Rick Santelli is right (again)

This morning I watched CNBC's Rick Santelli talking from the Chicago Board Of Trade.  His so-called, "Santelli Rant" has been watched on YouTube over a million times and his sentiments today, once again, represent the views of many Americans who pay their own way, just like you and me.  We believe in living within our means - it's how we were raised - but we lack a microphone.

Rick Santelli was in fine form again this morning while debating Steve Liesman.  The topic was banking reform and Mr. Santelli made a case for an elegantly simple cure - raise the banks' capital requirements. 

Another CNBC commentator chimed in that this is the same risk premium banks require when a homeowner has a marginal credit history - the bank looks for more cash in the deal - a bigger down payment to defray the potential cost of default and reward themselves for the greater risk they are assuming. 

Why can't we use the same mechanism to minimize chances of another banking meltdown?  Do we need new federal agencies, reams of new regulations, congressional hearings, Barney Frank speeches and on and on?  No.  Banks just need greater reserves to cover their own risk-taking.  I realize such requirements increase their borrowing costs and affect profitability, but it beats more government involvement and added burden to the American taxpayer.

Would this simple measure constitute the correct regulatory reform?  Please send me your thoughts at jmaddente@wi.rr.com

Medellín, Columbia and Nixon

I have heard from friends with ties to Columbia, that conditions have dramatically improved across the country, although impressions from an ugly past still linger around the world. 

Tonight during Anthony Bourdain's show about Columbia, I watch as he visits Medellín and interviews locals - many of whom suffered enormously during the awful Pablo Escobar period of the 1980s.  The people appear proud, hopeful, even happy.  Mr. Bourdain says something to a local that instantly reminds me of what a rueful Richard Nixon told the White House staff in the final hours of his presidency:

"Only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." 

He who frames the healthcare debate...wins.

When the topic of "healthcare reform" took center stage this summer, I thought I was the only one who felt that "healthcare reform" had suddenly become code for "let's-change-health-insurance." 

Yes, I was certain that I was missing something.  It's like the "3.5M jobs saved or created" metric which I wrote about last March.  I thought I was the only one disturbed by how stimulus programs would be measured, because I wasn't seeing or hearing any views similar to my own.  (Now I have plenty of company.)

But back to the issue of healthcare reform - the only reform measure that counts is the one that lowers healthcare costs.  That should be how we frame the national discussion and measure success or failure. 

Lowering the cost of that pill, that doctor visit, that MRI, whatever it is - would benefit us all (except the stakeholders of the present system).  I do not see how the House bill will lower costs - just by virtue of universal coverage.  Instead, it seems like it will perpetuate, expand and institutionalize the present cost structure.
Insurance policy premiums are a mirror of costs in our healthcare system.  When those costs go up, insurance premiums - it stands to reason - must also go up.  The uber sleight of hand here is that Team Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, et al, have managed to shift the focus from lowering healthcare costs, to demonizing the entire healthcare insurance industry - which has as much control over healthcare costs, as a fish has to determine its own water current.

They are also solving an accounts receivable problem for the healthcare industry with a feel good, social health policy.  If their bill ultimately passes, everyone will be covered including slow payers, partial payers and nonpayers.  And then we'll see more timely revenue streams to the healthcare system by virtue of a new, guaranteed (giant) payment mechanism. 

That new payment mechanism is government-mandated and taxpayer funded, healthcare reform - which of course is not reform at all - unless you frame the debate to look that way.

When will we reward the savers?

This week, the author of a Barron's cover story posits that it's time for the Fed to raise interest rates.  The macro debate for and against doing so, I'll leave for economists.  The populist argument in favor of raising rates, however, I find compelling. 

The Barron's article which is titled, "C'mon Ben!" is accompanied by a reminder that keeping rates so low "hurts savers."  Additional economic fallout mentioned by author Andrew Barry, includes the stoking of inflationary flames and erosion of the dollar.  All I know is this...

America is a debtor nation with a debtor populace.  So the notion of helping savers save - unfortunately falls on too many deaf ears.  We reward borrowers with a tax deduction on their home equity loans, but we tax income from their non-retirement savings.  The Fed keeps the cheap money flowing (just listen to the whirr of the printing presses), but also keeps our returns from savings accounts, money markets, CDs, etc. at paltry, low levels. 

When will we reward responsible citizens who save and invest conservatively, instead of the reckless masses who borrow to consume?

Presidents, nuts and acorns

Consider two recent cases that occupied national media airwaves: the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and video tape of ACORN employees giving advice to individuals posing as operators of an under-aged prostitution business.

In the first case, the President on national television, declares that law enforcement officers in the Gates case, "acted stupidly" and then hosts a reconciliation meeting over beers on the White House lawn.
In the second case, the President demurs when asked to share his opinion about the ACORN workers and Congressional action to stop federal funding for their organization. Mr. Obama did mention that actions he viewed on the ACORN videotape were "inappropriate" and deserved to be investigated (could he say any less?), but refused to opine further.

"This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It is not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."

Nor should he have paid much attention to a civil disturbance involving one man in Cambridge, Massachusetts...but he did. Mr. Gates, for his part, could have had a serious last laugh and made buffoons out of the Cambridge police by maintaining his cool. Instead, while being interrogated, he reacted as though he had been eternally robbed of his dignity, ranted like a mad man and got himself arrested. That was the whole news story.

But back to the President, at the time he uttered the "acted stupidly" remark (just before I winced in front of the TV set) I had the distinct feeling he was reacting as a man who had felt the sting of racism in his own past. A very human reaction, possibly conjured by a painful episode of his own. Perhaps he attracted the suspicions of some uniformed person, for no other reason than he was black in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's completely unfair, but it happens and I bet it hurts like hell and leaves you angry, really angry.

My point in all this? Barack Obama ran his campaign as the "post-racial" candidate, but living with complete indifference to race, is easier said than done - even for presidents. Fortunately, Mr. Obama wisely distanced himself from the lunacy and race mongering recently exhibited by former President Jimmy Carter.  These are strange days indeed.

Tea party rocks Milwaukee's lake front

Ever attend a tea party?

They don't serve tea at this kind, but visitors do receive a generous helping of speeches and opportunities to express themselves. Yesterday on a bright sunny afternoon at Milwaukee's Veterans Park, thousands of attendees were treated to a litany of views on issues of importance to all including our predatory federal and state tax climate, and sweeping health care and environmental proposals. This was an audience that is passionate about their country and freedoms, but also well behaved and well informed. Nationally-acclaimed author Michelle Malkin roused the crowd with criticisms of left-leaning policy figures including Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy whom Malkin referred to as a "Beltway Swamp Creature" (ouch), Attorney General Eric Holder "Chief Endangerment Officer" (which is a Malkin characterization I completely agree with) and "union thugs" (in particular, Andy Stern and the S.E.I.U.). A number of speeches were also, however, a call to action. "Joe the Plumber" reminded the crowd of an old Ben Franklin maxim - well done is better than well said.

Midwestern watchdog reporting still works

For anyone reading outside the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor (because if you live within it you have undoubtedly seen these stories), I reference two current examples why the Fourth Estate matters - why it still serves the public interest.

Locally, in my home town of Milwaukee, readers were shocked and angry to learn how their tax dollars are squandered (again) by a $350 million state child care program that is routinely plundered by a number of providers, including one - who as a result of Journal Sentinel investigations - turned herself in to state authorities.

Fine reporting indeed, by Ms. Raquel Rutledge and others at the Journal Sentinel. Read more about the scams they uncovered at www.jsonline.com/cashinginonkids

Ninety miles south of me, another series by the Chicago Tribune exposes corrupt admission practices at the University of Illinois, as well as other cheats and cronyism throughout the Land of Lincoln. Here's the spot to read, "State of Corruption".

Have you ever wondered how we'd learn about these things if old fashioned, gumshoe reporting didn't occur?

Ms. Ephron, a Republican would have fired you

Julie & Julia is a new film starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. I watched the film yesterday alongside sixty or so other theatre goers.

For anyone who loves Julia Child (as I do) the film is worth watching. Meryl Streep's depiction of the late great gourmand, is stunningly good. It's easy to replicate the oft parodied high-pitch voice, but Ms. Streep's cadence and accent on choice syllables is so faithful to the real deal, it is almost unsettling. It was simply a great performance.

On the other hand, the screen writer of this movie is a woman named Nora Ephron whose style I didn't care for before the film and she leaves me feeling even colder now. Here's why.

Before seeing the film, I listened to two separate Nora Ephron interviews. The cheeky tone and lack of enthusiasm exuded during both interiews left me with the distinct impression that she felt she was doing us a favor by sitting for them. Sorry, if I'm wrong, but that's how she sounded to me. However, while viewing the film yesterday I realized a more valid reason for my aversion - she takes cheap shots.

Example: In this movie, Amy Adams plays a character that works in a call center to help 911 survivors and takes a "sick" day to cook a Julia Child dish. She then blogs about the experience to the dismay of her boss who calls her into his office to beseech her for writing the post. He ends his rant by saying,

"A Republican would have fired you."

My entire companion theatre audience was silent after hearing that little gem. Could Ms. Ephron have any purpose other than to slam Republicans or Conservatives? Doing so is hardly unusual for Hollywood but still unfair to the memory of Julia Child (who was publicly apolitical) and also unfair to Republicans in general. Whether the line was apocryphal or not is irrelevant - it was unnecessary. Imagine the outcry if she had substituted the word "Democrat."

Finally, there is the ending to the film, or lack of one, that leaves one wondering if Ms. Ephron was tired and just decided to finish the script quickly, or whether something else crippled her imagination. Send me an e-mail if you found the ending useful (but please explain why.)

All this notwithstanding, the film succeeds on the strength of Meryl Streep's affectionate performance and the unique legacy of the woman she portrayed. On a five star scale, this gourmet blogger gives Julie and Julia three stars and a pinch of salt to our new Maureen Dowd of cinema - Nora Ephron.

The Atlantic meets The Economist

Readers of this space see an occasional post on media topics like my ill-fated call on a now-defunct business periodical called Portfolio. Today, I'll simply mention the type of article I wish I saw more of - the kind where mainstream media analyzes itself with some depth and detachment.

Check out this article by Michael Hirschorn in The Atlantic (July/August 2009) in which Mr. Hirschorn examines how a printed magazine like The Economist can thrive while other printed weeklies it competes with - notably Newsweek and Time - are languishing.

Print publishing success in the digital age may lay in what Mr. Hirschorn describes as "razor-sharp clarity and definition" and owning a particular niche, instead of trying to replicate one owned elsewhere. In the case of The Economist, Hirschorn asserts that the magazine "...canvasses the globe with an assurance that no one else can match" and "...prides itself on cleverly distilling the world into a reasonably compact survey.''

Hirschorn, who is a contributing editor at The Atlantic, also made me chuckle with his frank admission that his own magazine, "...has never delivered impressive profit margins."  Impressively profitable or not, this intelligently-written piece is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the evolution of paper-based, weekly news and commentary.

Rather than edit my last Palin post...

I'll simply provide a link to a CBS poll, taken this month, that reports an astonishing number - 51% of the GOP view Ms. Palin as unqualified to be an effective President. I guess I posted too early. Here's the link, you can scrutinize the methodology or do whatever you like.

I am seeing some Midwestern Clarity here after all and will probably post no more about Ms. Palin because, as the data increasingly shows - I don't need to.

Nearly forty percent of GOP doubts Palin's abilities

Glad I'm not alone. A recently-released ABC News/Washington Post poll with a sampling error of plus or minus 3% shows that not only is Ms. Palin's support waning across the political spectrum, it is also slipping among Republicans as a whole.

Like the 83% of Republicans surveyed, I believe that Ms. Palin shares our values. However, almost four out of ten Republicans (and 57% of Americans overall) also say we doubt her ability to "understand complex issues." Which is another way to say what I first wrote last November - that, as much as we like what she stands for, she is unqualified to hold national office.

The Washington Post quoted one gentleman, thus: "Rick Buila, 38, of Sharonville, Ohio, who works in finance and voted for the McCain-Palin ticket in November, said his opinion of the governor has changed. `I don't think that she is cut out to be on the national stage,' he said. `I look at her education and her background and the way she carries herself and her [resignation] speech, and when you have someone who's out there saying 'You betcha' about 50 times, I don't think that's the person we want to have negotiating with other countries.'

Sadly, a few blowhards will seize on a remark like Mr. Buila's "You betcha" comment and dismiss any GOP criticism of Ms. Palin as elitist, or worse. That's unfortunate and wrong. We don't begrudge her for her style, we simply believe that she is not ready - and frankly might never be ready - for The White House.

We can do better. We must do better.

Peggy Noonan in today's WSJ & the Palin factor

Forward-thinking Republicans will thank Peggy Noonan for explaining what too few of us have the courage to say - Sarah Palin, even with all her attributes, was one of the worst things that could have happened to our party, at about the worst possible time.

I can't match Ms. Noonan's eloquence, but I can identify with what she says in this piece entitled, "A Farewell to Harms" in which she pours a truth serum with all of her signature incisiveness and wit.

If you are one of my five readers, you may recall when I just couldn't take Ms. Palin's performance any longer and comforted myself in this November 8, 2008 post. Yesterday morning, I called in to a local radio program to express similar Palin-related thoughts (Joy Cardin takes my call @ approximately 9 minutes and 42 seconds into the 8 AM program on this tape if you care to listen).

Look, I recognize and deplore the torrent of abuse leveled at Ms. Palin and her family by the Left, but we can't parade out unqualified national candidates and expect the jerks that take cheap shots to remain mute. We have to plan for the jerks using knowledgeable, near bullet-proof candidates that can do more on the trail than just say the`right' things on cue. We need depth and agility.

I like Ms. Palin a great deal, but she was hopelessly in over her head last year and GOP admirers who feel otherwise are either in denial, lack any serious political judgement, or both. Yet, the Noonan piece is not a tired rant to criticise Ms. Palin's work. Read carefully and you'll see that she is describing what is needed to rebuild the GOP - and why.

So let's end on a hopeful note - shall we? Yes we can!

Think of the Gopher State with it's schizophrenic voting populous that can embarrass itself with an Al Franken (sorry, I cannot bring myself to insert the word "Senator" before his name yet) but also manage to install what may be our best chance for a 2012 run at the White House - Tim Pawlenty. There is hope.

Wisconsin ghost writer no more!

I wrote a piece for a client (minus my byline) to express strong objections to Wisconsin's recently-enacted, anti-prosperity budget bill.

Several of my passages on our predatory state tax system and our perennially over-funded educational system, had to be deleted for (my client's) political purposes. I understand.

However, with cathartic pleasure, I'll publish some of those buried thoughts here:

"The largest recipient of state appropriations from the general fund continues to be publicly-funded elementary and secondary schools. According to a fall 2008 analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, enrollment in public schools declined for five consecutive years and declined precipitously (greater than 20%) in 51 districts.

Yet, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau projects a statewide $200 per student increase in the current biennium. Due to the manner in which public schools are funded, that increase in spending, coupled with a decrease in state aid, will be back filled by higher school property tax levies of hundreds of millions of dollars."

And part of my (deleted) prescription for fiscal healing...

"Consolidate school districts, local government units and municipal services and privatize state-owned assets where it makes economic sense to do so. Shift more tax burden from property and income taxes to consumption taxes to attract investment."

There, I feel better now.

Milwaukee County and remembering Reagan

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today that a judge has allowed the furloughs (days off without pay) of some union workers to commence in accordance with Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's order - starting Monday.

It's unfortunate, that instead of supporting his fiscal responsibility, the County Board continues to jawbone the County Executive and the unions, of course, continue to file their predictable lawsuits. All this for a measly five hours off a week.

My word, join a bowling league or something and feel grateful you have a job.

I have never understood why organized labor with its organized penchant for entitlement, behaves as though pay (and benefits most of us only dream of) ought to be guaranteed. I have not read their contract, but I cannot fathom any responsible authority agreeing on behalf of county taxpayers to anything more than the rest of us live with AKA an "at will" employment arrangement. The concept is quite simple. Either party (employer or employee) can sever their relationship with the other, for any reason, at any time.

This morning I recalled the will behind former President Ronald Reagan's decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981. The union organization, known as PATCO, sought to express its grievances with a strike and jeopardize the safety of American travelers. After the President warned PATCO members that if they did not show up for work they would be fired, they tested him and he kept his word.

It was something of a milestone. Organized labor has continued its decline since. The average American understands that baseless threats, lawsuits and strikes are not part of an effective career strategy.

Now flash forward to modern day Milwaukee County and consider its fiscal challenges. We see all the labor vitriol we had on a national level back in 1981. . . over five hours a week.

Somehow I think that if Mr. Walker's furlough order was twice as stringent, the sun would still come up the next day and everything would still be just fine.

I commend Governor Doyle's plan for limited furloughs and wish only that he and the Democrat-controlled legislature, went further to reduce state spending and lower taxes. A wish denied.

Taxes, polls and pols

Yesterday morning at the beautiful Discovery World facility at Pier Wisconsin, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett participated in a panel discussion on Wisconsin's transportation needs and how to fund them. The event was also attended by Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who had some decidedly different ideas than the Mayor.

At one point, Mr. Barrett cited two separate polls to conclude: few citizens want services cut (one poll), yet few want to pay for them in the form of higher taxes (a second poll). My reaction: of course. However, if you require people to choose between them (think one poll, Mayor), my guess is they'll choose to hang on to their own money and allow government to shrink - I know I would.

My dowdy prediction

A week has elapsed since I wrote about Maureen Dowd. I thought by now she would have acknowledged an intentional copy and paste job, followed by a sorry-I-forgot-to-attribute apology. I think that's all it would have taken to make this saga go away.

Ms. Dowd points out that earlier in the same piece, she had given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reasoning, she could not have planned to steal from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.

This is a weak defense. I would have much preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her picture window, or whatever, but that after she had knowingly used the work of another, she simply forgot to mention that she had failed to credit the author, but had always meant to do so. I would have bought that but it isn't what we were asked to believe which is why this sorry episode is so extraordinary.

Such a bright person trying to sell such a dim witted explanation - serendipity. It just happened.

The essence of her account is this: After communicating with a 'friend' about this other person's work, she plopped some sentences in her space and then discovered she was actually using the same 43 words after bloggers told her.

C'mon.

Here's what she actually wrote to explain her actions (repeated from Michael Calderone's space at Politico.com):

"i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent -- and I assumed spontaneous -- way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column.

but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me. we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow."

My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished by the absence of a plausible admission and a big mea culpa - was woefully wrong. She's still breathing and I'm not sure that even another month will vindicate me and my sorry prediction. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times. I see a lot of reader (and writer) outrage and scorn, but little from the Times itself. More's the pity.

Part of me thinks Ms. Dowd made an honest mistake. My rationale is a practical one: she didn't need to take such foolish risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't deliberate theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space and thus she doesn't need to lift other people's work - including the rather unremarkable prose she borrowed. It's the type of thing you'd expect from an obscure Midwestern writer like me, someone with motive to deceive, but Maureen Dowd is already the Mona Lisa and should have no such motive.

The problem for me (and apparently many others) was the fantastic excuse. As Nixon said in Oliver Stone's movie by the same name, "It's the lie that gets you." She didn't need to cover up - unless, there's more. Thus far, nobody has discovered any more coincidentally-verbatim paragraphs, in her past columns. We'll see.

To be forthcoming, I rarely agree with Ms. Dowd's views (save for the attention she aptly paid to Mr. Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s) and she strikes me as a snarky type of leftist in the Keith Olbermann tradition. You know, not the kind you could disagree with amiably and respectfully but someone who conveys opinions in a contemptible manner. So. . . my antennae went up rather easily when I learned about her ordeal.

Therefore, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Jonah Goldberg, had committed the writer's ultimate sin (plagiarism) and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I would have been equally critical. When and if that happens we'll see if I rise to the task. Either way, I promise to be original, or give attribution when I'm not.

Is Maureen Dowd in trouble?

The answer is yes.

Forty-three words without attribution, a laughable excuse and by now I suspect, a truth audit of her past work is well underway.

Had Ann Coulter done this, the New York Times (and perhaps Ms. Dowd herself) would have hung her from the highest limb. My prediction is that Ms. Dowd will either come out and declare she knew what she was doing after all and apologize profusely within the next week, or she's finished as a nationally-syndicated columnist.

Stay tuned.

French lessons

We are fortunate enough to have a young student from France living with us these days. It is her first visit to our country and I feel we are learning as much (or more) from her, as she is learning from us.

After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so here in southern Wisconsin, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions. Well, among other things, she noted that students here strike her as somewhat more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.

Isn't that interesting? Where are our children learning how to behave? Oh, that's right, - it's us.

Saved or created?

It hit me while driving someplace, maybe a month ago - the President, was talking about the outcome of his stimulus package, and he used the now oft-repeated phrase about three and half million jobs, "saved or created." I'm hearing it again now as I watch one of his minions on "Meet The Press" and so I'll ask you...

How does one measure a job saved? How can one accurately acsertain and catalogue a job loss that didn't occur, but might have occurred under different circumstances?

Data on new jobs are obviously available and broadly watched - but jobs saved? It seemed to me the first time I heard this description that it was a clever mechanism to avoid any rigourous post hoc assessment of the relative success (or failure) of the stimulous plan.

What, only a million new jobs created? That's OK, I'm sure we saved 2.5 million.

Submitted to US Senator Herb Kohl moments ago...

Dear Senator Kohl,

I am writing as a private citizen to voice my strong opposition to the bill misleadingly labeled as the "Employee Free Choice Act" also known as Card Check.

The coercive leadership of organized labor does not need additional tools to intimidate ordinary men and women who prefer to remain outside the union. I would urge you to speak out against this legislation and expose it for what it is - a catalyst for union demagoguery.

I am not against organized labor per se, but I am against bullies and thugs gaining ground with sanction from Congress.

Respectfully,


John J. Maddente

The individual and our economic crisis

If you had never met Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, you'd be hard pressed to spot him in a crowded room.

Mr. Walker is a average-looking man, with plain features and an unassuming demeanor. Even his name is common. He looks like a million other guys. I made his acquaintance last year after he introduced himself before a debate with his election opponent, Lena Taylor.

Yes, a common guy he is, but don't be fooled - Mr. Walker packs a wallop and his piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Why I'm Not Lining Up for Stimulus Handouts" defines his moorings and shows why he has drawn acclaim among conservatives and some moderates in the state of Wisconsin.

Walker mentioned what other politicians know - but too often fail to highlight - which is that the start of our current fiscal calamities, began with individuals - not institutions, not banks, not regulators, not mortgage brokers, not even government. Those were all culpable parties to be sure, but what Walker reminds us today, is that our current turmoil began,

"...when millions of people were allowed (or encouraged) to spend borrowed money on homes they couldn't afford and were later forced into foreclosure." 

I have been dismayed by the relative lack of discussion about individual responsibility and reckless borrowing. In due course, we'll see more acrimony coming from the public, or at least the part of it that still believes in living within one's means.

There are two arguments currently offered to defend bailouts for homeowners who bought too much house, or who should have remained renters until their income and assets warranted otherwise, or who foolishly sucked all the equity out of their homes with cash out financing. Here are those arguments:

Argument #1) "This is no time to teach people a lesson."

Who said anything about teaching? This isn't about vengeance either. Those who advocate for mortgage bailouts are stealing from me, my children and millions of other responsible Americans to pay for the sins of others. Bailouts simply perpetuate the pattern.

The only way to help a heroin addict is to take away his opiate (in this case 'free' money), then encourage him to live healthfully. I see no reason why the responsible many should pay the freight of the irresponsible few, simply because the irresponsible few no longer meet their obligations. And in the cases I reference, we're discussing a self-induced foreclosure on a house, not a death sentence visited upon the falsely accused.

I believe many, if not most, foreclosure "victims" are cheaters and/or gluttons. There was too much predatory borrowing going on that is now being characterized, as predatory lending. I simply can't (won't) abide that fiction any longer.

Yes, I know there were exceptions, people who were truly duped, people who had extraordinary circumstances - but do you think that those cases constitute the majority of borrowers who have suffered a foreclosure? Why can't we ferret out true victims without spending $75 billion to bail out the deadbeats?

Argument #2) "If we don't have mortgage bailouts to stem foreclosures, housing prices will continue to fall precipitously, including yours, so you should support this plan."

Well, I'd just as soon make my own mistakes, thank you. You're trying to use my money to reward people who don't share my values.

Markets work if we let them work. If housing prices do continue to fall, they'll only be receding to a current and real level of value. The continuing collapse of our whole financial system and our way of life, which is rapidly careening toward Euro-Socialism, eclipses the importance of the trajectory of our home values.

However, if we allow the eggs to break and we take our necessary economic pain, the values of our homes just might appreciate again one day. Things can get better after the hangover. The reality that too few wish to acknowledge is this: we can't have a painless recovery.

Of course, the thrust of Mr. Walker's piece today is not about individual responsibility, it's about government's financial stewardship, but he gets it. We cannot, individually, or as a society, continue to kick the can down the road. It's immoral and it's stupid.

Our current state Governor, unfortunately, wants to continue to leverage our future, reward his supporters like the teachers union and expand government programs we don't need and can ill-afford.

It's widely speculated that Mr. Walker will run for Governor in the next election. If he does run, I intend to support his candidacy. I hope that like-minded voters in this state will do the same, unless a stronger candidate emerges.

Right now, I don't see a stronger one in the wings.

Quote of the century

Hedge fund executive, Oscar S. Schafer in a Barron's interview (January 12, 2009, "Hang on Tight!") described our current economic conditions thus: "The world is experiencing a giant margin call."

Yes, indeed - a giant margin call caused by easy credit extended to millions of people who couldn't afford a home, or couldn't afford as much home as they were allowed to purchase. Policy makers in Washington were happy to promulgate the path to home ownership for anyone with a pulse. The Fed left open the spigot of cheap money and America became intoxicated by illusory economic growth. This was all accompanied by money center moguls trying to juice their returns by making stupid bets upon this whole sorry misuse of credit, until the house of cards collapsed.

Millions of people, who either ought to have remained renters until their income and assets could reasonably justify any mortgage, or who should have purchased more modest homes at fixed rates, were all enabled by Washington-coddled institutions like Fannie and Freddie and feel-good legislation to "invest in our communities."

The risks they all took (policy makers, investment banks and millions of fiscally-challenged Americans with little self discipline), have poisoned the well that the rest of us must drink from - perhaps for a decade. Now, one hears, that the other shoe to drop will come from commercial credit busts or the next highest risk level of mortgages above`sub prime.'

This all has the same, simple antecedent - greed. It is nothing that Grandma didn't warn us about when we were children. If you can't afford it - don't buy it. If you can't afford to lose it - don't bet it. In short, live within your means.

Greed is the modern American opiate and the same thing that destroyed Rome. With God's grace, we'll get treatment and beat our addiction to debt before we all go down in flames.

A president's farewell

You felt sorry for him as he approached the lectern with a sheepish smile.

As Kissinger reminded Nixon, I believe that history will treat him better than his contemporaries. One reason this is so, is that his policies faithfully executed have precluded another attack on our soil since 9/11. To conclude otherwise is to posit that the other side simply stopped trying to harm us after 9/11. Is this conceivable?

I'm reminded of another parallel with Nixon. Richard Nixon asked in one of his later books - if America does not lead in this world - who will? I repeated the question in one of my columns and an angry rebuttal came from a letter writer who declared that the correct answer to the question was - the "leaders" of other countries. I'm still wondering which 'leaders' she referred to. Stalin? Hitler? Hussein? I could go on, but you get the point.

No, Mr. Bush's foreign policy was not the detriment to America that so many have claimed. This President did not have the luxury of presiding over a peaceful world where "constructive engagement" with the enemy or recalcitrant allies, would have been the wise course. The safety of American citizens has been this President's overriding concern and that will be a major part of his legacy.

The biggest stain on the record of this administration was its failure to stem the profligate spending we have seen during the last eight years - a trend the new administration appears destined to continue.

Feedback to my last post

Regarding point #2 from my previous post concerning Al Franken, I'd like to thank my nephew who alerted me to a fine political cartoon (from Cartoonist Michael Ramirez).

Three year-end items requiring midwestern clarity. . .

1. The first day I saw the video, my immediate (and only lasting) reaction to the incident in Iraq with the ranting journalist and President Bush was - how did that shoe-throwing fanatic have enough time to get off a second throw before he was quite appropriately slammed to the ground?
2. How can half the voters in the great state of Minnesota cast a vote for Al Franken? A number of years ago when Franken started showing up in the political air space, it seems, we were all supposed to take him seriously because he started to don those horn-rimmed glasses. I wonder if Franken's supporters were also dyed-in-the-wool Jessie Ventura voters.
3. According to today's Wall Street Journal, departing Citigroup director Robert Rubin has repeatedly emphasized that he had no operating role at Citigroup. Then what precisely did he do during these past nine plus years to collect $115 million? In fairness, Mr. Rubin expressed regrets for not anticipating present circumstances, but he appears reluctant to go further with any admission of responsibility, I'm guessing, on the advice of lawyers. As the article mentions, there were other money center power brokers who failed to embrace the risks of easy money including, Dr. Alan Greenspan. And of course, as I write, we continue to print more money to defer our fiscal problems so our children can deal with them. Let me state right now; I will categorically refuse any blogger bailout funds.

William McGurn's column - today's Wall Street Journal (WSJ)

The piece is called, "What's Good for GM Could Be Good for America" - my reaction was positive and my message sent to the WSJ author minutes ago, reads...

"Dear Mr. McGurn,

Thank you for your attention to the pernicious impact of organized labor and their ridiculously generous benefits. Only in America, would parties like the UAW succeed in portraying themselves as victims after sucking dry the companies that feed them.

I only wish that more elected officials had enough gumption to discuss what’s actually needed to fix this industry, instead of playing to the cameras and highlighting a CEO’s use of a corporate aircraft.

Regards,

John J. Maddente"

Go ahead, call it monday morning quarterbacking...

but if the economy, the war, an opponent with vastly more cash and an unpopular President in office, all were not enough to doom his campaign - any chance of victory went irretrievably south after Senator McCain selected Governor Palin as his running mate. Bold choice? You betcha, but look what it bought us.

I was hopeful after Ms. Palin's rousing convention speech. Then I worried that Joe Biden would wipe the floor with her at the debate lectern - he did not and I kept hoping.

Trying to be a good Republican, I dutifully put the best face on things and chose not to write about my doubts in this space, but my heart sunk after those Katy Couric interviews. I knew then that the other side was right about her suitability for the Vice President's office, and I became an impostor by my silence.

Although I never cared much for Katy Couric's work, her interviews with Sarah Palin revealed a truly vacuous performance from a candidate who was supposed to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Those interviews changed everything for me.

Ms. Palin did the best she could and she will have a future in national politics, but she was not at all ready for this experience. Don't blame her, blame the McCain advisors. Having the "right views" is clearly not enough and for all the faith I have in John McCain's judgement - he baffled me with this move.

Yes, Ms. Palin has a fine record as Governor, yes she appeals to my Midwestern sensibilities and core values and yes I was invigorated by selection of a conservative woman on the ticket, but she simply doesn't know enough and she is not (yet) equipped to think fast enough on her feet. As Peggy Noonan put it in her October 17 column (Palin's Failin', Wall Street Journal) concerning Ms. Palin's campaign performance, "She just. . . says things."

Why was she chosen? Several reasons I suppose, but one clue might reside in the abortion issue. If she had been just basically Pro-Life (allowing for first trimester abortion in the cases of rape or incest) I'm not certain she would have been selected. After all, there is a vocal wing of the Republican party that insists one must reject any form of abortion to pass muster - regardless of all other political positions.

Pundits will publish many more profound lessons from this election season than I can, but I'll contribute one last thought for future campaign strategists:

The next time the data suggests that your candidate's running mate be a Young-Female-Outside the Beltway-Gun Toting-Strident Pro-Lifer, in order to win; you must look a little harder than they did in 2008.

Bungled bailout?

While the AIG party didn’t bother me, this does...

The Wall Street Journal reported today that some banks intend to use the bailout money to help make acquisitions.

I recognize that some of the banks at the recent come-to-Paulsen meeting expressed reluctance to accept the bailout funds in the first place. Comparatively stronger banks like Wells Fargo (which I own shares of) did not want the taxpayer money. I get it.

However, if the purpose of this first capital infusion of $250 billion is to get these banks’ lending again – why couldn't the Treasury require that the funds be used for near-term lending? It seems to me, that if Secretary Paulsen can use his considerable heft and persuasive powers to force banks into receiving the funds, he could also direct how and when those funds would be used.

The now infamous AIG party

This was the same type of insurance company outing that other insurance companies who sell through independent reps, fund each year. There were less than a dozen AIG people in attendance.

Unfortunately, due to the timing, the issue has become a a silly media-driven frenzy. Even the White House couldn't resist criticism and CNN keeps saying, "Spa treatments! Spa Treatments!"

Look at your insurance company. If it has a business model of selling through independent reps it does the same thing to reward and motivate them (Note: they are not employees).

These events are planned months and years in advance. It has nothing to do with the loan program - it wasn't even funded by the holding company. It is...a cost of doing business. Would you prefer that AIG shut down it's incentives for independent sales agents? Should AIG stop selling insurance altogether?

Mr. Obama - Which AIG executives should be fired? Should they fire all of the independent reps too?

Disclaimer: I own shares of AIG. (But even if I did not own them, my reaction to this fire storm would be the same.)

I did not favor the bailout. However, I reject all of this populist furor because it has painted the AIG event with the same brush used for the Dennis Kozlowski Tyco Toga bash and his golden shower curtain.

The AIG event is a completely different story. It is a cost of doing business.

Old Hillary Posts (re-posted)

Saturday, June 07, 2008--Hillary Clinton, Peggy Noonan and me

I owe Ms. Peggy Noonan. My own infatuation with the tenacious campaign of Hillary Clinton almost made me lose my senses. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan brings me back to earth. Before I explain, here's my take on Peggy Noonan - she's a better columnist than speechwriter, or television commentator.

For me, one of the most memorable parts of the disastrous Dukakis campaign in 1988, was when Dukakis subtedly mocked the then famous Noonan line written for George Bush, about "a thousand points of light" by asking, "What does that mean?" Those were also my thoughts at the time. Similarly, I was baffled by the amount of recognition Ms. Noonan received for the plain Jane phrase crafted for President Reagan to describe Washington D.C. as, "that shining city on a hill."

So much for my petty problems with her speech writing. On TV she's occasionally cheeky or demonstrative, leaving the impression that she is trying to hide some nervousness. Having one whole local television appearance under my belt, during which I was shaky as a slinky (and it showed) - I understand. So, I can't even imagine the pressure associated with the type of TV settings she is acquainted with. Stage fright (if that is the culprit here) breeds embarrassing gaffes.

I spotted Ms. Noonan on a TV program some years ago when she was expressing doubts about the notion that Lyndon Johnson was funny. (Presidential historians will tell you, Johnson was often hilarious. A brilliant mimic and comic story teller, for one thing).  It wasn't a difference she needed to have with her co-panelists that day and she needlessly revealed an ignorance of LBJ's persona. Again, minor quibbles.  So much for the critique, I want to gush about her other work.

Each week I eagerly look forward to Peggy Noonan's Saturday column in the Wall Street Journal with that caricature of her sporting a smile next to several hundred words of the most compelling political prose anywhere.  She has incisively expressed her views about the actions and character of Hillary Clinton in several columns and today's piece, "Recoil Election" - is a fine example. Ms. Noonan understands how both Clintons are brilliant, cunning and hopelessly deceitful.

Although I remain enamored with Ms. Clinton's tenaciousness and durability, the shameful playing of the gender card as reason for her downfall overshadows much of the virtue behind her campaign effort. In her piece this morning, Ms. Noonan makes instructive comparisons to the character of an equally tenacious Golda Meir. (I might add Margaret Thatcher).

The point is this: other high profile women face equally if not more daunting gender challenges than Ms. Clinton, without falling prey to all the fallacious, excuse-making.  Thanks Ms. Noonan - I had almost forgotten.


Monday, May 19, 2008--- True grit


I have been hard on the Clintons for a long time and I'll make no apologies for my words. A representative sample of my dissatisfaction with Mrs. Clinton's persona can be found in this post and an equally frank assessment of Mr. Clinton's presidential foibles can be found here.

Even if I set aside their policy positions, with which I almost uniformly disagree, it's their pathological dishonesty, their smugness and selfishness that leaves me cold again and again. I see Bill and Hillary Clinton as one person who has never stopped disappointing me. With all that as the backdrop for this post, I am about to go positive on one of them...

Occasionally, we astonish ourselves and I wish to share a very personal moment when I astonished myself. Given the bile that all things Clintonian will arouse in me, I surprised myself when I began to feel something warm and inspiring while contemplating Hillary Clinton recently. It is redemptive to have been so hard on another person and then find something you actually admire in that person. Strange feeling, but very human I think. My revelation is this: she's strong.

It's not Mrs. Clinton's usual pluck that I am referring to here. You know the in-your-face type of retort that she is both admired and reviled for, by millions. No, I'm talking about tenacity. The type of thing that reveals itself after one is knocked down again and again. Some people get hit harder each time and yet still manage to rise. Think Richard Nixon in his teens as the tackling dummy on the school football team. Yes Mr. Nixon had this quality too.

You simply must respect another person who has taken so many punches and just keeps coming back. It's a very American quality that exists in people you've come to respect, but it is only delivered in spades, by a precious few. Senator Clinton has such chutzpah and I have come to respect it. It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore it, no matter how much contempt I have for her attitudes, ethics and policies. I called the Democratic race over almost exactly 3 months ago - Mrs. Clinton will not be her party's nominee for president.

What I didn't predict and never expected, was that she'd stay in the race this long, after so much bombardment, and still credibly come back for more. It's fascinating to watch. Iran has cause to be afraid...very afraid.

No, I could never support anyone, or anything Clintonian. However, at the time of this post, I must grudgingly concede, this woman's profile has risen in my mind, if only because of one single feature - true grit.

Vinegar in your morning cup of coffee

When I was first learning to write essays, our teacher stressed the importance of grabbing your readers' attention early on in your work, like a compelling "lead" to a news story.

Consider columnist Jessie Eisinger's recent piece in the latest edition of Portfolio magazine in which his very first sentence will punish the unwitting reader who is harboring any sense of financial security...

"The worst Wall Street turmoil in a generation is going to wipe every other issue off the table for the next president."

You'll want to read on, but be warned, it gets worse. Eisinger describes potential for so many financial calamities that one might arrive at a conclusion some have long feared, but few vocalize...

"There will be blood."

Whether you hold a Yale PhD in economics or no sheepskin whatsoever, common sense dictates that one can only cop a dangereously free ride for so long. At the end of that ride (and there always is an end) there is an inexorable crash, that brings great pain to the freerider.

Unfortunately, there will also be pain felt by those who paid for their rides and even wore protective gear (which they also paid cash for), because they are tethered to the freeriders - and that's the real tragedy. That's our system.

We'll pay for the freeriders' avarice, their lack of discipline, their recklessness.

Obama travel files - this is breaking news?

Apparently, Senator Obama's passport file has been reviewed. OK, logical questions are by whom and why? Also, how did the story breakers learn about the review? I'm just trying to get educated here, but at the same time, I am also trying to understand - where is the story?

Is there some profound secret associated with Mr. Obama's travels? What is the conspiracy that we are now tripping over ourselves to report upon? Moreover, why is a presidential candidate's foreign travel history somehow more privileged than a review of his tax returns?

The media is reacting as though someone has broken into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist again. Keith Olbermann at MSNBC has actually referred to this story as "jaw dropping."

Please. We need much more. For the moment, my jaw remains motionless.

Hello Earth to Google! Anyone there?

A small, almost unnoticeable news brief on the paper page B4 of The Wall Street Journal today, contained a disturbing AP report. Apparently, the Pentagon had to intercede in order to thwart Google from proceeding with its plans to have "Google Earth teams" make detailed, panoramic maps of U.S. military bases.

I suspect that authorized military personnel know how to get around on those bases very well without using Google Earth, thank you very much.

To my friends at Google, I say: Your Earth technology is magnificent, but don't you think that you might be compromising national security by plastering that content out on the Internet?

(Sorry Google, I feel strongly about these things; so don't shut down my blog).

R.I.P. WFB

I have long suspected that the day we'd learn of the passing of William F. Buckley, Jr. was not far away. My fears are now realized. Yesterday morning, at the age of 82, while working in his study, we lost Bill Buckley.

Mr. Buckley captivated us for five decades with his columns, speeches, debates, appearances on TV talk shows, his authoring of 50+ books, his harpsichord-playing, creation of the National Review and his seminal television program for serious discourse - "Firing Line."

In my twenties, I'd watch television debates with awe and amusement as Mr. Buckley gracefully routed his opponents. He had no equal then. He still does not.

Millions of Americans, I'm guessing under the age of 35, will have little appreciation of this man's enormous gifts, or contributions to contemporary conservative thought about issues that shape society. He advocated for free markets and limited government before it was "cool" to do so. He warned about secularism, before it reached the crisis proportions with which we now must contend. He was also, quite simply, America's most charming intellectual. His command of language, politics, economics, history and philosophy is legendary.

But it's often the subtle things we most treasure about those we have known (or in this case those we wish we had known). I'll never forget that devilish, enlightened sparkle in his eyes flashing at the same moment his expansive smile would emerge. That radiant face revealed something more than the intellectual gifts with which he is associated and often parodied.

What we saw in those signature Buckley facial expressions, was an abundant joyfulness and love of life -- beaming straight through the TV camera and into our homes.

Does Rivera know something we don't?

Yesterday, my wife and I watched incredulously as we observed Gerlado Rivera interviewing Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones on FOX.

The first reaction was that we must have missed some bombshell discovery like a photograph of Senator McCain on a boat with a babe in Bimini.

No we didn't miss anything like that because there has been zero reporting to support such a "smoking gun" which made us wonder, why in the world would Geraldo Rivera be interviewing these women about the McCain story in the New York Times?

Unless Mr. Rivera knows something that the rest of us do not, linking the stories of these women and their affairs with Bill Clinton to the current McCain story, is shoddy journalism.  And if Mr. Rivera does know something, he ought to report it.

It's over.

It's officially over for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

It really doesn't matter what happens in Texas, Ohio, or elsewhere. Her presidential bid is finished. Forget your delegate counts (pledged and unpledged) and your polling data.

Consider instead, recent empirical evidence like the NY Times blog today and please pay attention to the posts under the story, "Clinton Sharpens Her Attack on Obama"

Now try to find even 5% of the authors supporting Mrs. Clinton. Instead, overwhelmingly, you'll find items from Democrats mind you, that sound like this one...

"I went to an ivy league college with a lot of people who remind me of Mrs. Clinton. Bright, articulate, driven, but with an off-putting sense of entitlement. A know-it-all attitude that brooks no dissent."

It's as if scores of the party faithful are now emboldened to express heretofore repressed criticisms of Ms. Clinton, because they no longer fear retribution. Maybe this is a cathartic experience for them.

In any event, it is over.

The audacity of change

My first impulse was a constitutional amendment. Getting that done is a long shot so I revised my proposal. Here goes: I am convinced all Americans would derive enormous benefit during political campaigns, if a simple law was enacted.

To wit: No candidate running for the office of President of the United States can ever use the word "change" during any public speech, lest he or she wish to forfeit all federal campaign subsidies, free media time, publically financed security measures, etc. Further, the word "change" can no longer appear on any lectern, campaign poster, or leaflet. It's banned. It's over.

What you say - my proposal is a silly assault on the First Amendment? You think such a law is preposterous? You think we could never get such a law enacted?

Yes we can! Yes we can!

Hucka-strength

Excerpt published in the New York Times Politics Blog, 2.19.2008

Last night I attended the Mike Huckabee rally in Pewaukee, Wisconsin. The room size was well chosen. Swelling with hundreds of people and dozens of signs, it must have translated into a great television picture.

The crowd was largely white, middle-class and peppered with people from all age groups. Their spirit was buoyant, lively and good-natured throughout.

The former Governor of Arkansas speaking for some 30+ minutes, delivered a flawless speech laced with endearing stories and humour that delighted the crowd, even though it included some now shopworn idioms (that all candidates resort to at this stage) including how he plans to "nail the Going Out Of Business sign" on the door of the IRS.

Mr. Huckabee looked fresh, energetic and thoughtful throughout his time at the stump. You didn't get the sense that this guy is going away any day soon. He knows how good he is, how far he has come with so little cash and that he now has something to trade.

A gem from Ann Coulter

I'm still chuckling about a recent Ann Coulter appearance on C-SPAN.

It's no secret that Ms. Coulter is less-than-enchanted with John McCain. Nonetheless, I believe Ms. Coulter and every sane Republican would prefer Sen. McCain over Hillary Clinton.

Now here's the gem...after contemplating a question from her audience as to whether there could be any positive aspect associated with having the Clintons return to the White House, Ms. Coulter said,

"At least we'd get the silverware back."

Reflections on a summit for prosperity

Yesterday on a snowy wet Saturday, the Wisconsin Chapter of Americans For Prosperity (AFP) held its "Defending the American Dream Summit" in Pewaukee and attendees were treated to speeches from Dinesh D'Souza, Steve Moore and local Sheriff David Clark (who can hold his own on the stage among better known speakers).

Attending members also witnessed a color guard, a stirring video of the late Ray Charles singing "America The Beautiful" and film that celebrated the life and legacy of President Ronald Reagan. There was much more. If AFP hadn't delivered quality, I wouldn't have stuck around for 8 hours.

Items from my AFP notepad:

Attorney BILL GLEISNER is running for a judgeship on the Court of Appeals for District II in Wisconsin. I believe that Attorney Gleisner is in this race out of dedication to community, a respect for the law and a disdain for activist judges who try to create law from the bench. After a distinguished legal career spanning three decades, Mr. Gleisner, who has argued cases before the United States Supreme Court, doesn't really need this job but he really does want to serve. I plan to vote for him on April 1st.

Wisconsin Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen made a notable distinction about Thomas Jefferson's seminal contribution to the Declaration of Independence - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Mr. Van Hollen noted that thought among many people in our nation has devolved into an expectation for government entitlements. Jefferson never envisoned life, liberty and the "guarantee of happiness." Rather, the founding idea was to help people by removing obstacles, by protecting them and by giving them a fair chance, not through handouts or government sponsorship.

Todd Berry of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance gave a sober, tightly-constructed review of Wisconsin's fiscal mess and the accounting chicanery used to screen out our "structural deficit." Republicans are not without blame as red ink spending extends back to the Thompson administration (Governor Thompson's groundbreaking WorkFare policies, notwithstanding). As Mr. Berry's group is purely nonpartisan, he couldn't (or at least he chose not to) identify explicitly by name, more recent causes of our fiscal morass. Mr. Berry said "we" created off-the-books debt by issuing bonds to fund transportation projects. Yet, the last mega-debit to the transportation account was delivered two budget cycles ago compliments of Governor Jim Doyle and his "Frankenstein veto" when he transfered $400 million to public education funding.

That move was not authorized by the legislature and of course it was not a "we" who was responsible - it was a "him"

NOW, that's an outrage

I never thought I'd find myself on the same side of anything as Ted Kennedy - until NOW.

A press release from The New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) has attacked Senator Ted Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama. The chapter has called the Senator's action, the "ultimate betrayal" since apparently, a vote for anyone but Hillary, is anathema to all women.

In fairness, the national organization has disavowed this insipid press release, but even that might not blunt the near-term reputation damage - compliments of its rogue New York chapter.

I'm sure he gets better advice than I can give...

but I do not understand why Senator Obama highlights relatively innocuous aspects of Hillary Clinton's history like service on Wal-Mart's board (is that a crime?) when there is such a host of transgressions to choose from.

Ms. Clinton burst on to the national scene when she insulted American women who choose to stay home and raise their children (remember the cookies comment?). Then she held our attention after we learned about her involvement in FileGate and TravelGate.

She never stopped annoying critics with policy proposals like her health care plan hatched as an unelected un-official, or her preposterous statements to the press - think: "vast right wing conspiracy" and now she criticizes Mr. Obama for the quality of clients he represented while in private practice.

I bet Ms. Clinton would much prefer to discuss her board memberships than many other issues that stained her political dossier. So why does Sen. Obama choose Wal-Mart?

Yes, but when was he presidential?

I am captivated by the chorus of disapproval concerning former President Bill Clinton's recent speechmaking. When Senator Ted Kennedy is unhappy with the Clintons, you know it's a special time.

I am also puzzled though. Many have criticized Mr. Clinton's bare-knuckled comments to promote his wife's candidacy as "un-presidential" which seems odd to me.

That is, I have long been enamored with Mr. Clinton's intelligence, his command of complex issues and world affairs - he is also a magnificent speaker and politician. But Presidential?

He used the Oval Office like a Bangkok sex parlor, deceived the American people about it, lied under oath, rented the Lincoln bedroom for campaign funds, pardoned Mark Rich and one could go on, but the point is this - how consistently did he ever comport himself in a presidential manner? Why would he start now?

A toast to South Carolina

The Palmetto state makes me proud tonight. Dum Spiro Spero (while I breathe, I hope).

Consider the beginning to tonight's Republican debate in Myrtle Beach - a chorus of men in suits and women (in lovely white dresses) singing the Star Spangled Banner. My, how radical.

If I wanted to have drinks with cynical intellectuals watching this debate from a Manhattan salon, I'd have to sniff and say something disapproving. If I expressed my delight, they probably wouldn't serve me. That's OK, I don't drink with those people anyway.

For me, it was a perfect start to the debate.

State of Wisconsin flubs identity handling (redux)

Haven't we seen this movie before?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported today that a state mailing may have compromised the identities of thousands of Wisconsinites because of Social Security numbers that were inadvertently printed on mailing labels.

I published a column last year in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel after approximately 171,000 taxpayer social security numbers adorned the front of tax booklets. I also mentioned in that column, another breach (not cited in today's Journal Sentinel story) by a human resources aide who mishandled social security numbers of state assembly members.

The only thing more astonishing than all of this repeated carelessness, is the blatant blame game being played. It appears that the State Department of Health and Family Services and Governor Doyle's spokesman, Matt Canter, are feigning indignation in order to place the blame squarely (and entirely) on the vendor, EDS.

I remember the mea culpa letter last year from the printer that accompanied a similar letter from the Department of Revenue explaining and taking responsibility for that debacle. At least, there was a semblance of accountability communicated by the Department of Revenue.

In today's JS story, the Guv's spokesman Matt Canter, suggests only that there is some defining difference between last year's data goof and this new one because last year, the printer had no use for the data compromised, but EDS needed the data to do it's processing this year.

So what?

How does that make State government any less responsible? In both cases the State provided the data files containing our social security numbers to a vendor. Therefore it's incumbent upon the state to inspect and sign off before the irretrievable damage goes out the door.

Here's the first step for a patient to heal thyself - admit you have a problem and stop blaming the vendor. Next, examine your processes and what went wrong- then implement new controls and test them, again and again and again - to make sure they are working.

We don't need to have someone's head - just take responsibility, analyze it and fix it.

Also announced today was Governor Doyle's commendable effort to expand tax incentives for research and development at Wisconsin companies. If only we could incentivize the Governor's administration to research and develop better state processes for handling our critical data.

Being selective about choice (when it suits you)

Yesterday’s blog post from Patrick McIlheran is spot on.

Teachers unions and their ilk, often exalt a right to choice. I think some of the choices they promote include secular or free-from-faith learning environments, politically correct curricula, etc. OK, fine. (They also choose to fight performance standards intended to hold them accountable, but that’s another post.)

Yet, when parents choose for their children an alternative to traditional public education, the word “choice” vanishes from the union vocabulary and its consciousness. Just a little self-serving, perhaps?

Repudiation!

It's simply the only appropriate word to describe Hillary Clinton's third place finish in Iowa tonight. The leading spender finishes third.

News flash - Hillary Clinton declares cause of US debt

Hillary Clinton has now identified "Republicans" as the sole cause of America's national debt. Yes, it's all a vast right wing piracy.

Stumping yesterday in Maquoketa, Iowa in town hall style, Ms. Clinton addressed the causes of America's political, social and economic woes and explained them all with one word - "Republicans." During Ms. Clinton's diatribe against all things Republican, she actually said to her audience...

"They have driven us into nine trillion dollars of debt."

Note: She didn't say "Congress" nor did she cite any spending complicity on both sides of the aisle - she said "they" (the Republicans).

At the conclusion of the event, Ms. Clinton while working the crowd, listened intently to one admirer who was assailing something and then a bright-eyed Senator Clinton enthusiastically replied...

"Absolutely, absolutely, A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y...totally partisan, totally idelogical, that is not the way to get things done in America."

Indeed, Senator.

Go see The Kite Runner

My family and I usually go to the theatre this time of year and yesterday I jumped into the car with no advanced knowledge of what movie we were going to see.

I rarely recommend a new film because I believe that so few are worth seeing, however, I make an exception for The Kite Runner. If it doesn't capture your attention, enlighten you about the Middle East in some way, or stir your emotions - you're in deep trouble.

This extraordinary film is based upon Khaled Hosseini's popular novel of the same title that tells a terrifying but ultimately redemptive tale set in Kabul, Afghanistan. The timeline takes us from Afghan life in the late 1970s under corrupt albeit relatively stable rule, to the horrors of the Taliban in 2000.

You can tell from the stylish opening when credits are still rolling that this is no ordinary production, but I didn't expect how effectively the film creators would capture the depth and dimensions of evil and goodness in that part of the world.

Suffice it to say that a "Best Picture" nomination must be in the offing and perhaps other nominations including best cinematography, best actor and best supporting actor.

Anti-Hillary sentiment and the facts

Someone named Lisa (Posted by: lisa December 8, 2007 11:29 PM ) doubts the veracity of my remarks concerning popular opposition to Hillary Clinton - which I made reference to in my post on Bill Moyers' blog.

The distrust, dislike and polarizing features of Ms. Clinton's candidacy that I mention in that post, are not only consistent with my own predilections (and those of a camp referred to these days as "A.B.H." or Anyone But Hillary) they are also supported by non-partisan research.

I thought Ms. Clinton's political baggage was self-evident, but I'll share this report from USA Today and Gallup which may help commentators like "Lisa" and others still in denial to see the pervasiveness of said baggage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102907/What-Behind-AntiHillary-Sentiment.aspx#2

Note how analyst Jeffrey M. Jones asserts in his subtitle, reasons for Ms. Clinton's negatives...

"Basic dislike, policy disagreements, character concerns commonly mentioned"

Jones also contends that...

"...few candidates have ever begun the campaign with such polarized ratings."

Want more proof? Consider this Harris Poll:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744

So, while I don't care to admit that the Green Bay Packers were trounced yesterday by the Chicago Bears, my wishing it wasn't the case won't change the facts.

What's most unfortunate about some Hillary Supporters (HS), is that they'll routinely attribute criticism of Ms. Clinton to misogyny. What a sad slap in the face to all women in public affairs.

Millions of men like me will vote for a female presidential candidate who shares our views - but unfortunately, Margaret Thatcher (who can't run here anyway due to her birthplace) or the late Jean Kirkpatrick (who can't run for obvious reasons) - plus many other accomplished women with integrity, are not available in this race.

Yet, some HS will respond that most men will only support women if we don't feel "threatened" by them and therefore any women we do admire are sycophants - shrinking violets in need of male pollen. If any HS uttered such insulting nonsense to the face of a woman like those I mentioned above - they'd be well advised to duck.

Sadly, this invective is delivered daily by the same type of people who can't fathom how an African-American like Justice Clarence Thomas holds beliefs at odds with their own - so what do they allege? Well, you know, he's just an Uncle Tom. After hearing that sort of thing, ask yourself - who is the bigot?

And as for the gender-card-playing HS, who continue to stereotype reasons for male opposition to Ms. Clinton, please remind me - who is sexist?

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck's TV program tonight...

We now know that Dr. Paul's supporters include those who accused TV host Glenn Beck of treason, those who threatened Mr. Beck's life and those claiming that the US Government perpetrated the horrors of 9/11.

These people do not represent a plurality of Dr. Paul's supporters and he did distance himself from them on Mr. Beck's program, but the question remains - why would such a group be attracted to the Paul candidacy?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Dr. Paul is an unflinching apologist for so much American foreign policy. His tinny voice has become a magnet for legions of dangereous and disaffected Americans with an axe to grind (or swing). He really appeals to them.

It's one more reason some find comfort in the belief that Dr. Paul has as much chance of winning the Oval office as Homer Simpson, or perhaps Dennis Kucinich.

MEET THE LESS

Tim Russert remains one of my favorite television journalists of all time. He's tough, always prepared and fair to everyone he interviews. Today, however, he disappoints this fan. He has an hour, one-on-one with Mitt Romney and how does he use the first 24 minutes?

Mr. Russert spent the first 13 minutes discussing Romney's Mormonism and the next 11 minutes on abortion. What an abject waste of good interview time.

Here are issues, that should have dominated the interview: National Security, Healthcare Reform, Immigration, the Iraq War, Education, Tax Reform, Energy Policy and Spending Reform.

The program did become more substantive after that first 24 minute segment. However, Mr. Russert still squandered a third of the time playing to single issue viewers who are fixated on topics having little to do with running the country.

After watching Bill Moyers Journal - I posted on his blog...

Mr. Moyers,

Your dialogue with Ms. Jamieson suggests that you are genuinely astonished at all of the vitriol surrounding Hillary Clinton. While I do not approve of all of it - I understand where much of it comes from.

It's not related to gender or politics. Men and women, Republican and Democrat, draw such fire in campaigns.

A more intriguing question is - why is Mrs. Clinton such a polarizing figure? I believe the answer goes to the heart of who she is - many believe she has a deep integrity problem and that she is purely craven for power. It's easy to see into her soul.

If we must have a Democrat winning the White House in 2008, many Republicans including this writer would find Mrs. Clinton by far, the most objectionable of all candidates in her party.

Respectfully,

JJM

CNN & YouTube for a presidential debate?

For many of us, these presidential debates represent the best and worst that you'll ever see on television. That's why they are so intriguing.

The person-on-the-street question-to-the-candidate(s) on the large screen for tonight's debate - is fine. It's actually a nice departure from a panel of over-exposed TV journalists peppering the candidates with their questions.

But do we really need YouTube tonight?

The scrolling button, video and audio perpetually out of synchronization and the fuzzy internet picture, are annoying distractions. It's also an unneccesary commercial for YouTube. Whose idea was this?

Plain old, high-quality, video-taped questions from these same folks - would be preferable. Thank you.

A Wisconsin assembly bill worth supporting...

I copy below excerpts from a broadcast message I received from the FreedomWorks organization http://www.freedomworks.org/

Chairman, Dick Armey says...

Thanks in part to your efforts, the Wisconsin Senate recently passed the pro-competition Wisconsin Video Competition Act. Now the Assembly needs to act in order to bring free-market competition to the state’s telecommunication industry.
Please TAKE ACTION and send a message to your Assemblyman that you support this bill, which would bring competition to the video programming market in Wisconsin.
Burdensome franchise laws in Wisconsin are preventing companies from competing for consumers, which is why FreedomWorks is supporting the Wisconsin Video Competition Act. This bill would create a statewide franchise system and make it easier for new entrants to the video programming market to offer their services.
The Wisconsin Video Competition Act would allow consumers to take advantage of new technologies by streamlining the franchise application process for potential providers. When companies compete to provide service, consumers win through more choices, lower prices and better service. Help us push this bill over the finish line.
TAKE ACTION!
Sincerely,
Dick Armey Chairman FreedomWorks.org

To learn more about the bill, I exchanged e-mails with the Director, Federal and State Campaigns, Brendan Steinhauser and I came away sharing his view about the larger issue which he summarized thusly:

"The status quo allows a de fact monopoly in many areas, though. This bill would reverse that policy and inject much needed competition into the market, leading to more choices, lower prices and better service."

Party affiliation matters

Representative Ron Paul hedged recently when asked whether he'd support the Republican nominee, regardless of who it might be (and it's a safe bet it won't be him).

In essence, Dr. Paul replied that his support would wholly depend upon the candidate's willingness to end the war and other positions about which Dr. Paul feels strongly.

OK, but I'm not clear why Dr. Paul chose to become a Republican let alone run as one except, perhaps - out of political expediency. Many of his views are out of touch with the party mainstream which begs the question - does party affiliation even matter anymore?

Growing up in fiercely independent Wisconsin, I recall hearing a familiar line from adults at presidential election time - "I vote for the man, not the party." (And yes in those days, with the exception of Shirley Chisholm, it was all men).

As an impressionable young lad, I respected adults who publicly affirmed beliefs in something higher than party politics. A sincere allegiance to core principles will always trump those screaming people wearing funny hats at the party convention, I believed.

Now, in my late forties, I'm skeptical of the I-vote-for-the-person-not-the-party person. Why?

Unless one has a long record of voting for both Republicans and Democrats, or one has a long history of supporting third party candidates, the party-less advocate is probably just making (in his or her view) a "safe" proclamation.

My point? If one claims to be an "independent" voter - one should be able to prove it. If you can't prove it, or figure out what you believe in - stop pretending. Just admit you are still searching.

So, do you like financial humor?

If so, please check out this month's "back story" from the November issue of Conde Nast Portfolio magazine. The piece I refer to is called the "2005 SUBPRIME-MORTGAGE APPLICATION" Note the free bank check at the bottom of the page with inscription on center reading, "DUPLICATE AS NEEDED"

Portfolio is a new and inspired business periodical. I give its creators plaudits not only because I cackled for five minutes after reading and re-reading the aforementioned spoof on lax mortgage underwriting, but also because this magazine contains incisive stories, fine writing and an attractive layout.

It is likely to succeed in an already crowded space.

Explosive irony

I heard from an American Muslim who was troubled by my September 20, 2007 column, "National security vs. civil liberty in America" My reply to the individual follows...

"I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to respond.

Before I address the points you make below, I should like to make clear that I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (American and otherwise) are peaceful, decent, people of faith. Radical Islam represents only a small fraction of the one billion-plus Muslims in the world. Unfortunately that small fraction still equates to a large number of people that we must monitor and defend ourselves from, in order to preserve our freedoms.

As for the incident that took place at the Minneapolis airport in 2006, it is obvious that you are troubled by my use of the word “suspicious.” If the 6 clerics involved were simply and quietly praying as you maintain, the flurry of events that made their presence so newsworthy, would not have developed. After all, thousands of Muslims travel through American airports every day without the same type of fallout. Your benign characterization of their actions during the whole ordeal does not at all comport with statements from eye witnesses, the gate agent, or excerpts that I read from the police report.

Whether one chooses to describe the activities of the clerics as suspicious or merely provocative, misses the point.

In this day and age, after what we have all been through, greater sensitivity on the part of the clerics would have been highly advisable. People are understandably on edge, particularly in airports. By saying that, I do not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that anyone should refrain from public prayer and again, I do not share your view that all that occurred that day was harmless prayer misunderstood by ignorant Americans. I am fully aware of and greatly respect your practice of praying five times a day. I am also a person of faith and most Americans are not as woefully ignorant of Islam, as you believe.

After this whole sad episode, the clerics elected to sue not only the airline, but also the passengers that shared their concerns with authorities. Therefore, in the future, some who would be inclined to alert authorities to potential danger, will have to weigh the possibility of being incorrect and then becoming the recipient of a fresh lawsuit. I find that conundrum more than a little troubling.

Should you receive this message in time, I’d invite you to watch a local television program called 4th Street Forum, tomorrow afternoon @ 3PM, on Channel 36. The topic of my last column (that you take issue with) is explored during a panel discussion and I was privileged to participate. Within hours of taping that program, I learned that bombs exploded in Pakistan killing 134 people. The latest reports indicate that it was more death coming from the evil hand of al Qaida.

The timing of that tragedy and the taping of the aforementioned TV program was sad irony for me, but I draw no comparison between decent people like you and people who celebrate the murder of Western children, so please do not paint me with such a broad brush. I argue to preserve freedoms not just for myself, but for people like you as well.

That is why I sometimes get discouraged by reactions like yours. Yet I become encouraged when I read and hear other American Muslims like Muqtedar Khan who fully recognize where to place their energy and advocacy. If you are not familiar with Dr. Khan’s work, you may wish to read one essay in particular called “Memo To Mr. Bin Laden: Go to Hell! It can be found at http://www.ijtihad.org/BinladenII.htm

All of this notwithstanding, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish you well.

- John J. Maddente"

National security vs. civil liberty in America

Published: Sept. 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.

Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.

Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.

Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.

I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?

Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.

So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.

A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.

During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.

That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.

On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.

Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."

He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."

So will I.

Money laundering spammeisters

Can you name the most visible and common, criminal solicitation in the world?

For me it is those e-mails that come daily and are filed automatically in my junk e-mail folder. The subject headings are generic (like "GOOD DAY") so they don't get auto-filtered at the mail server, but they get flagged as spam I suppose, due to the sheer number of addressees. So, like millions of other folks, I see them in my junkmail folder.

They usually read something like this...

"I would like to know you dear sir for a most important task. I am Adourimask Kadadackiannsuma, Barrister to the late and quite wealthy madam Cammazun dolMafrin of the province Minabia in Congo. A tragic loss too be certainly- yes.

I have a most urgent need to transfer the sum of 28 mILlion US dollars to your considerate care- for which you will be handsomely reconcileD a duty fee of 2.35 M USD and your services.

Know I need you and I trust your benvolence to handle these sensitive matter and you are best. Please reply to me as you soon can as stability of the government may preclude this fine OppOrtuniti.

Waitng for you...

Barrister Adourimask"

Although I made up the content here, it is similar to those e-mails we all receive (except the English is better on the one I drafted). What I have never understood about these obvious attempts to flout our banking and money laundering laws, is how the authors can be so blatant about it without risking detection and prosecution.

If you have an answer, drop me a line at jmaddente@wi.rr.com

An e-mail response to the editorial board at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Their question to readers:

Would you be willing to pay a higher sales tax on gasoline to pay for bridge maintenance and replacement?

My reply...

Dear Editorial Board,

My answer is no I would not and it’s the phrasing of your question that might draw scrutiny from other like-minded readers. That is, why do you presuppose that the only way to fund such infrastructure improvement is through an increase in the gas tax- or an increase in any tax for that matter? We already pay among the highest sales tax rates at the pump.

During the previous budget cycle, Governor Doyle, like a modern day Cesar Augustus, used his famous “Frankenstein veto” to instantly transfer over $400 million dollars from the highway fund to K-12 education. The magnitude of his audacity surprised pols on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps some of those funds might have remained better invested in infrastructure like that suggested by your query to readers in today’s paper.

In any event - why not ask a follow up question to JS readers?

“In order to fund such bridge work, would you allow the consolidation of school districts where enrollment no longer justifies operating such schools, or through asset sales of state owned property and land used by a paucity of our population, or through cancellation of marginally-necessary pet projects?”

OK, I understand space limitations- but you get my point.

Respectfully,

John J. Maddente

Don't believe the doomsday predictions about newspapers

Published July 29, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Here's hoping that some things never change. The Civil War memorial statues on Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee, no stadium naming rights to Lambeau Field and the Menomonee River Parkway in Wauwatosa will all, with God's good grace, remain unaltered in my lifetime.

What you're reading at the moment is a local newspaper that has existed in various incarnations since 1837. Different names, different mastheads and different owners, but, nonetheless, this paper has been a part of our consciousness for a long time.

Some of us are old enough to recall a time when we'd pluck out The Green Sheet from The Milwaukee Journal and read Mrs. Griggs' advice column. For some, the memories go back even further. Many have heard prognostications about a trend away from newspapers as consumers demand more information via computer and the Internet. Some maintain that since more people than ever obtain their news and entertainment online the inexorable death of the old fish wrapper is just a matter of time.

Nonsense! I doubt that the printed newspaper will ever become extinct - and not just because I want to doubt its demise. My reasoning is more practical.

A newspaper enables one to consume information with so much ease and so little dexterity that it cannot be duplicated. You just can't argue with good design. That is to say, is it conceivably easier or more satisfying to hold some wafer-thin (albeit newspaper-sized) screen and scroll through your daily pixels of news and pictures? Not for me. I'll never give up my pulp-based reading. Information technology can be a great enhancement to slake our thirst for information - and also a great waste of time.

For example, I've used two different handheld devices to support all of my phone, calendar, Internet and e-mail needs. The first device I loved because it was intuitive to learn and easy to use. I have a different device now that I detest for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the most over-engineered contraption I have ever encountered. It was made by geeks for geeks who love the thing because it's state of the art, whatever that is.

But information technology and its beguiling ecosystem - the Internet - can't be judged so simply. It's a blessing, it's evil and it's a waste of time all at once. Creeps use the Internet to prey on children, but it also helps parents stay close to their children when separated by great distances. Porn sites proliferate, but so does some exceptional blogging and grass-roots reporting that help to equalize and make more transparent a very complex world.

Journalists are becoming increasingly reliant upon and held more accountable by just about any serious person with a modem and a hankering to share something important. Teens and adults fritter away countless hours playing games, but on the other hand . . . well, you get it.

It's the content that remains important - the digital and paper platforms will remain only as catalysts to slake our thirst for information, and they will continue to coexist. Whether you want news electronically or prefer to rattle those pages between your fingertips as I do, what's important is the quality of what we pull off of the platform.

Is it fair? Is it accurate? Is it useful? So don't write off the newspaper. It may be an aged medium, but it's one as comfortable as those trusty pair of shoes you'll never part with.

Still weary about our punitive state tax burden

Published July 5, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Watching our state's political budget process is not easy. There are so many additional taxes - and some with such vast implications - all under discussion at once. One billion, 2 billion, 3 billion, 15 billion: all numbers I have seen to describe potential tax increases.

The characters involved mirror stereotypes of both political parties: Democrats are seeking a broader governmental role in fixing our problems through tax increases and government spending. The GOP is digging in its heels, wanting to hold the line on taxes and government spending and government's increased involvement in our affairs.

Reminiscent of the high stakes budget showdown that occurred between President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995, Republican Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch stated he would block the process if the budget delivered to him contains tax increases. By any credible measure, we live in a high-tax state, and this budget season reminds me of the myriad ways government can tax us and how far Gov. Jim Doyle and his coterie of party faithful are prepared to go in order to exercise their views about what government ought to do. But what about the long-term picture beyond the current two-year budget cycle?

I was troubled by a June 24 column by John Tornius that referenced a credible third-party analysis of our state's annual "structural deficit" of $2.2 billion ("State's accounting doesn't pass muster"). The analysis revealed that relative to population, Wisconsin is at the top of all deficit-running states in the nation.

That's more than a little disconcerting if you or your children care about life in Wisconsin more than a couple years from now. Many of us grouse about the need to reduce taxes. That's personal income taxes, real estate taxes, corporate personal property taxes, gas taxes, home-selling taxes and they-don't-give-me-enough-space-to-list-all-the taxes. Others counter with, "That's not realistic; our needs have increased." Or my personal favorite, "But look at our fine educational system and park system and whatever system."

Even if I agreed that we derived an equivalent value from the punitive tax burden we've paid through the decades, we cannot afford everything any longer. As opposed to making more hard choices, I read about things like the governor's proposal to increase by some $55 million annually the cost of state-owned lands in "far-flung natural areas" beginning in 2011. What percentage of us has a desire, let alone need, to traverse additional land already owned by the state in the wilds of Douglas County when our long-term fiscal condition is so bleak?

Other troubling budgetary facts:
• The $15 billion universal health care plan is an 11th-hour power play, and whether you believe such a plan is the answer to our health care conundrum or not, the issues and implications are too complex, too far-reaching, too everything to contemplate now. That patient is dead.
• The new gas tax on oil companies that ostensibly would be borne by oil companies and not passed on to you and me has zero chance of success. If it makes its way into law, it will fail in practice or the courts.
• Lifting any real estate property tax cap will diminish any hope I have left in government.

What we will wind up with this budget season is anyone's guess. The only safe prediction is that if any tax increases get out of the Assembly, there will be a run on bumper stickers that read, "Don't blame me; I voted for Green."

Valor worth commemorating

Published 5.31.2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

"Why write about something that happened 12 years ago?"

So went part of a reader's e-mail critique of one of my prior columns. To some, there is little value today in citing dates, events or people from a mere decade ago, let alone 14 decades ago.

At this year's Memorial Day service in Delafield, about 100 observers begged to differ. The event was the Cushing Park Memorial Day service, with a speech delivered by Rick Gross, who along with a half-dozen or so other members of the Cushing Historical Association addressed a crowd to commemorate the military service of four brothers during the American Civil War.

Three of the Cushing brothers were born in southeastern Wisconsin (two in Delafield, one in Milwaukee), and a fourth was born in Columbus, Ohio. On a resplendent spring day at Cushing Park, Gross and his colleagues wore period costumes to portray the kind of Union soldiers they were honoring, to speak of sacrifices made long ago and to fire four thundering cannon blasts to commemorate the Cushings' military service.

Ron Aronis, who portrayed the Union battery commander, has been participating in re-enactments since 1965. I asked him why he felt it was important to re-create and memorialize the military service of those gone for so very long.

Aronis replied, "If we don't remember, we tend to repeat history, which isn't always the best; you need to know what your country's been through. Have we always loved each other? Have we always hated each other?"

Gross, who is a design engineer by trade and who mentioned that he had a bit part in the 1993 movie "Gettysburg," had a simpler answer: He gives his time for these events because he enjoys "preserving the memory" of the fallen.

On Memorial Day this year, the fallen included Milton, Howard and Alonzo Cushing. William Cushing, like his three brothers, fought valiantly for the Union but, unlike them, did not die in battle. (He died of illness while serving in the Navy.)

Those interested in learning more about the Cushing brothers or to support the Cushing Historical Association, which is a Wisconsin non-profit corporation, can e-mail James Benware at Cushing_recruiter@yahoo.com or phone (262) 306-1279. A related Web site of interest ( http://www.suvcw-wi.org/) is sponsored by the Sons of the Civil War and has a link to Wisconsin's Civil War heritage.

Last year, a Delafield resident complained to the city about the cannon blasts fired at the park. Apparently, the sounds of the charges were frightening the resident's dogs. The blasts, to be sure, are something to hear. The charges I witnessed stripped leaves off of a nearby tree and echoed throughout the park and beyond.

According to one member of the historical association, the permit to fire the blasts this year - a total of six discharged over about 30 minutes, two to begin the service and one for each of the four Cushing brothers - had to be defended before city representatives in order to continue the tradition.

Remembering events and sacrifices made so many years ago strikes me as a worthwhile endeavor, even if it means that I need to comfort my pets for a while or take them on a well-timed walk elsewhere in town.

But that's what makes our land so great; we can disagree on that point without fear of retribution. Unfortunately, such freedoms have never come without the ultimate price being paid by others, many of whom are long forgotten. Here's hoping our memories of war dead linger throughout the ages. Let freedom ring, and may the cannon of Cushing Park never be silenced.

Celebrities' political preening

Published: May 4, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

If the entertainment elite could remove the words "decorum" or "credentials" from Webster's Dictionary, many of them would assuredly do so.

Consider Sheryl Crow's April 21 performance during the White House Correspondents Association Dinner in Washington. Crow decided to accost presidential adviser Karl Rove and, in the process, impress Lord knows who, about her passion for the topic of global warming.

Recounting this is not an indictment of anyone concerned about global warming. Rather, the issue is public behavior (or, more precisely, public misbehavior) by entertainers with dubious qualifications but plenty of pluck and A-list invitations to do their public preening.

To be honest, I do have a double standard. That is, I'd have less of a problem with the Crow-Rove ordeal if, instead of a musician, a renowned climatologist from Yale had cornered Rove and a heated debate ensued. At least such an altercation, while still socially awkward, would have taken place between people with depth and a useful angle. Crow? Precisely whom does she represent? All she wanted to do was have some fun, I thought.

I guess our Midwestern sensibilities come through differently at local entertainment outlets. I have attended many plays at the Sunset Playhouse and the Marcus Center over the years, and not once did an actor stop a performance, turn up the lights and pass the hat to save spotted owls. Maybe they know we didn't come to hear the political cause du jour.

The correspondents dinner has been a painful penance for every administration. And the casualties are chosen in a non-partisan manner.

I'm not referring to good-natured ribbing but rather the type of thing spewed by now-disgraced radio jock Don Imus, who took the podium in 1996 and proceeded to caricature a sexual encounter between President Clinton and someone other than his wife, Hillary. All this done, of course, with the first couple seated next to Imus' lectern on national television.

No, a successful entertainment career doesn't mean you forfeit a right to public debate on serious issues. But it should mean that you make sense, that you espouse your views at a proper time and place and that you thoroughly understand what you are talking about. Bono, lead singer of the rock band U2, courts lawmakers for debt relief to impoverished nations, but he does so without making silly public displays or mindless pleas. Moreover, he has impressed government officials with a command of complicated issues. In short, he gets it. If you want to be taken seriously on world affairs, you need more than a Grammy and a choice table at the Washington Hilton.

Three years before the Imus debacle, we witnessed Richard Gere at the Academy Awards lapsing into a dreamy metaphysical trance to "send a message" to the people of Tibet, Deng Xiaoping and perhaps someone at a Dairy Queen in Vermont. We never heard what his message was, but afterward, 38 states wanted to revoke Gere's driving privileges.

Want another recent example? I never understood why Rosie O'Donnell occupies the airwaves, but after the Supreme Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban, she decried on "The View" the lack of a "separation of church and state in America" because five Supreme Court justices happen to be Catholic.

With rigorous analytical thinking like that, who needs to stay in school? Not O'Donnell, who dropped out of college with a 1.62 grade-point average.

With O'Donnell vacating "The View," the state of political discourse in America just improved.

Delafield's buildings proposal was prudent

Published: April 9, 2007, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Delafield is an idyllic space with rolling hills, an expansive state park, pristine lakes and charming Williamsburg architecture. It is safe, clean and free of ills that plague larger cities. The last recorded homicide in the city occurred more than 11 years ago. There's one problem. Delafield's city facilities are in a disgraceful, dysfunctional state because prior administrations and residents (depending upon whom you wish to blame) didn't address the issue years ago.

So in a place where the average home sale price rivals Mequon's, city services occupy buildings that resemble facilities in a Third World country. Things could have changed Tuesday when city residents voted on a referendum to authorize a $20.15 million project to fix the buildings. It failed by 210 votes.

How bad are those facilities?

Even in Delafield, police have to apprehend dangerous people. There is no space to detain suspects or prisoners before they can be moved to the Waukesha prison. Instead, police have two pairs of handcuffs bolted to the floor of a room that doubles as meeting space for city employees.

Fire and public works employees work in conditions that are cramped, unsafe, inefficient and out-of-compliance with state codes. Firefighters, for example, trot down two flights of stairs from matchbox sleeping quarters to use public restrooms. The Delafield Public Library is equally unappealing and inadequate.

The irony is that if voters had passed the referendum, the impact on the property taxpayer would have been negligible. How so?

By stretching out a new $20 million debt to 2027 using municipal finance rates at 35-year lows and applying proceeds from the sale of the decrepit city services property, which could fetch $2 million (it's the land value, not the structure), the impact on the city's cash flow would have been marginal.

The city, like a homeowner preparing to burn a mortgage, is scheduled to be entirely debt free by 2015. It's like taking out a home equity loan to fix a condemned house before you have it paid off, and part of your monthly payment goes down a bit now instead of going to zero in 2015.

We are not talking about the majority of a Delafielder's property tax payment. Only about 25% of net property tax paid by residents goes to the city. The largest chunk (60%) is gobbled up by public schools. Since Delafield rejected the $20 million note, will property taxpayers pay less short term or long term than if it had passed? No.

Short term, the current debt service would have fallen for the average homeowner had the city refinanced its debt even after adding the project cost to the new debt. The city won't refinance that remaining debt now because the cost to refinance debt on the books until 2014 exceeds the value of doing it.

So, although short term, the portion of one's tax bill that services this debt would have been lower with new financing; now it will stay the same. And long term? Well, eventually the project will pass, and the cost then will be higher for borrowing money and for construction. I detest my property tax bill. Had I believed the proposal would have a material impact on my property tax payment, I wouldn't have supported it.

But the city produced a prudent proposal to do what is inevitable while practically freezing at current payment levels the portion of one's tax bill used to service debt. With images of over-the-top public spending like Summit Elementary School in Waukesha, which resembles IBM's headquarters more than a public elementary school, coupled with the fact that Wisconsin residents pay more in property taxes per capita than residents in 39 other states, it's easy to see why some voters resist new spending.

It's sad because this proposal was fiscally responsible. The city should try again soon.

Don't read more into war opposition than what's there

Published: March 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

"Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser . . . the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."

So goes the famous quote from Gen. George S. Patton's 1944 D-Day address to his troops. That quote was later popularized in a 1970 masterpiece of a movie called "Patton." And Patton's words have relevance today when pondering President Bush's low approval ratings.

It is not the president's decision to go to war in Iraq that sunk his popularity. For many, it's the perceived lack of results stemming from the war, which began four years ago today. That means it isn't the inherent "morality" of the war that troubles many Bush critics; it's the practical yield from it, or lack thereof.

In pure theory, why wouldn't a plan to establish a democratic beachhead in a portion of the world fraught with violence and instability and depose an evil despot like Saddam Hussein, who had slaughtered his own country's citizens, strike millions of reasonable people as a worthy undertaking? Answer: It did.

The late President Nixon, who was arguably one of our most able presidents on foreign policy, put it saliently in his later books. Basically, Nixon asked questions like, "If America does not lead in the world, who will?"

After World War II, the United States successfully "exported democracy" to post-Imperial Japan. And by any measure, the U.S., Japan and the rest of the civilized world are better off for having done so.

But the notion of success in the Middle East is murkier. There is no tangible cliff to scale like there was at Omaha Beach. After the U.S. liberated Nazi-occupied Europe, implementation of the Marshall Plan wasn't paralyzed by legions of suicide bombers trying to derail new regimes or by sectarian fanatics trying to kill one another in the same country.

The frustration is understandable. With more than 3,200 American lives lost (including 70 Wisconsinites) and billions of dollars of our nation's treasure spent, it's difficult not to grieve or grow angry because we can't see an end to the whole depressing morass.

Even the president's staunchest supporters have grown increasingly restive. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll revealed that a full 73% of Americans are following the 2008 presidential race closely. That is either an astonishing level of interest for an election so far away or a clear reflection of popular restlessness.

Yet today's collective opposition to the war in Iraq does not come in one size or shape. Americans who have grown impatient with this war do not all want to join arms, sing John Lennon songs and pretend to act as one for a whole number of unrelated "causes."

Many calling for a troop withdrawal today would look contemptuously at fellow critics who are calling for the exact same thing. Contrary to an old Arab bromide, in the U.S., the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) would never share a stage with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, nor should he.

In a perfect life, we could airlift all peaceable, decent citizens of the Middle East, clothe them, feed them, give them better shelter than they could have possibly imagined and then proceed to bulldoze everyone and everything else in that part of the world. But since life is so imperfect, a 50-year, Korea-type occupation is possible and probably necessary.

We may all uniformly lament that prospect, but don't confuse common sentiment for a single voice concerning America's role in foreign affairs. Had we rid the Middle East of bomb-toting fanatics, Bush's popularity would have soared. Americans love a winner.

Let's get our priorities straight

Published: Feb. 8, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Trying to predict what current event will capture our collective interest is a fool's errand. I gave up years ago.

For example, I never could understand the avalanche of news coverage on, or public reaction to, the Elian Gonzalez story several years back. The circumstances, while sad, involved one child. Yet politicians and media were consumed with the ordeal for more than a year.

Now consider the recent information security blunders by state government and the relatively small amount of attention they garnered. One case involved Social Security numbers printed on the outside of tax booklets for about 171,000 Wisconsin taxpayers. Some were recovered, but most were mailed.

It made me wonder: Were we really more concerned about Brett Favre's return to the Packers than actions that could have potentially compromised the identities of thousands of taxpayers?

I hope that is not the case, but the amount of public and media interest for each topic might suggest otherwise.

That Social Security saga for me began with a letter from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue on Jan. 27. It was reminiscent of unscheduled invoices from my homebuilder that always arrived on a Saturday when I could reach no one at his office. The builder's strategy, I believe, was so I'd have a couple of days to cool off before he'd hear from me. Better to spoil my weekend than his, I suppose. (The strategy worked.)

Similarly, after reading the letter from the Department of Revenue and an accompanying one from the printer informing me that an error put at risk my wife's Social Security number along with thousands of others, my first reaction was not printable in a family newspaper. My second reaction was: Wow, this is a reporter's dream for a slow news day because it was the first I had heard of it (although the Journal Sentinel reported on the blunder on Dec. 30).

How many staffers will get sacked, I wondered? Who was responsible for overseeing the process before, during and after Social Security information was distributed to the printer? How can a security breach reported by the Department of Revenue to news outlets on Dec. 29, and described in its letter dated Jan. 12, not reach me until Jan. 27?

What a story, I thought. I can't wait to see the firestorm from angry citizens. I'm still waiting.

On Feb. 3, there was an article in the Journal Sentinel's Metro section with the headline "Personal information theft hits Assembly." It described another government-bungled possession of Social Security numbers.

This time, a human resources aide took a report containing Social Security numbers of state officials and tossed it in her car before going to the gym. A thief stole the report and other items from her car.

I wonder if all the privacy wonks so unhinged over Bush administration surveillance measures to track down terrorists care about this colossal carelessness with our Social Security numbers.

In his recent "state of the state" address, Gov. Jim Doyle talked about financial incentives to stem global warming, a problem that, by definition, requires action from national and international policy-makers.

We'd benefit more from Doyle's efforts to change what is in his earthly sphere of influence. We need added attention to concerns like spending reform and tax reform and a renewed sense of urgency for internal controls at state agencies handling our personal data or managing procurement with state funds.

Oh, and welcome as it is, Favre's return next year won't alleviate those concerns.

Media images and our kids

Published 1.19.2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Why should we care what children watch or read? Are we simply riding a high horse when complaining about parental indifference and the deluge of sex and violence surrounding our kids? Does it border on censorship?

I called a local radio talk show once to comment on the ever-increasing flow of sex and violence polluting our airwaves, and the host's predictable response was something like, "Well, if you don't like it, just change the channel."

Of course I can change the channel, pal. What I worry about is the impact on young people who won't change the channel.

In many communities and particularly in our inner city, teen sex and pregnancy rates are beyond crisis proportions. It helps when Bill Cosby comes to Milwaukee to discuss personal responsibility for part of the population, but the problem is funded by people across all racial lines and economic strata.

Can anyone make a movie targeted at younger people without the perfunctory scenes of two people chewing on one another? (Sorry, I forgot about the artistic value of those scenes and their importance to plot development.)

We know that media images absorbed by youths affect their behavior. It isn't even worth debating. So why do gratuitous images of sex and violence continue to proliferate?

Part of the answer could be analogous to why some of us are overweight. Creators of junk stay in business by appealing to our worst instincts like a craving for delicious and fattening food. And you can't eat just one. So we watch, and our kids watch again and again.

For example, I like boxing, but it is no longer enough to satisfy those who want full contact. We now have mixed martial arts fights where you can flout the "rules" and beat your opponent to a bloody pulp even after the guy lies helplessly. It's unfortunate all that testosterone can't be usefully directed at fighting terrorists abroad and out of sight.

But you still think that what we watch has no impact on our children's behavior?

Nebraska sociologist Mike Hendricks wrote about the impact of the popular 1999 movie "Fight Club." He notes on his Web log that the movie "depicted disaffected young adults competing in bare-knuckle boxing matches in underground clubs" and that since the movie's release, "real fight clubs have been popping up all over the country."

He continues, "Arrests have been made in large cities such as Seattle, Provo and Milwaukee." Hendricks concludes, "There is no record of any fight clubs being in existence before the movie was made. Now it is an activity that is sweeping the nation."

When NBA player Ron Artest vaulted into the stands in 2004 to beat up some ignoramus who tossed a beer at him, the lasting damage wasn't that a game was disrupted. The harm extended to youths who idolize Artest and infer from the incident that this is how real men settle scores.

One way to reduce a growing tumor is to cut off its blood supply. If we discourage others from using their cash to patronize print, video and audio businesses of people we disagree with, like a blood-starved tumor, these "products" will also begin to wither.

One can also support political leaders committed to restoring cultural sanity, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), or we can align ourselves with national organizations found at Web sites such as http://www.parentstv.org/

Either way, it's up to us. Then again (pass the dip, please), we can always leave it to someone else.

Offering gifts and hopes this holiday season

Published 12.21.2006 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

As this is the season of giving and sharing, I wish to publicly share the following holiday gifts and warm wishes for the new year to some specific recipients.

To project managers of the Marquette Interchange reconstruction or anyone else supporting this multiyear mess: I give a hand-selected bag of high-caffeine coffee that will speed up the work (whether or not it is ahead of schedule now). May all the inconvenience caused by the next state highway project take place no closer to me than Plover but no further from you than your favorite grocer.

To all Wisconsin men and women in the armed forces who won't be home this holiday season: I offer my gratitude for your service and prayers for a safe trip home. For those who want to give more than good wishes, go to the state Department of Veterans Affairs Web site: dva.state.wi.us/supportourtroops.asp or call (800) 947-8387. There are a number of ways to get gifts to our service members overseas.

To Sen. Hillary Clinton: I give the strongest encouragement to run for president in 2008 and speak your mind without reservation. Your candidacy is the single best hope Republicans have to retain the White House.

To the aging, sniveling cynics who welcomed back American soldiers from Vietnam by spitting on them or calling them "baby killers": I didn't have time to get you anything, so why don't you just meet me for a quiet drink at the local VFW? Oh, and take a cab. I have some friends who would be happy to give you a lift home. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself as our service members return from the Middle East and that your children don't act as disgracefully as you did in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

To the anonymous donors of $25 million to Marquette University: You are doing God's work. No joke. However, my Christmas fund is almost depleted, so I believe I can scratch you from my list without much worry that you'll miss the Sam's Club membership card I had intended to send. I'm not sure where to send it anyway.

To the Milwaukee Public Schools and City Hall: No gift to you would be sufficient in that you already have given so much to Milwaukee taxpayers in the form of that inadvertent (but perhaps temporary) $9.1 million tax break. Now, could you extend your good deed by convincing Madison lawmakers that the rest of us in Wisconsin need more tax relief, too?

To the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents: At considerable personal expense, I have had made several engraved copies of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision striking down the practice of the University of Michigan's Law School to award an extra 20 points to its applicants purely on the basis of minority status. Please read it with a warm holiday beverage in front of your fireplace and recall what your dear grandma once said about two wrongs never making a right. Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable, even the kind that works in reverse.

To every jewelry store owner or jewelry department manager in southern Wisconsin: I give a large bag of price tags. Please place them in plain view in your merchandise displays so I don't have to repeatedly waste time or feel embarrassed by asking the price of items that I cannot afford to buy.

Finally, my personal holiday wish to all readers, regardless of what you celebrate at this time of the year: God bless you, and may 2007 be just a tad better for us all.

Speaking of speakers...

Supposedly, our most common fear is public speaking.

Yet many experienced speakers, comfortable with their own abilities, blithely deliver presentations with so little regard for the audience, that one wishes they’d contract this phobia in its severest form and never speak publicly again.

And many others paralyzed by the dreaded prospect of giving a speech in public, are the ones we ought to hear from. Life is full of cruel ironies.

Most people are conscientious enough to adhere to a few intuitive rules and share their knowledge, views, etc. without any communications primer whatsoever. Only courtesy and common sense are needed.

Back in 1992 retired U.S. Admiral, Stanford University professor and Ross Perot running mate James Stockdale began to speak at a vice presidential debate by saying, “Who am I?” “Why am I here?”

His words were greeted with laughter and later parodied on TV. I laughed too. At the moment, Mr. Stockdale sounded like a stunned buffoon before a worldwide audience. And that was more cruel irony since he was of course, a genuine American patriot, scholar and highly decorated Vietnam War veteran.

Although Mr. Stockdale, who died last year, was mocked for those lines, the fact is, he began by trying to explain exactly who he was and why he stood before us. So simple, yet how many times do speakers drone on without giving even the most perfunctory information about who they are, what their organization does or what we can expect to learn that day?

Start by explaining who you are, your organization’s goals or mission and your role. Share an agenda or an outline for the presentation that tells your audience the sequence of topics you’ll cover. Mention that after your prepared remarks, you’ll take questions. Don’t leave us guessing or assume we know any of these things. We don’t. And before drafting your agenda, ask yourself and others- What does my audience really want from me? Then stick to it. Save your meandering town hall style for friends and family.

Of course, famous speakers don’t require much introduction or a clearly stated agenda because those things are already obvious to their audience. But famous speakers don’t get a free pass. We come to hear them for the same reason we come to hear ordinary people. We want a better understanding about something the speaker knows and the speaker’s job is to transfer as much of that understanding as possible in the time allotted.

Years ago I attended a breakfast event in Chicago where the keynote speaker was a renowned economist. People, who had paid handsomely to eat cold eggs and hear her views, packed a hall at a swanky downtown hotel.

Midway through her presentation, she began talking about her relationship with one of her children. I don’t mean a short, illustrative anecdote related to her topic. I’m talking about useless paragraphs spewed out to an audience that didn’t care. No one in attendance was inherently uncaring; the problem was a speaker who forgot her purpose and indulged some odd impulse she had to stray from it.

Unless you’re someone like Dr. Phil or the late Leo Buscaglia, PhD, we didn’t come to learn about your feelings. We want to learn something else which is why we chose to invest time with you in the first place.

Then there is the visual aid. If you use technology to underscore your points, make sure it works or don’t use it. If you frequently can’t connect to a website, get that video clip to run properly, etc.; don’t hope for the best knowing you can summon an attendant while your audience waits.

So as an early Christmas present to all of us subjected to public speakers from home, school, church, government, nonprofit organizations or business, if you can remember nothing else, please remember this - when it’s your turn to speak; respect your audiences’ time and they’ll respect you.


John Maddente © 2006

.

Opposing gay marriage isn't bigotry

Published: Nov. 15, 2006 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Several months ago, I was struck by a Quick Hit from a Journal Sentinel editorial writer who didn't understand why same-sex marriage was such a "big deal" among people who oppose the concept.

Supporters of same-sex marriage generally fall into two groups. The first group supports it purely on grounds of equality and treating others humanely regardless of race, origin, creed, etc. I can't argue with those supporters' motives, only with their judgment and apparent disregard for the importance of the traditional family unit. I place the aforementioned writer in this camp. At least we can talk.

The second group is more subliminal in practice. Those supporters wrap their arguments around the notion of equality, but what they actually want is societal re-engineering, and they'll say or do just about anything to achieve it. They insist that anyone rejecting the notion of same-sex marriage is motivated solely by bigotry.

Someone from this second camp must have occupied an office across the street from my own on Wisconsin Ave. He or she projected a large banner from a window to persuade pedestrians to vote "no" on the Nov. 7 marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage and in the process to "say no to bigotry."

It's hard to converse with one calling you a bigot, so before we go further, you must accept the premise that it is possible to treat homosexuals with the same decency that any other human deserves while still rejecting the same-sex marriage movement. If you cannot reconcile those two things, read no further; I'll never reach you.

Of course, we ought to treat homosexuals with the same decency as anyone else, but we don't have to embrace the concept that a marriage (and thus a family) stemming from a same-sex couple deserves society's unmitigated Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

But back to that second faction of the same-sex marriage group. What those supporters really want is for the rest of us to dispense with our construct of an acceptable family model. (That's the big deal.) Their imperative to recognize a same-sex union as a marriage has more to do with destroying long-held societal notions of what constitutes a family than it has to do with equality.

After all, there is nothing precluding a same-sex couple from living together, pledging commitment to one another and, increasingly, receiving a partner's benefits from American employers.

To be sure, a heterosexual marriage cannot, in and of itself, guarantee a sublime family life, but that is not the point. With all other factors equal, are well-adjusted children just as likely to emerge from same-sex families as from heterosexual parents?

If you believe in providence or a higher power of any kind, do you really think it is an accident that only heterosexual couples can conceive a child? Should we alter an institution that is thousands of years old to accommodate less than 2% of our population trying to experiment with child-rearing?

Most Wisconsin voters felt the answer to those questions was "no," and I believe many voting with that majority also view the same-gendered couple next door as much two of God's children as a heterosexual couple. We simply reject the notion of some New Age family unit.

To oppose an expanded definition of marriage does not equate to bigotry. Preserving the nuclear family is a cause most people hold as an immutable necessity for a stable society.

All too often, one can, with impunity, accuse anyone of bigotry or racism. Just cloak your arguments under the protective banner of "diversity" or "inclusiveness." No standard of proof or reason is required.

Unity among the divided

Published: Oct. 5, 2006 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

There was a time when we didn't require hyphens to describe our citizenship - we were all just Americans. There was a time when no one, not a head of state or a popular rapper, would have the temerity to call the president of the United States a devil or a racist. There was a time when no one, Republican or Democrat, would go to an opposing party's Milwaukee offices to slash car tires on election day.

Times have changed. Yet there are still bright moments for those who believe we have some collective principles as a people. If you ever felt moved after someone you don't care for takes a public stand to defend you, you'll know what I mean. Something triggered that feeling recently.

Consider the words uttered on national television Sept. 21 by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.). Rangel is a highly visible politico, a street fighter with a law degree who never minces words for his base on the left (some would say far left). He is a formidable debater who usually manages to alienate people like me - until recently.

Referring to the anti-Bush blather delivered at the United Nations by Venezuela's Fidel Castro-adoring president, Hugo Chavez, Rangel said: "You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president."

Recounting his words still gives me a chill. You just wanted to hug the guy.

No, I don't care for Rangel's politics, but I must concede it takes integrity to rise above your differences and publicly defend a bitter adversary - after that adversary has been smeared - because your love of country compels you to do so.

Chavez's performance was reminiscent of a college speech given by some over-caffeinated student who accuses "the establishment" of causing every misfortune in the world. Instead of a youthful prima donna, though, it was a head of state. And instead of blaming everyone with a job, the target was one man.

What happened to decorum and tradition among national leaders? President Reagan even refused to remove his suit coat in the Oval Office, citing a tradition and sense of respect that previous presidents had had for that hallowed place. Contrast that with Chavez.

There are acceptable boundaries of dissent when critiquing the way American power is projected throughout the world. Once the boundaries are breached, Americans will often come together to say, "Wait! This is my country."

There must be something that unites us as citizens, something we agree on, something we'll come together on, regardless of political disposition.

In June, a Milwaukee jury came together in federal court and returned a guilty verdict for a former state official in the travel contract scandal. It's doubtful the defense team or judge would've allowed a group of stalwart Republicans to pack a jury, so people of differing political persuasions must've acted together to reinforce the ideal that Wisconsin needs a government that doles out contracts ethically and within the law.

That notion is something we can all embrace - from Racine to Rhinelander.

Whether on a local or a national stage, divided as we are, it's still gratifying when opposing Americans can come together for a common purpose.

John Maddente of Delafield works at an international audit firm. His e-mail address is jmaddente@wi.rr.com. His Web log is at www.maddente.blogspot.com

Learning to save lives

Published September 13, 2006 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Normally, I find medical matters as interesting as a gossip column about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. So with some trepidation, I trudged off to learn about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other first responder techniques for medical emergencies.

CPR conjures a TV image of someone blowing air into the mouth of a victim and performing a series of rapid thumps on the person's chest using the heel of a hand. With that in my mind, a dozen or so other middle-aged guys and I convened at our local church hall for evening instruction.

We were joined by two experienced emergency room nurses and a number of flaccid, half-bodied mannequins strewn across the floor. The program, which was conceived to train church helpers (in our case ushers) about emergency procedures, has been in place for some time.

The techniques have been used on more than one occasion after a parishioner turned victim during Sunday services. Ironically, my own father had his first heart attack in 1968 while serving as a church usher.

Oh, but all the things I'd rather be doing tonight, I thought.

The nurse began by discussing the church locations and characteristics of a device she kept referring to as an AED. "Excuse me, what's an AED?" I asked. Answer: automated external defibrillator. Then I knew what she meant, but again, only from television.

For the medically uninitiated like me, an AED is that box-like device with cables at the end of which are pads that adhere to a victim's chest to deliver an electrical shock. I had no idea that these machines are increasingly being deployed throughout public buildings or that AED operation is no longer the exclusive domain of emergency room doctors, paramedics and TV actors.

Of course, no one should "play" at administering CPR, operating an AED or trying to help someone who appears to be choking. It's not child's play. Without proper training, one can do more harm than good before professionals arrive on the scene.

What about the legal liability after trying to help someone who ends up dying during or after CPR you administered? Presuming that the individual trying to help has been properly trained, acts reasonably and is not paid for performing CPR, he or she will most likely be protected.

According to the American Heart Association's student workbook, all 50 states have good Samaritan laws and no "lay rescuer has ever been successfully sued for performing CPR" because these laws protect someone acting in good faith to save a life.

No, it doesn't mean that you won't get served for trying. I hope in that fateful moment when someone drops before me, I won't be paralyzed by fear of a lawsuit. Legal fears preclude a great many of us from performing otherwise humane deeds.

Still not persuaded to take the time to learn these procedures? The Milwaukee office of the American Heart Association provided me information that might compel you or someone you know to obtain training:

• About 75% to 80% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests happen at home, and about 900 Americans die every day due to sudden cardiac arrest.

• Effective "bystander CPR" provided immediately after cardiac arrest can double a victim's chance of survival.

• If bystander CPR is not provided, a sudden cardiac arrest victim's chances of survival fall 7% to 10% for every minute of delay until defibrillation. Few attempts at resuscitation are successful if CPR and defibrillation are not provided within minutes of collapse.

You don't have to invest a ton of time, either. The American Heart Association created CPR Anytime for Family and Friends as a simple, affordable way for people to learn CPR in their homes. It costs only $30 and includes a CPR mannequin, a DVD and resource booklet.

To find an American Heart Association CPR or AED course or to order the CPR Anytime kit, call (877) 242-4277.

It's more interesting than a Hollywood gossip column any day.

John Maddente of Delafield works at an international audit firm. His e-mail address is jmaddente@wi.rr.com. His Web log is at www.maddente.blogspot.com

Religion in sports? Amen

Published: Aug. 15, 2006 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The first thing I noticed was the likeness of Reggie White and a crucifix in a half-page spread. Hundreds of miles from home, I found the prominent article about the late Green Bay Packer in a national newspaper a welcome sight.

The second thing was the not-so-humble headline: "Reggie's (whole) story." Unsure how one can reveal the "whole" anything in one opinion article, I grabbed my hotel copy of the July 31 USA Today.

The article was timely because White would be posthumously inducted into Pro Football's Hall of Fame that week.

So what was the startling news, I wondered? Reading the first paragraph about White's "regrets" of preaching while in uniform, I began to anticipate some bombshell admission made just prior to his death. Maybe someone discovered a tape White recorded before his short life ended in 2004.

I prepared to have the image of a man whom I admired not only for devastating play on the football field but also for an unabashed faith life off the field altered in some way.

However, the article failed to deliver what one might have expected from its headline, first paragraph or closing sentence: "Let's remember Reggie's story - all of it."

That's when I became more intrigued with the author - Tom Krattenmaker, who holds a master's degree in religion from the University of Pennsylvania and serves on USA Today's board of contributors.

Krattenmaker's work reveals a recurring theme of what troubles him. With all that imperils professional sports today - bloated payrolls, steroids, player scandals, etc. - Krattenmaker worries about the increasing menace of overt displays of faith practiced by Christian athletes and religious organizations supporting them.

Several of his works that sound a warning include: "Going long for Jesus," "Playing the 'God' card" and "A 'war' on Christians? No." But back to his article on White.

The first problem is that there is little new in the article. Indeed, Krattenmaker simply recycled the same quotes from his Jan. 3, 2005, piece titled "Rushing for Jesus" (published at Salon.com).

Team chaplains and public displays of faith among professional athletes are not new, either. Wisconsinites old enough to remember the Lombardi era will recall St. Vince's oft-repeated mantra to players about three priorities: God, family and football.

Yes, the framers of our Constitution took care to preserve a separation of church and state. They didn't want religious fanaticism to supplant the role of government. They also wanted to protect the rights of citizens to worship, or not, as they choose.

But Krattenmaker invokes the church-state boundary by reminding us that sports facilities used during displays of Christian faith are publicly financed. He forgets that attendees at these games are voluntarily voting with very private dollars - the same private dollars that patronize advertisers feeding the money machine of pro sports.

There is our check and balance. We do not need a separation of church and locker room.

The second problem with Krattenmaker's work is that there is no arresting feature or strong indicators to support his assertion that something is increasingly awry in professional sports due to "the conspicuous religiosity that we witness in pro sports today." And we can't know had he lived longer whether White would have fully adopted Krattenmaker's cause.

The quotes used in the article do reveal that White felt sports ministries had exploited his fame, that deeds are more important than preaching and that he was living that ethos more than before.

But that's it. I see thin evidence to justify a mission to identify what Krattenmaker calls "the appropriate place of religion in pro sports" or to control a force he describes as "problematic."

Krattenmaker is working on a book about the influence of religion in pro sports. I'm content to close this chapter with words from White's widow, Sara, addressing fans on Aug. 5: "I encourage you to live like Reggie lived."

Amen.

The destruction of Arthur Andersen

On March 22nd, 2002 I published this letter on the Op-ed pages of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

"The recently announced blanket indictment of Arthur Andersen is not appropriate or beneficial for anyone.

With the comprehensive nature of this indictment, the Department of Justice has chosen to imperil an 89-year-old institution and the livelihood it provides for tens of thousands of innocent Andersen employees, including around 650 Wisconsinites.

How will former Enron Corp. employees receive "a bit of solace" - as the March 15 editorial "First blood in Enron debacle" put it- if other blameless people join their ranks?

Two wrongs never make a right, and the indictment of the whole Andersen organization by the Department of Justice, for incidents that Andersen itself reported to the department, is already drawing suspicion in the court of public opinion.

Stay tuned."

Post Script: On May 31st, 2005, the United States Supreme Court unanimously threw out the Arthur Andersen conviction.

How do you rate on the phone etiquette meter?

I have fumed about this issue for years. It’s called phone etiquette. 

When you call someone you are invading their time, their office, their home, or their concentration...whatever. You’re an invader, perhaps a friendly one, but nonetheless an invader. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon YOU, the invader, to identify yourself FIRST. Hear me? Identify yourself first.

As a boy, I was raised to answer our home phone thus: “Maddentes’ residence, John speaking, may I ask who is calling please?"

OK, I don’t do that any longer; and I don’t ask my children to that either, however, I always identify myself first when I am calling someone at work, or at home. It is the minimum amount of courtesy one ought to expect. To make a person answering the phone have to guess your identity, is rude.

This issue applies to work or home life. My daughters get phone calls from school mates and as soon as I answer, the caller usually begins by saying something like “Hi is Lauren there?”  Sometimes, there is not even a greeting, it’s just, “Is Katherine there?”

 Whoa! You are asking me to function as a switchboard operator and just turn the phone over to my daughter without the courtesy of even knowing who you are?

I suspect it’s generally how your parents used the phone that affects the way you practice (or choose not to practice) phone etiquette. I just penned this post after taking a call from an adult who after hearing me answer said simply, “Hi is Caitlyn, there?”

Now I immediately responded with “I’m sorry, you must have the wrong number.” As it turns out, my daughter got on an extension in the nick of time and said “Dad, hold it she’s here!” I knew my daughter had a guest over, but I know her as “Katy” not “Caitlyn.”  Had her Mother began the phone conversation by saying, “Hi, this is Caitlyn’s Mother calling…” I would have quickly made the connection and spared us both the embarrassment.

My wife gets calls from a neighborhood caller (whom I really do like) and I have a little unspoken game with her. The woman calls, doesn’t identify herself and simply says “Is Mary there?” I answer knowing full well who she is because of her familiar voice - and I reply - “May I ask who is calling please?”

We both know how the game is played and we both never change our lines. Once she says, “Its Gladys Pickover (name changed to keep me out of trouble) I immediately break in with something like, “Hello Gladys, good to hear from you!”

That’s how we play the game.  When I answer, she knows she’s going to get “the question” from me, but instead of beginning with a simple “Hi, it’s Gladys” - she puts us both through the paces and I stick to my part of the game by asking who is calling.

It drives my wife nuts, but I won’t change (and I doubt `Gladys' will either).

Again, this principle applies equally well to home or work. Yesterday, with our office assistant on vacation, a few of us were trying to figure out how to work the postage meter. One consultant, deeply in the throws of solving the problem, received a call at her desk. To make myself useful (and keep her focused on the postage problem) I answered the phone for her.  It was an internal call from another firm office, but before turning the call over to the consultant, I asked the caller, “Could I tell her who is calling?” 

I wouldn’t think of doing any less.

A blockbuster book on Enron...

For a definitive account of the whole Enron matter, grab a copy of Conspiracy of Fools (Broadway Books) by Kurt Eichenwald, a New York Times Reporter based in Dallas.

At over 700 pages, you won't exhaust this book in one afternoon, but I guarantee you'll have difficulty putting it down.

Unlike creators of the silly TV movie "The Crooked E" (I still can't believe they cast Mike Farrell as the late Ken Lay) or authors of the well-titled, but shallow account "Final Accounting" by Barbara Ley Toffler and Jennifer Reingold. (Yes Ms. Toffler it's true, partners at professional services firms must sell work!) - Mr. Eichenwald delivers substance.

Eichenwald manages to avoid easy stereotypes of all the major players in his meticulously-researched tome.  He writes with the verve of a mystery novelist, so you can't turn the pages fast enough, even though you know how the tale ends.

This richly-detailed account confirmed some of my early impressions about the primary players involved in the drama.  For example, if one read the news stories it was hard to come away with any sympathy for the defrocked and now incarcerated, ex-CFO Andy Fastow. After reading Mr. Eichenwald's book, that hasn't changed for me. In fact I don't think the word "venal" is too strong a word to describe this guy or his in-house accounting accomplice, Michael Kopper.

But the fired Andersen partner turned government witness, Mr. David Duncan was (and I suspect still is) viewed in some quarters as an unwitting, sacrificial lamb offered up to the wolves by Andersen's leadership in order to quash the inquiry.

When reading Conspiracy of Fools, readers are reminded that Mr. Duncan repeatedly ignored and possibly distorted advice given from Andersen advisors rendering in-house guidance on push-it-to-the-line accounting matters.  Still I have some pity for Mr. Duncan and his family. Like Icarus, he flew way too close to the sun and burned himself...big time.  It happens. 

I disagree with Mr. Eichenwald's conclusion that Andersen as an entire firm "deserved the death penalty."  Andersen was a dynamic, monolithic institution with a rich history and I was proud to be a part of it - if even for a short two and a half years.  Eichenwald might feel differently if he (like me and 84,000 other Andersen people) had been displaced by this debacle, because of the actions of a few Houstonians and a hyperactive Justice Department. 

All that notwithstanding, I recommend that all interested parties read this fine book.

When “process” tops reason

At first I thought it was one of those sales gimmicks designed to look like a check. Then I thought it was one of those checks that really is a check, but transforms itself into a purchase commitment once you cash it. However, after I saw the state’s treasury insignia, I knew my check was the real deal.

You see this weekend I was the recipient of a tax refund check in the amount of one dollar from a state in which I delivered services for five days last year. (And so I dutifully filed a state tax return there). Somehow I was over withheld by one whole dollar and I’m pleased that the State of California came clean and issued my refund.

How many such checks does a state like California (often described as the world’s sixth largest economy), generate each year? What does it cost to process them? What does it cost to reconcile them? How many go uncashed? I presume the reasons that payees would not cash such a check would be that: 1) he/she never received it; 2) they lost it after receiving it, or 3) they just threw it away. I doubt that fraud is an issue. Who would steal one?

My colleagues and I find inefficiencies like this one after we do our assessments, because our software quantifies all low dollar disbursements (and also low dollar invoices, but that’s another column). The Institute of Management Administration (IOMA) has published many estimates of what the internal cost is for the average organization to generate a check. The last estimate I saw was something like $8 to $10 per check. We don’t quibble with clients who feel their internal cost is lower than IOMA’s estimate. We’d rather ask the client to identify what number they want to use, because everyone knows it costs something. It’s in our interest to agree with their estimated cost per transaction, because it doesn’t matter. Whatever cost they want to use can be applied to so many low dollar transactions that the cumulative estimate of the waste usually gets their attention anyway because it is often staggering.

We have all seen this sort of thing before with tax authorities, including the granddaddy of them all…the IRS. You have probably read articles where the fodder for ridicule was some system-generated letter from the IRS demanding payment of back taxes for a small dollar amount (or mere cents). The letter implied that a failure to make payment within a period of time could result in some serious and thus cost-inefficient, IRS reprisal. I haven’t seen that sort of article in a while however, so the IRS might have fixed that “process.”

In the interest of efficiency, I would gladly forfeit my claim to the dollar any state owed me. Wouldn’t you do that much in service to your fellow Americans in another state, or would you still demand your out-of-state buck regardless?

I don’t know tax law or what the states are bound to do, but is it conceivable that it would be more expensive to change their processes than it is to routinely generate and manage checks in the amount of a dollar or less? Would it require some vast investment to modify their internal accounting procedures and make system changes? Would it take decades to reap their payback?

Send me a quick e-mail if you have thoughts on the subject.

A Post-Katrina piece (written autumn, 2005)

It was only a question of time. After a national catastrophe like Katrina, the usual voices are singing their accusatory hymns of indifference to the poor and racism, while a grieving nation fumbles to make sense of it all.

The only thing we haven’t heard was that at the behest of President Bush and a cabal of scheming advisors, the National Weather Bureau conspired with the Army Corps of Engineers to create a level four hurricane that would ravage an unsuspecting body of citizens because they are unlikely to vote Republican. Give those voices more time; conspiracies like that one take longer to fully mature.

The point is this: we can decry a disgracefully inept response to a mammoth tragedy, hold accountable, sack, humiliate and even prosecute decision-makers at all levels who controlled resources that could have helped more of our southern citizens. We can blame, excoriate, ridicule and permanently mutilate the careers of those who might have executed a more efficient evacuation from a tragedy described by New York Times Columnist David Brooks as “the most anticipated natural disaster in American history.” We can reexamine the underlying policy reasons why a massive infusion of funding from a defensive posture to an offensive one to root out global terrorism, might leave us handicapped to act swiftly at home.

Let us do all this and more but in the process let us also reject the irresponsible voices throwing out their shopworn race card because their empty charges only extend the harm done by the hurricane.

Even contributors on the editorial pages of my local newspaper (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) could not resist the temptation to tar the Bush administration with a recent piece entitled, “A racial rift sadly revealed” (Sept. 9, 2005).

What is so bothersome is the suggestion that we are ALL responsible for ALL the poverty in our midst and if only we’d fund more government programs for the inner cities, tragedies like Katrina could be averted.

Make certain that midnight basketball programs are flush with cash and Louisiana levees will hold. Rap Singers on stage call the President of the United States a Racist and a few columnists are actually tying the Katrina tragedy to “tax cuts for the rich.”
Visit a cocktail party hosted by someone who thinks that way and whisper dismay over a lack of personal responsibility among those forewarned and able to avert Katrina but who chose to remain in the hurricane’s path, or condemn the behavior of those looting stores for nonessential items and in either case the party host will brand you a Racist. But camouflage your talk about Katrina victims in terms of a personal contempt for Bush policies and you come off as humanely as Dr. Schweitzer. Indeed, have another drink.

Tendencies to brand American policymakers with accusations of racism after natural calamities is not new. In some cases, the effects can endure. In his last book, To America, Personal Reflections of an Historian (Simon & Schuster, 2002) the former University of New Orleans professor Stephen E. Ambrose writes about the propensity of educators over the decades to teach American expansionism in the West as a period where we practiced genocide of the American Indian.

Ambrose called such explanations for the complete disappearance of Indian tribes “totally irresponsible.”  That our forefathers’ policies equated to a massive land grab, that they broke innumerable treaties, that they failed miserably to assimilate Native Americans is all quite true he reminded us. Yet the only factual basis behind the total disappearance of Indian tribes occurred, as Ambrose wrote,”…because of the introduction of European diseases, most of all smallpox.”

If he was alive and writing about Katrina years from now, perhaps Dr. Ambrose would point out to some that the disappearance of his beloved Crescent City in the year 2005 was due to a devastating hurricane - not racism or indifference to the poor.

Brokaw & Co. - Revisited 10 years later

Reading this piece nearly 10 years after I published it, I now feel that the landscape has balanced to some degree.  (2007 Brokaw photo added Oct. 2009)

At least two major factors account for more press accountability and political balance these days. One is the influence of what you are reading right now. Blogs. People were not blogging 10 years ago, but their influence (no not mine, theirs) applied pressures for accurate and fair reporting in the years since I wrote the Brokaw piece.

A great example of this is how bloggers impacted the whole Mary Mapes scandal at CBS, upon which Dan Rather based his attrociously flawed reporting on George W. Bush's military service. It was bloggers that broke the story about those bogus documents, not mainstream media. The point is, there are legions of bloggers leaning right, center and left, working at all hours to flesh out facts and stories that "professional" journalists miss or choose to ignore. That's a wonderful thing for anyone who champions accuracy and fairness in reporting.

Another major reason the landscape has become more balanced is the surge in conservative talk radio and alternative news and commentary on TV. I don't listen or watch all of it and some of it is over the top, but the more interesting question is, why has conservative media proliferated? Simple economics. There was a palpable market demand for conservative vanatge points in mainstream media. People who control programming are in it to make money. They saw a market that was ignored and they capitalized upon it. Key point: that market was ignored.

Brokaw & Co. still in denial

Published July 12, 1996, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Perhaps it's just too much to ask, because few prominent journalists will publicly break ranks when asked to comment on the "B" word. The issue of media "bias" surfaced again. And once again, it was drowned by the voices of the renowned.

At a recent National Press Club luncheon in Washington, NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw's responses to hard questions about the Fourth Estate did little to foil skeptics. Public television's Jim Lehrer's rejoinders to the same questions were entirely different. You had to believe one man or the other.

The fodder at this event was a well-publicized survey suggesting that 89% of U.S. journalists voted for Clinton in 1992. Asked to comment on the survey, Brokaw dismissed the familiar charge of industry bias by providing an equally tired reason why he feels it just is not so.

Echoing most of his colleagues from print to broadcast and sea to shining sea, he mused, "Bias like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder." In essence, the logic is that since complaints come from interlocutors at both ends of the political spectrum, (moreover, since the Clinton White House complains) the liberal bias issue must be overblown.

Of course, extremists will always cry foul. But most Americans, by definition, fall closer to the center of the political spectrum than either extreme. What could trouble more journalists is that Americans on the whole view the media as a decidedly liberal institution.

Can this group police itself as easily as Brokaw would have us believe? Brokaw theorized that since he and others owning responsible positions still remain, it is at least partial testimony to their objective performances. I think; therefore, I am. It worked for Rene Descartes.

He reminded the audience, "Otherwise, we just wouldn't survive."

Really? If 89% of our media are indeed left-leaning, how do journalists take risks by injecting liberal sentiments before so many ideologically like-minded editors? Brokaw is a pro and few would insist that he has to trash CNN's Peter Arnett to appear fair. However, he could have given the media a bounce on the credibility meter. He could have strayed from the party line and conceded that slanted reporting occurs and yes, it often does tilt to the left.

Brokaw could have said that responsible journalists don't have personal agendas and that others who do should find another way to make a living. He didn't. Instead, Brokaw chose to decry those reporters who have become "too much news celebrities in the eyes of the public." It was an odd attempt at critical balance coming from a regular guest on David Letterman's show.

PBS news anchor and author Leherer shared the podium with Brokaw at the same event. If Brokaw's remarks gave testimony to the continuing miasma of denial among major figures, Lehrer's comments were a sorely needed tonic.

In refreshing contrast, Lehrer drew a sharp distinction between himself and the pack. "Nobody in this room has to agree with me, including Tom," said Lehrer, as he surged with contempt for the "slippage" in journalism. "Remember, we are down there with the lawyers and the members of Congress on the public esteem polls," he opined.

Most repugnant to Lehrer is the subtle coloring of the news by journalists who make it difficult to distinguish an editorial from a news report. "People have just stepped over the line...and I think a very simple solution is just to quit doing it," he asserted.

Amen. Although Lehrer stopped short of calling the nature of the "slippage" inherently liberal, he at least acknowledged that something is amiss and allowed us to ponder its origin.

The most startling development of the entire Brokaw/Lehrer news hours was the scant, but audible applause after Lehrer's carefully worded scrutiny of his contemporaries. For those not watching that day, the word scant is safely defined here as something less than 89%.

The destruction of Arthur Andersen

On March 22nd, 2002 I published this letter on the Op-ed pages of the Milwaukee JournalSentinel:

"The recently announced blanket indictment of Arthur Andersen is not appropriate or beneficial for anyone.

With the comprehensive nature of this indictment, the Department of Justice has chosen to imperil an 89-year-old institution and the livelihood it provides for tens of thousands of innocent Andersen employees, including around 650 Wisconsinites.

How will former Enron Corp. employees receive "a bit of solace" - as the March 15 editorial "First blood in Enron debacle" put it- if other blameless people join their ranks?

Two wrongs never make a right, and the indictment of the whole Andersen organization by the Department of Justice, for incidents that Andersen itself reported to the department, is already drawing suspicion in the court of public opinion.

Stay tuned."

Post Script: On May 31st, 2005, the United States Supreme Court unanimously threw out the Arthur Andersen conviction.

My abbreviated views on "domestic surveillance"

Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society (the ability to express myself through this web log is an obvious example). However, civil liberties do not in and of themselves, supersede national security. By using the term "civil liberties" I am writing primarily about the right to privacy guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.

In my view, national security trumps the right to privacy when the party imposing security measures (e.g. the U.S. Government) is functioning in the interest of the people it is imposing such measures upon, to protect them from those who would do them harm (e.g. Terrorists). That is precisely the circumstance we are faced with today.

I love freedom as much as anyone, but some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll, to making my blood boil. Why all the drum beating? Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act enacted in 1996 (better known as HIPAA), for example, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation. I wasn't particularily concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many "abuses" of that law have been documented in the last 10 years?

Now consider all the domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls YOU have made, or books YOU have checked out?

Of course not and I don't want to hamper their efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Dick Cheney can check my phone logs whenever he pleases.

Remember that speech Pat Buchanan made in 1992?

Published: Nov. 20, 2004, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

More than 12 years ago, Patrick J. Buchanan spoke these prophetic words during his speech at the Republican National Convention in Houston:

“My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.”

Immediately afterward, Buchanan was roundly denounced as a polemicist and even scorned by members of his own party. Some called it a hate speech; others groused about the political fallout and later blamed him for George H. W. Bush’s failure to win re-election in 1992. Whether or not you agree with his politics, Buchanan had the foresight and fortitude to call attention to philosophical warfare that was real then and remains so today.

Since Nov. 2, analysts all over the airwaves and in print are still scrambling to understand the so-called moral values phenomena that proved so pivotal in our recent election. Debate has centered on the phraseology used during exit polls and which voters actually espoused which values in their voting patterns. It is instructive, however, to go back to that summer evening in August 1992, and recall what Buchanan said about America’s moral values, and compare that to what happened at the polls this autumn:

“We stand with President Bush for right-to-life and for voluntary prayer in the public schools.”

Abortion and religious expression have not taken a back seat at the American kitchen table of debate, not even close. Neither has the topic of how American power is projected throughout the world. Although he opposed the invasion of Iraq, few people can turn a phrase on the subject of using America’s military might as effectively as Buchanan did that August evening in 1992:

“It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity - with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham Lincoln preserved the union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.

“And it is time my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves - for leading America to victory in the Cold War.”

I felt that the 2004 presidential candidates’ differing views on national security and the war on terror were among the most important factors in this election.
Everyone wants peace and freedom, but I often place it first on my punch list as a voter because without it, little else matters. Sen. John Kerry’s opposition to the 1990 Gulf War, his on-again, off-again support for the Iraq war, his disgraceful Senate Committee testimony as a Vietnam veteran and his disturbing “global test” to see a foreign show of hands before taking action scared me. But back to that Aug. 17, 1992, Buchanan speech:

“We stand with (the president) against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women. “

More recently, on Nov. 2, 2004, voters in the 11 states containing a referendum on the issue of gay marriage agreed with Buchanan. Whether those votes constituted an actual plebiscite on the morality of gay marriage is less clear than the fact that 11 states uniformly rejected the concept, while Democrats remained oddly divided on the subject. Buchanan also made this observation in 1992:

“And we stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.”

In the old days, when conservatives would complain about overt sexuality in TV movies and programs, the standard liberal retort was, “If you don’t like it, just change the channel.” It worked, too, because if you argued with them, they’d cry censorship and take the debate to a new and wholly unrelated dimension. Now sexual images are so ubiquitous in advertisements that you can’t simply turn the channel or flip the page. These days, even the Super Bowl halftime show has become hazardous viewing for children.

Yet as the dust begins to settle from the harsh 2004 campaign, I am thinking as much about how we treated one another as the convictions we expressed during combat. How we debate our values is a value unto itself. This election season reminded me of how hard it could be to have civil disagreements with any measure of civility. Fortunately, personal attacks, racial or sexual slurs and cheap shots designed to maim the spirit did not win this election.

Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, it was harder to remember that value as easily as it is to write about it now. But Old Pugnacious Pat saw it coming all along.