Thursday, November 30, 2006

The Godfather At The Grand

Tonight at 7 p.m. at the Oshkosh Grand Opera House, the classic Francis Ford Coppola directed film "The Godfather" will be shown. Admission is $4. The movie is part of the Grand's Screen Scene series.

After the movie I will be leading a brief discussion of it. My main qualification is that my last name ends with a vowel. I'll probably try to debunk a few stereotypes.

Below, Robert Duvall (played Tom Hagen in the Godfather films) has an interesting take on Brando's treatment of Don Corleone.

Civil War or "Faith Based Melee?"

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Lohry v. Thompson won't benefit citizens

Donna Lohry and Claud Thompson are two of the most effective members of the Winnebago County Board of Supervisors. Both are retired seniors who dedicate almost full-time effort to the part-time board. Both bring a wealth of real world experience to the board. Both are outspoken advocates for good government. Both will look you right in the eye and give you a straight answer to a question.

Lohry's and Thompson's effectiveness does not mean that they deserve to run unopposed at election time. Unfortunately, they will face each other in the next election if the full board approves a proposed redistricting map. The redrawn map is the result of the Board moving from 38 to 36 supervisors to ward off an interest group movement to place a referendum on the April ballot to reduce the size to 19. All of this is the result of awful legislation that creates confusion and court battles almost by design.

So if the proposed redistricting plan passes, it means county residents will lose at least one effective voice in government (Lohry or Thompson) for no good reason. If citizens in Lohry's or Thompson's district(s) want to go against them at election time that is great and should be encouraged, but I challenge any board size reduction advocate to show us how Donna or Claud represent "dead weight" deserving of removal from the board sheerly due to downsizing.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Don't Let Telemarketers Keep You Hangin' On The Telephone

Wisconsin requires that you register your phone number every two years in order to have it remain on the No Call list. You need to register or re-register by December 1st in order to get or stay on the list in January of '07. Information on how to register can be found here.

The GB Press Gazette had a decent editorial on Monday on closing the political No Call loophole.

Dringoli: Lennon blames me

Former Neenah police detective Daniel Dringoli, the subject of a botched prosecution at the hands of soon-to-be former Winnebago County District Attorney Bill Lennon, claims that Lennon's continued pursuit of him is the result of a personal vendetta. He told the Appleton Post-Crescent that Lennon holds him responsible for his defeat in the race for circuit court judge. The story is here.

Back in January, Judge Bruce Schmidt called Lennon's brief against Dringoli "extremely confusing and extremely convoluted." He also said it contained "omissions and misrepresentations." Lennon made it through the February primary race even after Schmidt's smackdown, but suffered a landslide defeat against Karen Seifert in the April elections.

Complaints Choirs of Helsinki and Birmingham

I think we should have no trouble creating choirs like these in Oshkosh . . .

Monday, November 27, 2006

Watch Wayne Traska on Eye on Oshkosh

I don't normally promote the Eye on Oshkosh television program here on T2T, but I do think the interview that will be on this week with Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education member Wayne Traska is one of Cheryl and my better efforts. If you're in Oshkosh, you can watch it on Oshkosh Cable Access channel 2 tonight at 7 p.m., Thursday at 1 p.m., and Saturday at 6 p.m. Wayne does an excellent job of explaining some of the key budget and planning issues facing the Board. We spend a substantial amount of time talking about Public Management Partners' Facility Report for the District, a document which is very much worth a read.

Superintendent Ron Heilmann was supposed to be on the show also, but last minute commitments made it impossible for him to attend. We will have in on at some point in the future.

Some Eye on Oshkosh fans have asked me if the show can be placed online so that people can watch it on their computers. Cheryl and I have had minimal discussion of that possibility--let's just say it's a "work in progress."

Sunday, November 26, 2006

More Hypocrisy From Wisconsin Legislature

Last month the vocal critics of the UW System in the state legislature had a fit over the results of an audit suggesting that UW profs are taking advantage of the state's sick leave program. Rep. Nass (R-Whitewater) said "The entire audit is proof that the Board of Regents and UW System administrators have failed to perform their managerial duties." Nass and others were suggesting that professors were abusing the program by piling up unused sick leave days and then cashing them out after retirement to use for health care coverage.

Today in the Journal Sentinel we find that "in the past 4 years, only two lawmakers have claimed sick time." Guess what: state lawmakers get to cash out the unused sick days just like the profs! Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) opted not to introduce a bill to repeal the sick leave perk back in 2003 because he received "a very bipartisan, jaw-dropping stare" when he suggested it.

While the UW haters in the legislature will not let UW employees forget for a moment the details of every single benefit we might be eligible for, they never criticize their own lawmaker peers who claim ignorance of their own perks. According to the Journal Sentinel story, representatives Sinicki and Berceau missed a substantial amount of time at the Capitol because of sickness, yet each claims not to be aware that they were eligible for sick leave. Senator Mike Ellis has been in the legislature 36 years, has never claimed a sick day, is eligible for $104, 000 in benefits, yet claims he never was aware of the sick leave program.

Will this blatant hypocrisy result in less criticism of the UW from the legislature? Don't count on it. Our administrors and too many faculty suffer from a serious case of spinal weakness when it comes to dealing with legislative bullies, and bullies will always pick on those who allow it.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

County Board Votes 24-12 To Support Repeal Of Underheim Bill

On November 14th the Winnebago County Board of Supervisors voted 24-12 to support a resolution sponsored by supervisor Donna Lohry and urging repeal of one of the most badly written revisions of state statutes ever passed in the history of the state of Wisconsin. I did not blog about this earlier because I did not see the board's actual discussion of the resolution until Tuesday night, when it was replayed on cable access channel 10 in Oshkosh.

I learned by watching the discussion, and then verified by looking at the statute, that citizen petitions can be filed only to DECREASE the size of county boards. This would mean, for example, that if a county board was reduced from 38 to 19 (or any other number--the statute allows for setting the number arbitrarily), and proceeds to spend more money and become more tools of special interests as smaller boards tend to do, the citizens would have no power to INCREASE the board size after the next census. The Wisconsin legislature and Governor Doyle should be ashamed of themselves for passing and signing such a discriminatory revision of the statutes. Persons who support increasing the size of the board ought to have just as much right as the cutters to petition the government and get a referendum on the ballot.

Supervisor Lohry deserves much credit for arguing persuasively that since this badly written, almost embarrassing tarnish on the state statutes originated in Winnebago County (it was sponsored by soon to be former State Rep. Gregg Underheim), it should be the responsibility of Winnebago County fix it. To reduce the board size on the strength of sham legislation is to make a mockery out of representative democracy.

Supervisor Bill Wingren, one of the supporters of cutting the board who has yet to offer a compelling argument for doing so, kept repeating the line "everyone deserves to be heard." Well Bill, that's not true under the Underheim legislation, because according to it those people who might someday like to see an increase in the board size via referendum cannot be heard.

I don't expect the state legislature to fix the statute on the basis of a 24-12 vote in Winnebago County, but I do believe the statute will be revisited when those counties that have voted to reduce their size by half or more discover that they have become more expensive and less efficient.

One of the saddest part of this entire board size affair is that the local corporate press--enemies of county government--have practiced journalistic and editorial negligence in refusing to examine the Underheim statute in any critical manner. They've also not taken the responsibility to inform the public of the truth about smaller county boards in the real world.

The Cost of War

Today's Christian Science Monitor compares the cost of Iraq/Afghanistan with ten previous US wars. During the "Big Lie" period leading up to the war, the Bush Administration estimated that Iraq would cost $50 billion. (Remember how it was going to be paid for by Iraq oil revenue?). We are now spending $8 billion per month in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the UW Oshkosh Advance-Titan before the Wisconsin elections thought that Green Party candidate for governor Nelson Eisman was living in a fantasy world for arguing that free tuition is possible for college students. They called it a "pipe dream." Okay, but look at what we CAN afford: "Overall, each individual soldier deployed in Iraq for a year costs about $275,000, according to CRS. The cost rises to $360,000 if required additional investments in equipment and facilities are added."

Monday, November 20, 2006

Let's Hold The Dems Accountable, Part II

The Sunday New York Times had a depressing cover story on how so-called ethics reform is likely to fare in the new Congress. Here's the kind of "boldness" we can expect:

"None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all."

Some Dems are content to blame increased corruption on the Republicans, but:

"Democrats, of course, have also cultivated close ties to lobbyists, who play a major role in campaign fund-raising for members of both parties. Indeed, ethical violations and house-cleaning efforts have both been bipartisan activities over the years. Congress has seesawed between public calls for changes and a reluctance to cramp incumbents’ campaign fund-raising and political power."

Democrats probably won't pass even something as simple as legislation that bloc a lawmaker from requesting an earmark that benefits family members or former staff members. Such legilsation probably won't pass, "in part because many have close ties to former staff members or family members in the lobbying business."

The full story is here (registration required).

Thursday, November 16, 2006

No Blogging Until Monday

On Friday morning I am traveling to San Antonio, Texas to participate at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. There will be no more blog entries until Monday. Hope everyone has a great weekend.

Supermax = "Gulag"

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

That's the text of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that the amendment has been missing in action at the Supermax Prison in Boscobel. The Cap Times summarizes the decision here. Writing for the court, Judge Terence Evans' intro paragraph describes a harrowing scene:

"Stripped naked in a small prison cell with nothing except a toilet; forced to sleep on a concrete floor or slab; denied any human contact; fed nothing but 'nutri-loaf;' and given just a modicum of toilet papers - four squares - only a few times. Although this might sound like a stay at a Soviet gulag in the 1930s, it is, according to the claims in this case, Wisconsin in 2002."

Such conditions at the prison are part of a "Behavioral Modification Program," the perfect Orwellian descriptor for practices that reek of Stalinism.

Judge Evans was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton, which some looney wingnuts will interpret as "soft on crime." However, the three-judge panel was unanimous; Chief Judge Joel Flaum and Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple were appointed by Ronald Reagan.

Congratulations and thanks to Ed Garvey for his successful involvement in this case.

Locating the WMDs--Ours

I don't believe any country in the world should have weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons are, after all, so damn 20th century. But can you imagine how absurd it must look to the rest of the world when US leaders lecture them on that topic? Not only do we lead the league in numbers of WMDs, but we also are the

only country in the world that deploys nukes in foreign countries. Hardly a non-proliferation role model.

Scientists associated with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the National Resources Defense Council have spent years trying to identify the locations of our WMDs. In the FAS summary of a new report, they say:

The highest concentration of nuclear warheads is at the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific in Bangor, Washington, which is home to more than 2,300 warheads – probably the most nuclear weapons at any one site in the world. At any given moment, nearly half of these warheads are on board ballistic-missile submarines in the Pacific Ocean.
Approximately 1,700 warheads are deployed on Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines operating in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, and about 400 warheads are at eight bases in six European countries – Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and Great Britain . . .

The overview finds that more than two-thirds of all U.S. nuclear warheads are still stored at bases for operational ballistic missiles and bombers, even through the Cold War ended more than 16 years ago. More than 2,000 of those warheads are on high alert, ready to launch on short notice. Only about 28 percent of U.S. warheads have been moved to separate storage facilities. The largest of these, an underground vault at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, stores more than 1,900 warheads.
The 10 U.S. sites that currently host nuclear weapons are: the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific, Bangor, Washington; Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada; Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming; Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico; Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota; Pantex Plant, Texas; Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri; and the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic, Kings Bay, Georgia.

See a map of the locations here.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Barrett: "I Shall Return"

Official UW Villain Kevin Barrett claims that mainstream media reports about his employment status are inaccurate and that he is planning to apply to come back next fall. Today he sent out a press release which said in part:

Barrett Not Leaving U.W.-Madison
Lecturer Taking “Poor Man’s Sabbatical,” Plans to Return Next Fall

Contrary to a recent flurry of inaccurate reports in the corporate media, University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett will not be leaving the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

As long ago as last June, Barrett made it clear that he would almost certainly not be applying for a position in spring 2007, but would instead be taking a “poor man’s sabbatical” to work for the nonprofit Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (
http://mujca.com). He intends return to teaching in fall 2007.

“This is not the university’s choice, this is my choice,” Barrett explained. “As a lecturer on a semester-to-semester contract, I get to decide which jobs I apply for. If I’m the best guy for the job, they hire me. It ain’t rocket science. But this simple procedure seems too difficult for the corporate media hacks to grasp. And for some reason they don’t want to call up the University and check the facts. They’d rather put out an unsubstantiated myth. Sound familiar?”


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Barrett gets good student evaluations of teaching for the class he is teaching this semester, without any complaints that he uses his class as a forum for 9/11 conspiracism. In fact let's assume that he's a popular teacher who upholds high academic standards in the classroom. Assume further that when he applies to teach a class next fall, he is in competition with other applicants who are not as qualified and/or cannot demonstrate the same level of effective teaching. Would the UW hire the less qualified teacher just to avoid more criticism from Rep. Nass and others bothered by Barrett's presence on the campus? If so, what would that say about the ethics of the UW system?

Reedism Meets Reidism: The Abramoff Factor

As I understand it, one of the major problems with the outgoing Republican Congress was its grounding in Reedism (as in Ralph), an insider-based philosophy based on pay-to-play, political favoritism, and old style influence peddling.

The new Democratic US Senate will replace Reedism with Reidism (as in Harry). Reidism is guided by the motto, "the most corrupt Democrat is still preferable to an honest Republican."

Jack Abramoff goes to prison today, but he's still singing and his tunes may let us know just how deep is the corruption in the Reid Senate. He has reportedly named "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Who Will Fill The UW Villain Void?

Kevin Barrett won't be coming back to the UW next semester. No surprise there. That leaves us with a Villain Void in The System. Who will fill it?

Monday, November 13, 2006

Let's Hold The Dems Accountable

Now that the Democratic Party controls the United States House of Representatives, and probably the US Senate if Joe Lieberman remains in the The Party, are you wondering what they plan to do right after being inaugurated in January? I suggest everyone watch the speech below from incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Delivered on June 13, 2006 at the "Campaign For America's Future" conference, Pelosi identified what the Dems would do not just in their first week, but on their First Day in power. On the first day, we can expect:

*Passage of a "Civility Package" that will replace the "most corrupt and closed" Congress in history with the most honest and open.
*Passage of a bill that would mandate no new deficit spending. [Note: The problem with deficit spending in Washington has never been deficits per se; using the family metaphor employed by Pelosi in her speech, everyone agrees that it is okay for a family to go into debt for things like purchase of a home, quality transportation, or education. The problem is that since Reagan we have, as a nation, been going into debt in order to enrich mostly hi-tech and military producers--we have NOT been going into debt to benefit the population at large.).

So civility and no new deficits are just the first day. In the first week, Pelosi says that we can expect:
*Passage of legislation putting into place the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
*Passage of an increase in the minimum wage.
*Passage of legislation making prescription drugs more affordable.
*Passage of legislation cutting interest rates for student loans in half.
*Passage of legislation rolling back tax cuts for the oil industry and other energy producers.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the conservative, "blue dog" Democrats sign on to this agenda. Is it a progressive agenda, or even a moderate one? Consider this:
*The 9/11 Commission Report is deeply flawed, casting all of its recommendations in doubt.
*We need national living wage legislation; another paltry minimum wage increase does little to help struggling workers.
*The Democrats' allegiance to the pharmaceutical companies is almost as great at the Republicans' and will make any reform of prescription drug pricing difficult. Even if we do get it, that gets us no closer to a national health care plan.
*Making student loans more affordable is nice, but progressivism requires legislation to REPLACE loans with GRANTS.
*Cutting back breaks for the oil industry is necessary, but the Dems like the Republicans still haven't a clue as to what real "energy independence" means. See Jim Kunstler's blog for November 13th.

Whether you agree or disagree with Pelosi's direction, we should all be sure to make sure she and the Dems stick to their word.

Kraft Launches PYA Defense

As noted on the Oshblog, City Attorney Warren Kraft has responded to the Department of Justice's finding that the City Council broke the Open Meetings Law by attacking the messenger: "the assistant attorney general's opinion is based on a view of what the AG's office wants the open meetings law to be, rather than based on what the law currently provides." Cheryl Hentz takes on the nonsensical nature of Kraft's response here.

Rather than contribute toward making Oshkosh city government compliant with the state's sunshine laws, Kraft's response seems designed to defend the bad advice he provided the Common Council back in February. The DOJ response acknowledges that on the meeting notice and the second part of the closed meeting, it would be difficult to prosecute anyone under current state law.

However, the DOJ response is quite clear that the first part of the closed session held on February 14th was illegal under current state law. The DOJ response includes copies of supporting documentation culled from prior open meetings disputes to bolster the case for illegality. Reading that material makes it clear that the first part of the closed meeting held on February 14th was illegal under a plain reading of the open meetings statue as well as according to prior legal precedent.

If anything, the DOJ response to the Council's actions and Kraft's advice is much too kind to both (the only reason the DOJ concluded that the second part of the meeting wasn't illegal is because they accept as true the city administration's disingenuous claim that the agreement with developer Tom Doig was not a "done deal" on February 14th. Everyone who has their head above ground knows that the resort complex would be under construction right now if Doig had been able to come up with the money--it was a done deal.) . The response goes out of its way give city leaders the benefit of the doubt even while admitting that Kraft's and Wollangk's reasons for supporting a closed meeting do not withstand serious scrutiny.

The Common Council needs to expect more from the City Attorney's office than "Protect Your Ass" responses to serious legal matters. The fact of the matter is that we have now had two DOJ findings against the city in the last two years. The Common Council needs to establish some kind of accountability standards for city staff. Failure to do so will only further reduce public confidence in city government.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Andy Griffith Sues Andy Griffith--Sort Of

Grant County, WI candidate for sheriff Will Fenrick legally changed his name to "Andrew Jackson Griffith" before running for the office this year. He lost by a wide margin. Now to make matters worse for this poor guy, the REAL Andy Griffith is suing him for violating trademark and copyright laws. Andy is suing for damages and court fees, and asking that the fake Andy publish an apology in the local papers. Read about it here.

All of us know at least one person for whom the television town of Mayberry and Andy Griffith represent that epitome' of moral character and decency. I remember sitting in the Lizard Lounge tavern in Oshkosh sometime in 1999 or thereabouts; the bartender had the television turned on to coverage of the Clinton impeachment. A guy sitting several chairs down from me had clearly had one too many and he blurted out something like, "none of this crap would be happening if Andy Griffith was President." Think about it--would Clinton have been able to reject the advances of the jailhouse groupie?: