvey live and up close, there's more info here.

Inverse: Let's Raise Money *for* ActBlue

ActBlue is a tremendous resource for raising money for Democratic candidates in federal elections. Since its inception less than two years ago, more than $2,000,000 has gone from netroots to candidate in a low-cost, high-performance system. But ActBlue wants to spread out into state and local candidates, too, which is a much tougher job, since instead of one set of federal guidelines, they have to follow 50 sets of state rules and regulations. So they're going five states at a time, starting with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and Montana. But they need our help to do it. They're trying to raise $50,000--$10k per state--in order to set up the systems needed to help state candidates.

You can help them out here. Thanks!

Parent-Teacher Conferences

That will keep me busy all night. Though with the snow, I'm guessing turnout will be depressed.

In the meantime, drive safe, and enjoy the links down and to your right.

Anyone for a thankless task?

Over the holidays, I will be without regular internet access, and I'm looking for a guest blogger or two to help keep the place running smoothly while I'm gone. No strings, no limits, though I would prefer at least one Milwaukeean (to keep up with local stuff) and at least one educator (to keep up with that kind of stuff). That could be one person combined, I suppose. So, if you're a regular reader/ visitor/ commenter looking for a little bit of experience blogging, now is your chance to get it. Email me and let me know you might be interested.

Quote of the Day

Some of the same people who have their noses out of joint because clerks at Target say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” aren’t interested in a religious observance of the birth of Jesus. They want Christ in Target, not in church.

--Barbara O'Brien

Wisconsin's hate amendment now 60% of the way

No on the Amendment pretty much live-blogged the state senate debate and vote today. It was disappointing, but not surprising, that the senate approved the measure on party lines, 19-14. That number is closer, as two Dems who voted yes in 2004 voted no today, Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) and Sen. Roger Breske (D-Town of Eland). Here's the press release, in convenient one-sentence paragraph form:

Statement on Senate Vote for Civil Unions & Marriage Ban by No on the Amendment Campaign Manager Mike Tate

Madison -- Every day that we explain the constitutional ban on civil unions, domestic partnerships and marriage to the people of Wisconsin, we gain votes.

Today's vote in the Wisconsin Senate backs that up.

Since 2004, we gained two senators--Senators Hansen and Breske--producing a much narrower margin of support for this amendment. Every senator represents 160,000 Wisconsinites.

We had time to change the hearts and minds of Wisconsin senators, and we have much more time to change the hearts and minds of Wisconsin voters.

All along, we expected Republican party bosses to send the amendment to the November 2006 ballot. And all along, we've been talking to voters across this state.

Over the next several months, we will multiply the grassroots operation we have already put in place in every region of Wisconsin.

We will continue to tell the stories of gay families across the state who will be hurt by the amendment. We will continue to explain how this amendment goes to far by banning civil unions and domestic partnerships. And we will continue to work with a broad coalition of diverse, gay and non-gay organizations.

A majority of Wisconsin voters will reject this harmful and far- reaching amendment in November 2006. We have 335 more days to talk to Wisconsin voters about the far reaching consequences of this amendment, we will fight every day for every vote.

We are ready for this fight, and we will win this fight.

The last 40%--the Assembly and the general election in 2006--will be hard fights. Are you ready?

I am a shameless whore for Russ Feingold

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the President’s Speech Today
December 7, 2005

The President does not understand that his Iraq policies are preventing us from succeeding in our larger campaign against global terrorists - Iraq is not the be-all and end-all of our country’s national security. The President also fails to understand the limited role the U.S. military should play in Iraq’s long-term political and economic reconstruction efforts. Our brave servicemen and women won a resounding victory in the initial military operation, and their task is largely over. Maintaining the current U.S. military presence, without a clear plan and timetable to finish the military mission in Iraq, isn’t a strategy for success in Iraq or for success in the fight against global terrorism.

Rather than continuing with a media blitz that tries to repackage a “stay the course” strategy that isn’t working, the President and his administration should give the public a plan, with a timetable, to complete the military mission in Iraq. We need to get the focus back on the significant threats the United States faces that are currently being ignored or inadequately addressed.

Saddam Hussein isn't realeasing videotapes claiming that he's winning the global struggle against the Western infidels, al Qaeda is. Shouldn't we be fighting them instead?

Mid-week McIlheran Watch: May I see some ID?

If it's Wednesday, there must be a new Patrick McIlheran column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As I posted yesterday, the Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney indicated that there was no conspiracy to commit fraud or steal an election in Milwaukee. (Wouldn't you like to see this kind of investigation in Ohio?) While very harshly pointing out the clerical and systemic problems with the way Milwaukee runs its elections was an "impediment" to charging and punishing the few individuals who did set out consciously to cheat in the election.

So, knowing this, what would your recommendations for change have been? Probably something along the lines of what both Tom Barrett and Jim Doyle have proposed, right? Changes to the way elections are administered and records kept here in Milwaukee, to make sure that poll workers are better trained and fraudulent voters get caught more quickly and prosecuted more effectively. (Remember that the US attorney is 0 for 4 in fraud prosecutions so far.) Even reliable Republican Owen agrees:

The laws are in place to keep good records, but many of the people charged with implementing the laws are either incompetent, negligent, or corrupt. If it takes more money to make the system better--as the Democrats contend--then so be it. Let’s spend the money. But I want to see a serious effort by election officials to do their duty and severe consequences when they fail. We cannot continue to tolerate poll workers, clerks, election officials, and prosecutors who fail to competently do their duty.

We should do everything in our power to make sure that those entrusted with running the election are well trained and thoroughly ethical, since they are the front lines. We should also make sure that the records are clean enough to spot cheating when it happens. This makes sense.

But you all know Patrick McIlheran as well as I do, so you can probably guess what his column is about today. In fact, you could probably write it yourself:

One preventive measure, a statewide voter list, won't be ready by April's election. Even then, while it can prevent cheaters from voting twice, it won't stop same-day registrants from using fake names, for instance. It won't tell a poll worker the person arriving to vote is really the person on the list. While making voters show photo identification won't solve every problem, either, with the list it will reduce the opportunities.

This week also brings news that Wisconsinites suffering colds must endure layers of rigamarole to score some pseudoephedrine. They can't just buy Sudafed; they must find an open pharmacy, where a registered pharmacist must log the sale, all because if you grind up enough cold pills, you can make a batch of crank. Of course, customers must prove their identity.

Those who oppose asking voters to do that say it amounts to disenfranchisement since many poor people, particularly African-American men, lack driver's licenses. A bill, vetoed in the summer by Gov. Jim Doyle, would have required photo ID of voters but also would have offered a free one to anyone lacking a license. The bill's offer would have opened other doors: relief from colds, the use of libraries, the chance to buy an Amtrak ticket, all of which require photo ID.

That's right--even though, as Xoff points out, State Republican Party chair Rick Graber forgot to include voter ID in his own statement, McIlheran gives it the spotlight in his column. Problem is, voter ID doesn't fix the problems, and even though the US attorney stands by his report that around 100 people may have cheated in some way, there's no reason to believe that further investigation would reveal that there was cheating. If a lack of evidence prevents prosectuion, it may also prevent the discovery of exculpatory evidence. Consider, if you will, Republican Waukesha County DA Paul Bucher's fraud goose chases, or the Republican party's smearing of an innocent family; once the investigations were pursued, no charges were brought.

Of course, that doesn't stop Republicans from wanting to stop vote fraud "real and imagined," including McIlheran. Voter ID, they believe, will stop people willing to fake a utility bill (as Owen hypothesizes) to same-day register, for example. But IDs can be faked just as easily, and training poll workers to spot fake IDs will take even more time and money. Instead, let's enforce the laws we have (I almost feel dirty borrowing that from the NRA) and clean up the record-keeping to make prosecution more successful for the small, small percentage of cheaters.

Because let's assume that the US attorney is right, and even after full investigation, he could prove 100 people cheated. And let's assume that the 100 cheaters he could catch were only 10% of all the cheaters out there. That puts the total fraudulent vote count at 1000, out of 3,000,000 cast. While I agree that one cheater is one cheater too many, the risk of disenfranchising up to ten percent of all voters through a voter ID requirement is far worse than the risk that 0.03% of voters might cheat.

And as for the asinine comparison of voting to buying Sudafed or riding Amtrak (though the last time I rode Amtrak, I didn't have to show a photo ID, but I did need a credit card), when a citizen's right to cold and flu relief ends up in the US or Wisconsin Constitutions, then we can talk. There's no protection in the fourteenth amendment to rent a DVD at Blockbuster, and to compare the two (I'm looking at you, McIlheran) demeans us all.

I really don't want to write much more about the War on Christmas,

but does anyone else see anything wrong with Steve Guttenberg playing Santa Claus's son? I mean, besides the inherent offensive qualities of Steve Guttenberg. (Double bonus points if you can help me get the Stonecutters' song out of my head.)

Open Meetings Violations

I've been harping off and on over the past year or two about the way the Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature have tried to operate with a minimum of input from the public, despite Wisconsin's tradition of open government and relatively progressive laws like our open meetings and open records laws. (And, just to be fair, I'm not completely confident that the current Democratic leadership would necessarily be better, though I like and respect Judy Robson quite a bit.)

So I read with interest this article about the state senate's violating the open meetings law in the case of the dismissal of a couple of state IT workers back in 2003. But the violations in this case were not the really disturbing part. This was the really disturbing part:

The decision opens questions about the operations of the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization, which conducts almost all of its business with paper ballots given to members rather than at formal meetings. Prior notice is almost never given to the public about those votes.

Dane County Judge Richard G. Niess said that practice had the effect of "rendering the work of government all but invisible."

The joint committee is not the only legislative body to operate that way. Senate committees often vote on bills after holding hearings using paper ballots--without public notice--instead of in meetings that are publicly announced. [. . .]

Niess ruled that the committee's balloting violated the open meetings law because it did not give prior notice. Over three years, the committee held only one meeting that was publicly noticed, the judge noted.

What is it about politicians that makes them think that they can do the people's business without the people? Time for a change, methinks.

Fraud!!!!

What are they going to complain about now?

The nearly yearlong investigation into voter fraud in 2004 has yielded no evidence of a broad conspiracy to try to steal an election, [Republican-appointed] U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic said Monday. He predicted that perhaps "a couple of dozen" isolated cases of suspected fraud might be charged, and he said that sloppy recordkeeping by election officials was a key impediment to proving such cases.

Nothing in the cases that his office has examined has shown a plot to try to tip an election, Biskupic said during a meeting with Journal Sentinel editors and reporters. Critics had raised such fears of partisan voter fraud schemes in the election aftermath. But Biskupic said, "I wouldn't say that at all."

He said, "We don't see a massive conspiracy to alter the election in Milwaukee, one way or another."

I said all along, I'm plugged in enough to the liberal activist community here in Wisconsin that I at least would have heard whispers about an orgainzed effort if there were one. There was not.

In fact, the only organized effort I've seen at all to create massive shifts in the outcome of Milwaukee's elections is the effort by Wisconsin Republicans to institute a draconian voter ID requirement. While that would not legally be fraud, I think it is plainly indicative of the difference in attitude toward elections and voting between the two parties. Democrats want higher voter turnout and greater participation in the franchise; Republicans want restrictions and impediments to such exercise. Republicans have used as their justification for such undemocratic desires the mess that was Milwaukee's 2004 election--a mess which is now clearly proven to have been clerical, not fraudulent. Besides, voter ID would probably have stopped not one of the 18 cases of fraud charged, cases of felons voting (the ID is not stamped "Felon"), double-voting (a fake ID or lax pollworker still leaves that possible--and 0 for 4 on convictions, anyway), and registration fraud (in which no one even voted improperly).

Perhaps this stickpin of reality is not enough to burst the Republican politicians' and bloggers' bubble of belief in Democratic malfeasance, but it should be enough to remind the general public who the alarmists are, and who is really trying to protect your vote.

WI-GOV: Muckraking dividends

Eye on Wisconsin's constant harping on the Pheonix Health Care-Scott Walker story has started to pay off. Seems the AP is beginning to look into Walker's pay-for-play scam, and who knows? Maybe before too long we'll see Walker: Tosa Ranger called to account on at least this one example of his hypocrisy.

More from Xoff (x2).

And congrats, Cory!

O'Hare doesn't have WiFi

Seriously, people, how can the busiest frickin airport in the world not have WiFi?

This is especially important for a growing class of people: bloggers whose flights have been canceled. Look, we've been on planes and in airports all day, and then you put us on standby for a flight two hours after the one you unceremoniously canceled, which was our last connection. And we want to be able to log on right now to tell the world how much your airline sucks rocks. And there's no WiFi. What up with that?

I mean, I haven't seen nary a glimpse of the internets since this morning in the hotel. The hotel had WiFi!* How do I know what's going on? How can obsessively check my SiteMeter? How can I engage in witty banter with my reader? Aiiieee!

I'd suggest we start a boycott, if I knew whom to blame.

Anyway, readers, what'd I miss?

*Fessing up: I didn't use the hotel's WiFi. Someone somewhere nearby had an un-password-protected wireless network (named "linksys," heh) that I poached for free all weekend. I only have slight guilt.

LTE re: MPS, OK!

After the the news last week of our superintendent's contract being renewed, I wrote a letter to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Of course, I do that a lot--I'm really quite the crank--but this time it got published (scroll way down).

And with no editing--I really did write one that short this time.

McIlheran Watch: Rights for he, not for thee (plus he lies!)

I know all of you back home in Milwaukee are waiting breathlessly for today's installment of McIlheran Watch™, live and unscripted from cold, snowy Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Even amid the good food (did you know Canadian Subways don't have provolone?) and great views (I can see a Sears!), I have to jump in here with my distaste for all things Pat McIlheran.

In McIlheran's mid-week column, he staunchly defended the "right to disagree," complaining that any hypothetical legal recognition of gay marriage would forever change society "beyond your ability to dissent." He seemed concerned that his ability to call gay people icky would be forever revoked if the state started recognizing families like this one, and that's just not right, he said. In other words, the right to dissent--even if it takes the form of homophobia and bigotry--is a fundamental right that must not be taken away.

So what of McIlheran's column today? In short, he says, "Dissenters: Shut Up." No, really:

[S]ome Milwaukee aldermen [. . .] want to poll you about Iraq. A committee voted 3-1 last week to put a referendum on the spring ballot asking Milwaukeeans whether the United States should "end the occupation of Iraq and immediately begin withdrawing troops." The full council votes next week.

Then, of course, you will in April. This won't necessarily be bad. Say the "let's give up" proposition gets 60%. Given how few people vote in off-year spring elections, such a victory in this left-leaning city would make plain the idea's fringe appeal. Some harm, however, lies in showing Milwaukee to be behind the curve: By April, all the cool cities will have moved on to adopt-a-jihadist campaigns.

Sarcasm is supposed to be funny, Pat, not grossly offensive. But from there, McIlheran moves into the "you liberals don't know what you're talking about" phase, repeating lies and specious arguments he no doubt scribbled down while listening to Limbaugh in his cube. I'll get to those in a minute, as spotting and debunking McIlheran's lies is almost too easy. But the main point here is that not even a whole week after McIlheran demanded the right to "dissent" regardless of his own factual inaccuracy, political or religious biases, or public opinion, he writes that dissenters to Bush's foreign policy should shut up until (or unless) they start buying the administration's spin. Here's my offer to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Hire me; I will work for half what McIlheran does and I promise to go at least two weeks without contradicting myself.

Seriously, I ask again: Where does he get off saying one minute that "the campaign for gay marriage is all about denying anyone the ability to disagree," and the next dismissing out of hand anyone who disagrees with this relentlessly dismal war? There's a word for that.

I suppose it's also unsurprising that very near McIlheran's tripe we find the official Editorial Board opinion concerning the Common Council's actions:

We sympathize with the sentiments of those proposing that Milwaukeeans vote in April on a resolution urging the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But the Common Council should reject the measure at its Dec. 13 meeting.

Remind me again: Who is the newest member of the Editorial Board? At any rate, Xoff took apart the editorial this morning. I still can't help but wonder whether McIlheran signed eagerly on to the idea of making it the editorial stance of the paper to tell dissenters not to vote, or if he only signed on earnestly.

Now, presenting, with extra debunking goodness, the factual errors in McIlheran's column:

PM: It's hard to say the president lied now that the dictator's jailed, his nuke labs are history, al-Qaida's fighting for its home turf rather than Manhattan and Iraqis are voting.
Reality: I'll give him Saddam's in jail, and I'll save other parts of this sentence for when he repeats them later. For now, consider the "nukes," since Saddam's nuke program was history long before the March, 2003 invasion. The aluminum tube story? False, and known false before the war. Yellowcake from Africa? False, and known false before the war. The intelligence from "Curveball"? False, and known false before the war.

PM: People don't believe that we can win or that the administration has a plan to win. That view is harder to sustain after President Bush's speech Wednesday [. . .] he's been outlining this evolving strategy for a long time, even if his critics haven't been paying attention.
Reality: The Bush speech last week was, I noted at the time, about 30 months late, because it seems like we really should have had a plan (since hope is not a plan) before the war started. Anyway, the speech "offered nothing new substantively," and was more about ameliorating the growing ranks of Congressional citics than demonstrating his military genius.

PM: American troops have made life [in Iraq] better.
Reality: While there is no doubt that Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein in power, Bush and Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy is not seen as "better," depending on who you ask. Some people think things are worse now, that they "have never been this bad,"--people like Iyad Allawi. I wonder if McIlheran thinks that Western contractors killing Iraqi civilians is "better," if he thinks Rumsfeld is right that we don't even have to stop it.

PM: Iraq has had two surprisingly popular elections and is heading for a third. It has managed to write its own constitution and has staved off civil war.
Reality: Yes, "free" elections, with no thumbs on the scales or hint of fraud. I suppose reasonable people can disagree about whether what's going on in Iraq right now is civil war or not (here's an interesting take), but the constitution hasn't solved much yet.

PM: Iraqis are staffing their own army, replacing U.S. forces in more of the country, not less.
Reality: That's unreasonably optimistic, and covers up so many problems it's hard to know where to start (just read the linked USATODAY article).

PM: If our presence in Iraq has drawn the jihadists, the alternatives are worse. Their choice of battlefield has been Manhattan, London subways and wedding receptions in Jordan. If 2,000 American dead in a liberated Iraq are unacceptable, it is unclear how withdrawal, metal detectors and police work would better protect us when the approach failed to stop 9-11.
Reality: This paragraph seriously almost makes me want to cry, it has so many problems. The if at the start is a big one, since even the conservative American Enterprise Institute admitted this week that "there are very few foreign fighters in Iraq." I ask McIlheran what our folly in Iraq actually did to prevent attacks in London or Madrid or Bali or Jordan? Hm? It is unclear to me how non-withdrawal did a thing to stop them. One of the things I most like about Russ Feingold's discussions of Iraq lately is that he's not afraid to say that Iraq has been a distraction from fighting the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11, and did attack London and Madrid, and Bali and so on. It is unclear to me why there is not rioting in the streets over the fact that the man who masterminded the attacks on 9/11 remains free more than four years later. It also remains unclear to me why McIlheran would bring up the failure of US intelligence on 9/11, since we know a month before the attacks there was a giant memo on the president's desk reading "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." The continued success of al Qaeda and other "jihadists" demonstrates the same lack of preparation and lack of any kind of "flypaper" success in our Iraq strategy.

David Neiwert cites some genius from the Poor Man: "Even the tiniest example of wingnuttery is a near-perfect replica of the whole edifice, substantively consonant in every particular but scale." Patrick McIlheran consistently proves this addage true, even in just his columns this past week: He ignores facts, he misrepresents his opponents' arguments, he plays the "victim" card, and, perhaps playing most to type, he accuses others of trying to do exactly what it is he does. As I said, there's a word for that.

Have a happy holiday of choice!

That's what I often say. I almost never say "Merry Christmas." Is it because I hate Christmas, or because, as Bill O'Reilly has suggested, George Soros is paying me to undermine Christian morals in this country? No. It's because I think it's polite to wish that others have joyous celebrations in the manner that they find best for themselves, rather than insist that they only celebrate the way I do.

I mean, would I go around telling people "Happy Birthday!" on my birthday? No, that's kind of silly. They should celebrate their birthdays on the anniversary of when they were born in a manner that pleases them.

This is why I think the whole "War on Christmas" crap is crap. I agree with Annie Laurie Gaylor, quoted in the linked article from the Milwaukee paper, as saying "the campaign a 'big phony ruse' created by [Jerry] Falwell and others to attract attention and do some fund-raising." It's true that the right is getting a lot of mileage out of this--my mother, who listens to Rush and Hannity, was convinced when we saw her at Thanksgiving that Christmas was on the verge of being canceled.

Christmas won't be canceled, and Christians around the country will--and should--be able to engage in whatever private and meaningful ceremonies are important to them. When the ACLU starts barging into people's houses telling them to take the angels off their trees, I'll stop sending the ACLU money. Until then, offended Christians need to stop being so self-centered about this, and enjoy their holiday of choice in peace.

Duh

(Yes, I'm in Canada, but I'm still subjecting myself to the Milwaukee paper. Yes, the paper's website is as slow and clunky froj up here.)

What's that, you say? That first year school in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program wasn't providing an education? Really? You mean the one run by the guy whose previous choice school was shut down for rioting? Nooooo, couldn't be.

Well, it is:

Students regularly smoked pot, skipped school and shot dice without fear of punishment, a group of former teachers and administrators at the troubled Northside High School alleges in interviews with the Journal Sentinel and a letter to state officials. [. . .]

In a letter to state officials, [a teacher] and four other former employees alleged that Brooks padded student counts at the school and refused to allow staff and teachers to call the police if they feared for their safety. [. . .] At another point in the letter, they added: "Even after suspending, or expelling students Mr. Brooks would always bring them back in and tell us 'That's my money,' 'You (expletive) with my money,' 'Leave these students alone as long as they are not KILLING YOU.' "As a result of the letter, the state's Department of Public Instruction has asked the Milwaukee County district attorney's office to review the letter and possibly investigate Northside. Assistant District Attorney David Feiss said Friday afternoon that he received the letter. [. . .]

The state has already taken steps against Northside, notifying leaders there in November that it would not receive any more state payments because it does not meet the standards to be considered a private school.

Northside opened this fall through the voucher program, which allows private schools to receive public money from tuition vouchers for low-income students. Brooks, a former administrator at Academic Solutions, a voucher school closed down by the state last school year, is chief executive officer. Northside is at 4840 W. Fond du Lac Ave., the former site of Academic Solutions. [. . .]

A hearing is scheduled for next Friday in Madison on the Department of Public Instruction's decision not to make any more payments to Northside. In a letter to DPI, Brooks wrote that the school "strongly disagrees with the department's determination and therefore requests a hearing on the matter." Northside received a voucher payment from the state of $309,611.25 in September, which was based on having 194 qualifying students, according to the DPI. Payments are made four times a year. The state withheld November payments (the second round) from five schools, including Northside.

So, what do we say? Lift the Cap! Obviously, we need more like this . . .

In unrelated but equally disheartening and creepy school news: I worked with this guy for a year. [shudder]

Walker and Green get the gas-tax coverage they crave

Wisconsin Governor hopefuls Scott Walker: Tosa Ranger and Mark ♥s Tom DeLay Green have finally gotten themselves a giant page A2 story in the newspaper on the gas tax. You may recall that Walker, in particular, has been furious that there's been no media coverage of his trying to steal Spencer Black's idea (an idea stolen previously by Tim Capenter and, most recently Tom Reynolds). Owen and Jessica, to name two, have been crowing abou the lack of media coverage for Scott Walker's unoriginal idea for weeks.

So this story today should settle their hash a little bit, right? Probably not, since it's Spivak and Bice, and they have the goods:

Politicians sure do love bragging about their track records. Except when those records come back to bite them.

Republican gubernatorial candidates Scott Walker and Mark Green have spent the past week trying to one-up each other with their plans to get rid of the annual automatic increase in the state gas tax.

But back in the '90s when the two could have actually done something about the gas tax index as state lawmakers, what did these ambitious politicians do? Not a thing.

In September 1997, the two voted for the state budget bill that increased the gas tax by 1 cent and boosted the index by tying the automatic hikes to inflation. Then less than a year later, both Walker and Green voted to table a proposed amendment that would have suspended the automatic increases and cut the gas tax rate by 1.6 cents per gallon if the feds boosted state transportation funding by $70 million.

Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.

Just waiting now to see the Walker water-carriers in the Cheddarsphere explode about this one . . .

Friday Random Ten

The I'm Going to the Canadian War Museum today, not-random Edition

1. "Rich Man's War" Steve Earle from The Revolution Starts Now
2. "In Germany Before the War" Peter Mulvey from Ten Thousand Mornings
3. "Soul's Not at War" Susan Werner from Live at Tin Angel
4. "War" Jonatha Brooke from Plumb
5. "War Makes War" John Gorka from Old Future's Gone
6. "The Dogs of War" Pink Floyd from A Momentary Lapse of Reason
7. "Warrior" Steve Earle from The Revolution Starts Now
8. "It's a War in There" Dar Williams from End of the Summer
9. "You and Me and the 10,000 Wars" Indigo Girls from Nomads Indians Saints
10. "Everybody Knows this is Nowhere" Neil Young (because he's Canadian and I ran out of war songs in my iTunes) from Everybody Knows this is Nowhere

UPDATE: I realized later that song ten should have been (Canadian) Bruce Cockburn's "If I Had a Rocket Launcher."

Well, here I am in Canadia

In a nice hotel with a great view. More importantly, I'm very near the elevators, and--I'm so excited--just across the hall from the ice machine! Woo-hoo!

So this post isn't wasted, and a propos to my earlier, somewhat incoherent post today (sorry--I was rushing and did a bad job), here's a link to No on the Amendment, your source for all the news about stopping Wisconsin's hate amendment.

McIlheran Watch: Oh, no, he didn't!

One quick post before I'm off to the airport . . .

I knew, just from reading the title of McIlherans' latest dreck, that I would get angry reading it:

Gay marriage debate is really about your right to disagree

On its face, it doesn't make sense. Explained, it makes less. After bringing in the spectre of activist judges and the horror show that is domestic partner benefits, Pat gets to what he's really upset about,

The campaign for gay marriage is all about denying anyone the ability to disagree. If we are told by legislators or courts to permit same-sex marriage, then any disagreement we might have with it can have no effect on what we do or say. The law will have told us that we must regard the couple as married, even if we think that's nonsense.

That's because marriage isn't about mutual affections, an ungovernably private matter. Nor is it the prerequisite to intimate relations: No one suggests a lack of a legal document has kept any couple pining in separate beds.

Rather, marriage is about declaring those mutual affections before the world and having the world in turn regard two people as a unit. [. . . O]nce the state says marriage includes mutual husbandry, there's no disagreeing. The moment you treat the couple any differently than any other, you'll find yourself cornered by a motivated, high-end pro-bono lawyer ready to dice, slice and ice you. Good luck.

McIlheran errs first in confusing the campaign against writing discrimination into the state constitution with a campaign to legalize gay marriage in the state. The two things are different, and there are no multi-million-dollar efforst ramping up to overturn Wisconsin's law that prohibits the state from recognizing gay marriages. He errs again in mislabeling what that non-existent campaign would likely be about: The gay people I know want to get married, not sue Pat McIlheran for being a bigot.

McIlheran is offended, for example, that a supporter of gay marriage like Rabbi Eric Joffee might compare him to Hitler ('cause, you know, Hitler was all about granting gay rights!) or that the First Amendment might suddenly disappear. In the first instance, I have to say, toughen up, Pat: If you don't get compared to Hitler in your chosen career, you're probably not doing your job. In the second, well, Amendment One isn't going anywhere, so Pat's right to express his bigoted opinions is safe and sound. Mostly, though, McIlheran is being deceptive by using these scare tactics to support the amendment currently being debated for Wisconsin; even if it fails (which I hope it does), gay marriage would still be illegal in this state!

But I guess the question I have for McIlheran is, why would anyone want to discriminate against a gay or lesbian couple? And why should we try to defend them if they do?

At least Pat never trotted out the "we need to protect marriage" canard, I'll give him credit for that. I'm still curious to know what some people think we're protecting it from . . .