Municipal and School Board Races Apparently Make No Difference

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has given candidates for municipal and school board seats a free pass. In the process, voters are left in the dark.

Read the "stories" printed by our "newspaper" about these races. In most instances, there is little more than a brief biographical summary submitted by the candiates. For example, if I voted in Jackson, I would have no idea, after reading MJS's article, which candidates deserve my vote for the Village Board. The paper has told me nothing about these people. Even in races where there is an attempt at a story, it is clear that the "reporters" failed to learn where the candidates stand, or to draw any contrasts.

While it is true that most communities have local papers, it is equally true that most of the local papers have modest circulations, and most do not have on-line services. And while it is true that many candidates put out their own literature, newspapers are supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Is it any wonder MJS has a declining subscription base? The paper has virtually given up on writing about anything that actually affects readers.

And is it any wonder that expected turnout is around 20%?

State Bar President Candidate: "I Don't Want to be Told What to Do"

Doug Kammer, an attorney from Portage, is a candidate for President of the State Bar. You say, so what? Although you might not be a lawyer, you should read his position statement.

A friend forwarded his statement to me. I don't know Kammer. I don't know his politics (he might be a Democrat for all I know). I don't know whether or not he has a realistic chance to be elected.

But, his statement sheds some light on a monopolistic, bureaucratic, ever-ravenous, putrid, growing and mandatory monster. It seems that the State Bar has the same dynamics as much of our government. Kammer's reason for opposing mandatory Bar membership parallel my reasons for being a Conservative and a Republican.

I say, Doug Kammer, forget about being State Bar President. I nominate you for Governor!

Kammer says:

Mandatory membership in the State Bar must end.

I received a very angry e mail yesterday from a fellow small town practitioner, a loyal and zealous member of the state bar. He took umbrage at my efforts to make the bar voluntary. He chastised me for “making him the fool” for 20 years of assisting with the mock trial program, and sacrificing “countless Saturdays” in the effort. He felt I had been “sitting on the sidelines for years” rather than jumping in to “shake up” the bar leadership.

He missed my point. I laud his public service, and have done quite a bit of it myself. One can serve his fellows through the Methodist church, the Republican Party, or the Salvation Army. But I never tried to tell him that he MUST join the Methodist church, the Republican Party, or the Salvation Army. Why must all of us join the bar?

The bar has no purpose. For legal reasons, because it is mandatory, it cannot lobby or advocate. But if it could advocate, for whom would it do so? Would it urge caps on verdicts (as the insurance lawyers would have it do) or oppose them as urged by plaintiff’s lawyers? Would it attempt to open corporate records and facilitate derivative actions (as the consumer lawyers would have it do), or back the control of the boards of directors, as the corporate lawyers wish? There are no answers to these questions. The mandatory inclusiveness of the bar causes the conundrum. The uselessness of the bar is guaranteed by its very structure. A voluntary bar could lobby and promote our causes without any legal problems—but it would have to answer to its members. That means it would have to be in touch with its members. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?

The justification for an “integrated” or “unified” bar is to facilitate certain functions such as discipline and licensing: Functions that are already removed from the authority of our state bar. (The best argument to be found in support of the unified bar can be found at floridabar.org. In Florida a constitutional amendment is being considered to end the unified bar.)

With the functions of a unified bar already stripped away, what is the mission of the state bar? Is it to assist the practicing lawyer? It seems not. The stated mission is some vague notion of “the public interest,” but that seems to always devolve into actions embarrassing or expensive to the members. It set up the Lawyer’s Assistance Program, communicating to the public that we are drunks. It set up the Client Security Fund, informing the public that we are thieves. Now it requires that we tell our clients that they can arbitrate fees if they are unhappy, tacitly informing our clients that we are cheats. While it is never voiced, this notion of “the public interest” always seems to come down to protecting the public from us! With our money!

Is the purpose of the bar to provide services for lawyers? They would have you think so. But a look at the economics of this proves otherwise.

When I started practice, continuing education cost something like five dollars for a day-long class—and that was to cover the coffee and donuts. The time was donated by the speakers. And it still is. So why are we now shelling out $40 per hour per attendee? Well, folks, you are not members—you are profit centers. ATS-CLE takes in almost two million dollars a year, and after spending a quarter of a mil “marketing” to you, and two thirds of a mil on “personnel,” manages to dump over $400,000 on the bar.

And that is just the beginning. The book business is flourishing with your money too. That’s another two million in gross, with a cost of goods sold of about $400,000, and half a million in “personnel”, and a net fall-out to the bar of three quarters of a mil.

This is your money. The products are developed on company time—and it’s your company. Why are you paying for the product you paid to produce?

Where does all this money go?

Well, we spend almost four hundred grand a year on “consultants”. We have all this high-priced talent, but it seems we outsource the heavy lifting.

And salaries—Oh my! They won’t tell me who is paid what (that’s “confidential personnel information”—isn’t it interesting that the lawyer’s institution can’t obey the mandates of the Public Records law in Chapter 19 Stats.?) but it totals over five million dollars.

When there is no job to do, it takes lots of highly paid people to do it.

My particular favorite is 22 grand in “professional memberships”. Ask this riddle of your buddies: who are the 20 lawyers in Wisconsin not dumb enough to pay bar dues? The answer: The lawyers who work for the state bar! You pay it for them!

This is an eleven million dollar a year venture. It benefits nobody, and certainly not the members. This is the apodictic example of Parkinson’s Law: the bureau grows geometrically without any increase in demand placed upon it or enhanced output. It just feeds on itself.

But these are not the real reason for my candidacy. I am running because I don’t want to be told what to do. The five hundred dollars a year in dues is vexatious, to be sure, but I probably waste more money than that on one form of folly or another. I am proud to be a lawyer, but ashamed to be affiliated with the state bar. The public’s disdain of the profession is not caused by what I have done with my career. I have fought hard for my clients and strived to serve justice. I don’t think the bar reflects the values I have tried to bring to the profession. I don’t want to be forced to support it or be identified with it. Many of you feel the same. When polled in 1979, most of you did. You are being polled again by this election.

This organization is not going to change by itself. There are vested interests in the status quo that will not be moved without a swift kick in the pants. But those proponents of business-as-usual, and I include some members of the Supreme Court among them, must be shown that the majority is not happy, and is aggrieved enough to stand up. If change cannot be had within the legal community, perhaps it is time to seek outside help. The legislature entertains bills nearly every session aimed at restructuring the bar, and no advocate from our rank and file steps forward. It is time to show that the members have had enough and are willing to take drastic steps, if necessary, to end the stranglehold of the mandatory bar.

Principles in Politics and "A Man for All Seasons" (RIP Paul Scofield)

In my humble opinion, art has true value when it uplifts the spirit and gives people insights and inspiration to the better nature of the human condition. The Academy Award winning movie "A Man for All Seasons" certainly did that. Set aside the powerful religious issues addressed by that movie (although those are hard to ignore). The movie is a lesson for our politicians.

In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More is presented with a dilemma. Compromise deeply held principles, and he can have the world. Fail to do so, and he loses all he holds dear, including his life. He chose his principles, and paid the ultimate price.

If only we had a few politicians today who, when it mattered, would show 1% of the fortitude of More. Perhaps they might not be willing to die for their beliefs, but could a few of them risk their positions for those issues that matter most? Perhaps we should be asking our candidates what price they put on their integrity.

I raise this issue today because the star of "A Man for All Seasons," Paul Scofield, has passed away at the age of 86. Scofield, who won a Best Actor Oscar for his role as More, was one of the all time greats (although in this country he is little known). I have addressed this film previously, but decided that it is timely to mention it again on the occasion of Scofield's death.

Zogby Reports That Most Americans Would Prefer to Have John McCain Answer The Phone if There is a Crisis in the World at 3 a.m.

The most recent Zogby poll is good news for John McCain (and America). Perhaps the election can be about the President doing his job (keeping America safe and secure) rather than "Hope" or "Managing the Economy."

UTICA, New York – The recent Hillary Clinton campaign advertisement asking who Americans want answering the phone in the White House when a crisis erupts at 3 a.m. has sparked a national debate about which candidate would best handle such a phone call. But while the ad was designed to boost the Clinton candidacy, likely voters nationwide say they would feel more secure having Republican John McCain answering the call of a crisis, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

Given the choice between Clinton and McCain, 55% preferred McCain while 37% would want Clinton to answer the phone, while 9% said they were unsure.

If there is a crisis in the world and the telephone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House, who would you feel more secure answering that phone – Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

Hillary Clinton 37%
John McCain 55%
Not sure 9%

Between McCain and Obama, 56% favored McCain while 35% preferred Obama, with 10% saying they couldn’t make up their mind on the question.

The ad, which first ran in Texas in the days leading up to the March 4 primary election there, was designed to boost Clinton’s claim that she is more experienced than Obama, a familiar Clinton campaign theme this year. McCain is considered strong on national defense.

If there is a crisis in the world and the telephone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House, who would you feel more secure answering that phone – John McCain or Barack Obama?

John McCain 56%
Barack Obama 35%
Not sure 10%

In another Zogby poll released over the weekend, John McCain leads either Obama or Clinton in a three-way race including Ralph Nader. The poll found that Nader would receive 6% of the vote.

Congratulations Badgers, 2008 Big Ten Champs!

Having won the regular season championship is awesome and having won the Big 10 tournament is impressive, but winning both is historic. Congratulations to the 2008 UW Men's Basketball Badgers, and good luck in the NCAA tournament.

It Must Have Been a Really Good, and Long, Newspaper: Woman Sat on Toilet For Two Years

From jsonline.com (and the AP):

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) -- Authorities are considering charges in the bizarre case of a woman who sat on her boyfriend's toilet for two years - so long that her body was stuck to the seat by the time the man finally called police.

It appeared the 35-year-old Ness City woman's skin had grown around the seat, said Ness County Sheriff Bryan Whipple. The woman initially refused emergency medical services but was finally convinced by responders and her boyfriend that she needed to be checked out at a hospital.

"We pried the toilet seat off with a pry bar and the seat went with her to the hospital," Whipple said. "The hospital removed it."

Whipple said investigators planned to present their report Wednesday to the county attorney, who will determine whether any charges should be filed against the boyfriend.

"She was not glued. She was not tied. She was just physically stuck by her body," Whipple said. "It is hard to imagine. ... I still have a hard time imagining it myself." ...

I hope the boyfriend had a second toilet.

Rep. Jim Ott Responds to The Crocodile Cage's Post Regarding Ott's Non-Compete Legislation

Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon) responded to my post regarding the bill he offered limiting non-compete provisions in broadcast personalities' employment contracts. I will give him his say before responding, but first I apologize to the extent that my post sounded like I questioned his motives. I know he is well-meaning.

Here is what Rep. Ott said:

As usual, there is more to this story than first meets the eye. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

This is not a "personal bill" to right any wrongs. I have no further connection to the broadcasting industry, and will not benefit in any way if this bill eventually passes. Last summer a constituent contacted me who was also a broadcaster, who was being dismissed from his job without cause. The company was going to enforce the non-compete clause, to the point they would not even allow him to take a job in Chicago. This was reported in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. He called and asked me for help. I told him that I could introduce legislation but it obvious wouldn't pass in time to do him any good. He asked me to proceed anyway, and based on the fact that in 30 years in broadcasting I had seen many individuals treated in this unfair manner I introduced the bill. It is not uncommon for a legislator to introduce a bill based on a request from a constituent, especially when it's a situation that affects numbers of individuals.

Let me address each of your points individually:

"when they belong to that group" As I said, I have no connection to the broadcasting industry, and due to my entry into politics probably never will again. There is no benefit to me in introducing this legislation.

"Republicans should not be messing around with the free market" Actually, it is the broadcasting industry that is messing with the free market. Non-compete clauses are a part of the "boiler plate language" in employment contracts in broadcasting. The employee really doesn't have any choice if they want to work in the industry. It's a fairly common practice in the industry for the employer to fire an employee or not renew their contract without cause, and then insist on enforcing the non-compete clause. So the employer is saying they no longer want or need the services the employee, but they refuse to let the employee work in their chosen profession for anyone else either. This seems like a major interference with the free market.

"righting every perceived wrong" These are real wrongs, and there is nothing "perceived" about them. My bill is very narrowly focused. It only applies to broadcasting, and only applies if the employer makes the decision to terminate the relationship. If the employee decides to terminate, the non-compete remains in force. I have seen talented people released from their job for no stated reason, and be faced with the decision to move their families to another city or go into another line of work. So I think this bill would be good law, and correct a problem that has existed in the industry for some time.

By the way, I am working for more efficient spending and lower taxes in state government. Today one of my bills was signed into law. It discontinues the practice of the state automatically sending bound copies of the state statutes to every local and state official. The statutes are available online, and that's where most elected officials go to read them. Hard copies will still be available by request, but I suspect the state will save quite a bit of money on printing costs.

If anyone has questions regarding the non-compete legislation or any other issues before the Legislature they are always welcome to call me at 888-534-0023.

Thank You,

Jim Ott

First, I want to thank Rep. Ott for responding. He is one of the few truly good guys. He has done a good job in his two years in office, and his constituents have been lucky to have him as their representative. I think I have generally been complimentary on this site when mentioning him. Also, I appreciate his willingness to engage in a dialogue on this blog. It is just another example of his willingness to communicate and to be accessible to the public.

On this one issue, in my opinion, he is wrong - dead wrong. The moment conservatives believe that government can or should step in and right every wrong, perceived or real, it gives credence to the philosophy of the Left. We are then relegated to debating whether something is good or bad, a debate that generally jumps over the issue of whether this is actually something to which we want to give government authority.

This Bill is a minor issue. It won't change the world, or have any real affect on most people. But little issues are the best place to discuss bigger questions of principle because, when you get to the big issues, the mettle to live within principles is even more difficult.

Where does this stop? Smoking is bad - unhealthy, unproductive, and on and on. So, should we look at it from that perspective, or should we ask whether we really want government involved in regulating our health? Some (perhaps most) people believe there are benefits to in-classroom education - they believe it is a better system than home schooling. So, should we take away the right to home school? Check cashing stores charge exorbitant rates for cash checking and cash advances, and that's not "good." So, should we regulate them or ban them?

Frankly, Rep. Ott's Bill is little different than the Fairness Doctrine. It is true that conservatives have dominated talk radio (and liberals have dominated editorial pages). But the market has dictated those results. It is difficult, but not impossible, for opposing viewpoints to find a way to be heard in those mediums. Perhaps, to create competitive balance, something like the Fairness Doctrine would be "good." But is that government's role? Or should we let the market decide?

Similarly, radio and television stations have the upper hand in contract "negotiations" (I put it in quotes, acknowledging that the only negotiation involves whether to sign on the line). But broadcast personalities have a choice. They can choose to sign, or not. They can try to find a more enlightened place to work, buy their own station, or choose another line of work. No one makes someone enter that profession. We can decide to allow people to make their own choices, or we can have government intrude and create a new set of rules.

Rep. Ott is wrong in suggesting that a freely entered contract somehow interferes with the free market. Limiting any person's right to contract freely is always an interference.

There are situations in which a reasonable society is willing to interfere with the free market. But, rather than being the rule, doing so ought to be the very rare exception. We have resolved that government should do so when the public policy is so significant that it supersedes the freedoms taken away - Civil Rights, child labor, sanitary food, protection of human life, eliminating criminal behavior, ridding society of the pernicious results of drugs and so forth. But this hardly is comparable.

Also, Rep. Ott seems to imply that his government intrusion is acceptable because it is "narrowly focused." Frankly, that is often the worst form of legislation. We seldom have policy discissions about narrow issues precisely because they are narrow. Who cares? One narrow change does not mean much. But do 10 narrow changes? Or 100? Or 1,000? At some point, a lot of narrowly focused changes result in a significant policy shifts. Also, the rule of law works best when the lines are clear and simple. People respect the rule of law most when they believe that the same rules apply to everyone.

Freedom and free markets can be limiting. They require people to either live within the structures and practices that develop within their own industries or to change them through their own capital and efforts.

But the limitations of the free market are far less limiting than a society in which Big Government tries to constantly level the playing field, an ever-shifting task that always involves taking something from one person and giving it to another.

I point you to the quotation on the top of this page to summarize the risk in doing that.

Rep. Ott, I hope you have a long and distinguished tenure in the legislature. Keep up the good work. But please take a minute to examine where you believe the proper role of government ends. If there are no lines, but instead simply a debate of right and wrong, ultimately we end up with a thoroughly regulated society. We are already too far down that path, and I am pretty certain that it is regulated in ways that you and I find totally unacceptable.


PS My comments should not be taken as an indictment of Rep. Ott. I am certain that none of us who take the opportunity to comment would be as consistent in practice as we suggest in theory. In the past, when given the opportunity to have input in some decisions, I know I have not been as consistent as I would in retrospect have preferred.

Newest Scott Walker Ad

I can't understand how Milwaukee County voters could elect, as their County Executive, an undistinguished legislator who, in a televised forum, claimed that spending "has gone down in Wisconsin" over the past four years. But, it might; therefore, over the next 20 days, we need to repeatedly remind voters what is at stake.

Never Give In

I saw this first on Charlie's site. I think it is worth posting everywhere.

Updated List of Places Where Photo IDs are Required

On March 3, I posted a list of places where photo IDs are required. They were provided by readers and friends. Tonight, while reading some old posts on other sites, I was reminded of a few others (thanks Steve at No Runny Eggs and Little Miss Sunshine). So, I am adding their items to the list.

I need to present photo identification to:

Buy a hunting license.
Buy a fishing license.
Get a marriage license.
Donate blood.
Get on an airplane.
Enter the country.
Begin employment at a new job.
Cash a check.
Buy anything at Sam's Club.
Get a library card.
Buy alcohol at many retailers regardless of how old I appear.
Buy tobacco if I appear to be a minor.
Buy a cold medicine containing Pseudoephedrine.
Drive a car.
Sign-up for Public Assistance.
Apply for Social Security benefits.
Obtain a copy of a Statement of Economic Interest from the Accountability Board.
Apply for a retailer credit card.
See, rent or check out an R-rated movie.
Rent virtually anything (from a car to a video).
Have my signature notarized.
Retrieve a tax return from most tax preparers.
Join the YMCA.
Enter the Federal Courthouse.

Enter a Milwaukee Public School.
Enter many office buildings.
Enter a Veterans Administration hospital.

Still, we do not need photo identification to vote.

How long can we make this list?

Watch Out Even for the Good Guys

I like Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon). I think he has generally done a good job for a rookie legislator. But has anyone noticed his own personal bill to right the "wrong" done to him by Channel 4 in Milwaukee?

Ott has introduced 2007 AB 705, which limits "covenants by persons employed as on-air broadcasters on radio and television not to compete with an employer or principal after the termination of the employment or agency for any reason other than voluntary resignation or discharge for just cause."

First, legislators ought to avoid offering legislation that benefits a small group of people, particularly when they belong to that group. Second, Republicans should not be messing around with the free market except in extremely limited instances. Third, this kind of legislation signifies that a legislator needs to be reminded that he was elected to get government out of our lives rather than righting every perceived wrong.

I wouldn't mention this if Ott had an opponent. We need generally conservative legislators. But, hopefully, someone will notice this silliness (the bill will go nowhere), and he will be just a little embarrassed. Shaming can be good education.

Jim, stick to fighting spending and taxes in Wisconsin. Leave the over-regulation to the Democrats.

Like a Foot Fungus, Erpenbach and Unhealthy Wisconsin Just Keep Coming Back

Once again, Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) has introduced the largest business tax in the history of Wisconsin. This time it has the added benefit of an unelected board. Perhaps we should dump tea in Lake Mendota (what would the DNR do with that?).

What to Do When a Government Employee Quits on You? Pay Him

The News Graphic reports that the Mequon-Thiensville School Board has decided to pay exiting Superintendent Robert Slotterback a payment of $20,000 plus allowed him to continue to receive health, dental and life insurance benefits until he reaches age 65. Slotterback is 56. His contract provided that he would get these benefits only if he served for seven years. Slotterback served for only four years.

Why?

Peter Stone, the school board president, stated that they agreed to provide these benefits because Slotterback was under contract for one more year.

However, that same Peter Stone previously characterized Slotterback's exit as a retirement. Slotterback announced his retirement last November, and the agreement was executed in November.

So, why pay someone who is leaving on his own volition? That makes no sense (unless, perhaps, you are the government).

Of course, retiring is not always retiring. On February 21, a reporter for MJS reported that Slotterback has taken a similar job in Richfield, Minnesota. No one tells us if Slotterback still gets all of these benefits.

Slotterback took about a month off of work from mid-December to mid-January. He cited clinical depression. That occurred shortly after the retirement agreement was executed.

Considering these events, we do not know if Slotterback (who has been generally praised by the board) was actually dismissed. We do not know if there was some misconduct that is being kept quiet and that the payment was to avoid a discrimination complaint (perhaps age or mental illness).

You have to hope that this was not a retirement. If Slotterback did retire, you have to question the board's competence in giving Slotterback anything (particularly considering that his "retirement" lasted about three months).

What we do know is this: if this was not incompetence, Stone and Slotterback are fibbing. Either one, skirting the truth or giving away money for nothing, is inexcusable from people paid with tax dollars. Unfortunately, we too often have become accustomed to both.

Great Use of Tax Dollars: Grafton Library To Hold Nintendo Wii Bowling Tournaments

In addition to the story about the reduction of 10 teaching jobs at Homestead High School, the most recent News Graphic reports that the Grafton Library is offering a Wii bowling tournament to attract teenagers to the library. The article does not report what this might cost in equipment and manpower.

Is this really anywhere close to the core mission of a library? Ben Franklin would be shocked.

Like all libraries, I would guess that the Grafton Library staff complains frequently that it does not have enough money to maintain its book collection. At the same time, it can spend money on this!

Public libraries have been important to the growth and education of America. However, with the dawn of the Internet, and the widespread ownership of home computers, people are questioning the quantity and type of libraries we maintain. Maybe we cannot yet declare libraries obsolete, but it certainly is ridiculous to suggest libraries should be providing CDs, DVDs, videotape and video games. Some libraries even allow patrons to check-out art.

In some ways, libraries are typical of all government. Not enough people using a service? Rather than questioning the need for the service or downsizing, spend more money to encourage the public to use it (even if it means doing things that have nothing to do with the service). Successful in attracting users? Spend more money on the service. No matter what happens, spend more money.

Libraries are one function of local government where you really should not blame local elected officials. As a result of enlightened state law, local officials neither have the ability to make library policy nor, in most instances, have the authority to hold the line on spending increases. Such decisions are a combination of state formulas and unelected library boards.

When libraries change their focus from educating for the greater good to entertaining at public expense, the public has the right to question the use of dollars for libraries.

Homestead High School May Lay Off 10 Teachers

That was the headline in the most recent News Graphic, an Ozaukee County local paper. The article explains that, to alleviate budgetary woes, the Mequon-Thiensville School District has been requiring high school teachers to teach six classes per day. While that historically was the required workload, most recently many teachers taught five classes. Due to the increased workload, and a declining enrollment, the district is able to cut some teachers without raising class size or affecting offerings.

The Mequon-Thiensville Education Association maintains that, before laying-off teachers, the district should cut extracurriculars and other programs. Of course. After all, maintaining these jobs is more important than maintaining a well-rounded school experience.

The loss of 10 jobs is a personal tragedy for the individuals involved. However, it is a natural result of declining enrollment and a school district that is starting (albeit involuntarily) to take their responsibility to taxpayers at least somewhat seriously. This loss is not a tragedy for the district; instead, it is a victory for the residents of the district.

If there is blame, it should not be directed toward state law. The blame rests with the administrators who did not do this earlier and the unions who have made this more difficult. If the district had, a few years ago, ensured these efficiencies and properly planned, the jobs could have been cut through attrition. Instead, it will probably occur at the expense of these 10 teachers.

The Decision in Kiln Mississippi Makes a Hell of Lot More Difference to Me Than the One Being Made in Texas and Ohio

No, I do not want a Democrat to be elected President. I am involved in this election with my time, my money and my writing.

But I have thought long and hard about this. As a practical matter, it is unlikely that the next President will have an immediate impact on my life. If my taxes increase by 10%, it will hurt (a lot), but I will pay my bills. If liberals are appointed to the Court, it probably will not change my day-to-day life a whit. If we give up on the War on Terror, it is unlikely that my family or I will be killed by terrorits. All of these things would be horrible, and would harm our way of life in a macro sense but, for me personally, I probably will not be harmed.

But, Brett Favre retiring? Now that hits home. Twenty or more weekends next year will not be the same. Packers football gives me more joy than almost anything else other than my family. It will not be the same.

I would consider trading four years of Hillary as President for four more years of the pure joy of watching Brett Favre.

The Law Will Not Allow Us To Regulate A Little Bit, So Let's Regulate a Lot!

Does anyone else see the stupidity in the legislature's approach described in this MJS article?

State legislation that would create new restrictions on how wineries sell their vintages gained approval from the Assembly and Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Jim Doyle.

The bill, SB 485, requires larger wineries that produce more than 25,000 gallons annually to sell their wines to wholesale distributors, which then sell the wines to restaurants, taverns, liquor stores and other retailers.

Wineries that produce less than 25,000 gallons annually may instead form cooperatives, which would then act as wholesalers to sell the wines to retailers. Of Wisconsin's 38 wineries, roughly three-quarters produce below the 25,000-gallon threshold.

Current law allows Wisconsin wineries to sell their vintages without using wholesalers but forces out-of-state wineries to use wholesalers.

The bill is designed to comply with a 2005 Supreme Court ruling regulating alcohol shipments. The state will face a lawsuit unless it treats in-state and out-of-state wineries the same, said Mike Wittenwyler, a Madison attorney for the Wisconsin Wine and Spirit Institute, the wholesalers lobbying group.

How about just allowing all wineries to sell to retailers in whatever way they see fit? Might that approach have been rejected because Mr. Wittenwyler's group thinks it's a bad idea?

In case you missed it in The Crocodile Cage's banner:

Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he’ll eat you last. --Ronald Reagan

Voter ID: Integrity, and the Appearance of Integrity, Override any Objections

For the past couple of years, I have been baffled by this whole issue. It reminds me of one of those big, full candy bowls that lazy, or absent, people put on their porch at Halloween with a sign that says "Take One." When they return, and the candy bowl is empty, either Trick or Treaters have outnumbered the candy, or kids took more than one piece. Everyone knows that kids took more than one piece, but there is no way to prove it. Of course, the homeowner does not really care. Integrity at the candy bowl is not a big issue.

But, integrity in voting is a big issue. Free and fair elections differentiate this country from most of the rest of the world. From elections, and the sacrifices people have made to ensure we maintain the privilege of elections, spring all of why we are proud to be Americans. I am not a big fan of zero tolerance, but voter fraud is the one thing about which we should have zero tolerance.

Our legal system acquits or dismisses charges against thousands of criminals each year in order to ensure that we do not imprison people unfairly. Why don't we have the same respect for the ballot box?

There are all sorts of apocryphal stories and misinterpreted statistics bandied about but, in reality, neither side can convincingly and conclusively win this argument based on statistics or stories. Why? Because our election system, which is supposed to hold elected officials accountable, has no accountability of its own. If you can't verify whether something works, you also can't verify if it is broken.

Common sense is not always so very common, but on this issue 80% of the voters agree. That alone should tell us something. What else (other than a love for the Packers) elicits such widespread agreement in Wisconsin? Sure, this kind of Ad Populum reason is not the best rationale for doing something, but since when did that stop politicians? Politically, there is no good reason for opposing a voter ID requirement. Politicians are bucking the desires of the people who elected them. I assume these politicians believe that support for the voter ID requirement is skin deep and is outweighed by the votes that would be lost if the requirement were to become law.

But what votes would be lost? I believe there would be few, if any, votes lost, and both proponents and opponents overstate their case.

Proponents suggest there would be fewer fraudulent votes. If so, that would be great. Opponents counter that there would be fewer poor or old voters. If so, and it is simply because these people would need to get a free card every few years, then we ought to have the strength to say: So What?

Do people without identification care so little that they will not spend a few minutes every several years to ensure they can vote? If so, then we should not care if they vote. People have fought and died to ensure we all have the voting privilege. The least we can expect from potential voters is a minimal effort to help ensure the integrity of the system. If a person is unwilling to put forth that effort, is it unfair to assume he or she also didn't put forth any other effort with respect to voting (like informing themselves)? Voting is a privilege and, with every privilege, should come some responsibility.

This is not disenfranchisement. According to Merriam Webster, to disenfranchise is to "deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity." Does requiring voter identification deprive anyone of anything? If so, then aren't we disenfranchising people by requiring them to come to a voting place or voting absentee? Perhaps to ensure we are not disenfranchising voters, we should have voting officials come to each person's home or homeless locale. How ridiculous.

Virtually all voters already have picture identification, and the legislation would make it easy for the rest to get it. If it is not easy enough, then critics should propose a system to make picture identification even more accessible.

The voter ID amendment just makes sense. It is too easy to commit voter fraud in Wisconsin. I don't know with certainty if it happens, and you don't know that it doesn't. But we both need to acknowledge that it would be extremely simple to cast more than one ballot and get away with it. That being said, why shouldn't we protect against that behavior? There are too many instances in which we have made it difficult for interests to pervert our system, and where the perpetrators risk penalties, and they still do it. Logic suggests that, if people are going to act inappropriately when the risks are great, some of them are certainly going to do so when there are almost no risks.

Avoiding fraud is one reason to require identification, but there is an equally compelling reason - to alleviate the concern that fraud exists. Even if there is no fraud, many people believe it exists. And if citizens believe elections are rigged, they are less likely to participate. As in many instances in life, perception is reality. Voters in this country should have complete assurance that elections are fair.

Capper suggests that we should not prevent polling place fraud because absentee ballot fraud is more widespread. If he is correct (I am skeptical), the response should be to fix the absentee system, not to avoid fixing the voting and registering processes. One bad wrong not justify another.

Things That are More Important Than Voting: What Requires a Photo ID?

I asked for examples of items that require photo IDs. I have received the following examples (but would always appreciate more).

I need to present photo identification to:

Buy a hunting license.
Buy a fishing license.
Get a marriage license.
Donate blood.
Get on an airplane.
Enter the country.
Begin employment at a new job.
Cash a check.
Buy anything at Sam's Club.
Get a library card.
Buy alcohol at many retailers regardless of how old I appear.
Buy tobacco if I appear to be a minor.
Buy a cold medicine containing Pseudoephedrine.
Drive a car.
Sign-up for Public Assistance.
Apply for Social Security benefits.
Apply for a retailer credit card.
See, rent or check out an R-rated movie.
Rent virtually anything (from a car to a video).
Have my signature notarized.
Retrieve a tax return from most tax preparers.
Join the YMCA.
Enter the Federal Courthouse.
Enter many office buildings.
Enter a Veterans Administration hospital.

Apparently all of these things are more important than voting. And, of course, poor people cannot be expected to have photo IDs: they do not need them for anything else.